# Of course God exists--And I can prove it. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762 "2012-09-05T17:26:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/41 "2012-09-05T20:45:51Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I’ll agree that your argument is **valid**. > > However, it is not **sound**. > > Also, you only provided a valid argument for God (every god, really) existing, not an argument for why they should be worshiped. > > Honestly, if every god exists you might as well not worship one, you’re going to SOME hell for following the wrong religion either way in a world where every religion’s view of the world is true. X is Y X is not Y Therefore, you should worship and follow God. is a valid argument. The Parmenides-derived argument is valid and sound. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/42 "2012-09-05T20:52:12Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > X is Y > X is not Y > > Therefore, you should worship and follow God. And likewise, for _“therefore, you should worship and follow Spider-Man,”_ right? And for _“therefore you should worship and follow Captain America,”_ and so on? > [@](#): > > The Parmenides-derived argument is valid and sound. If so, then let’s say an argument proving it unsound doesn’t exist. Which means an argument proving it unsound _ **does** _ exist, right? (See also: “invalid”.) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/43 "2012-09-05T20:59:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And likewise, for _“therefore, you should worship and follow Spider-Man,”_ right? And for _“therefore you should worship and follow Captain America,”_ and so on? And likewise “you should not worship god” P & -P creates an inherently valid argument for anything, however in boolean logic P & -P cannot both be true so the argument is inherently unsound. > [@](#): > > If so, then let’s say an argument proving it unsound doesn’t exist. Which means an argument proving it unsound _ **does** _ exist, right? (See also: “invalid”.) That works. Or we could just question premise 3 and ask for either a proof or evidence of its validity “you can only refer to that which exists.” I posit the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that doesn’t actually exist as the one counter example needed to disprove the premise. ---
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/44 "2012-09-05T21:01:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And likewise, for _“therefore, you should worship and follow Spider-Man,”_ right? And for _“therefore you should worship and follow Captain America,”_ and so on? > > If so, then let’s say an argument proving it unsound doesn’t exist. Which means an argument proving it unsound _ **does** _ exist, right? (See also: “invalid”.) Yes Yes Yes ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/45 "2012-09-05T21:06:17Z")
If we had some ham we could make ham & cheese sandwiches. If we had some cheese. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/46 "2012-09-05T21:06:57Z")
(Tip o’ the hat to Raymond Smullyan) “If I’m not mistaken, God exists.” “Of course God exists, _if you’re not mistaken._” “So I’m not mistaken – and, since I’m not mistaken, God exists.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/47 "2012-09-05T21:16:34Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > X is Y > X is not Y > > Therefore, you should worship and follow God. Even if your terrible argument actually proved that _your_ god (and no other other god) existed, it still says nothing about why you should follow it, much less worship it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/48 "2012-09-05T21:16:41Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > No relation without relata. > > It is self-defeating to say that something does not exist. ”God does not exist” is about God. A statement can be about something only if that something exists. No relation without relata. Therefore, God exists. > > This proof works for Thor, too. > > Thanks Parmenides. A common misconception. The names of things can exist without the thing itself existing. The names of all things always exist, they are just meta-concepts. But not all things exist in and of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/49 "2012-09-05T21:18:55Z")
I can’t tell if this is a joke or not… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/50 "2012-09-05T21:19:40Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I can’t tell if this is a joke or not… Well, it is and it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/51 "2012-09-05T21:19:52Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > And likewise “you should not worship god” > > P & -P creates an inherently valid argument for anything, however in boolean logic P & -P cannot both be true so the argument is inherently unsound. > > That works. Or we could just question premise 3 and ask for either a proof or evidence of its validity “you can only refer to that which exists.” I posit the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that doesn’t actually exist as the one counter example needed to disprove the premise. The ”the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that” has to exist for you to determine that what is actually on front of you is not ” the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that.” When you refer to something, you are referring something, not a non-existence. Even ”a non-existence” exists. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/52 "2012-09-05T21:20:32Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > I have a feeling the original poster isn’t coming back. See? I told you! ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/53 "2012-09-05T21:22:36Z")
So ‘nothing’ must be something because there’s a word for it. And I can decide by zero because it now has some value. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/54 "2012-09-05T21:25:10Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > The ”the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that” has to exist for you to determine that what is actually on front of you is not ” the visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to that.” When you refer to something, you are referring something, not a non-existence. Even ”a non-existence” exists. Sorry, you can’t assume your premise (or really, you can’t assume the conclusion of the lemma that leads to that premise in the main argument). I provided a counter example. A real example of something I referred to that doesn’t exist. You can’t say “it exists because it has to exist because you referred to it.” It doesn’t work that way unless you assume it as an axiom. It may be an axiom in some universe, but whatever universe it is it ain’t this one. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I can’t tell if this is a joke or not… Me either, but it’s so much fun, it reminds me of a freshman philosophy and formal logic course gone awry. ---
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/55 "2012-09-05T21:35:47Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Sorry, you can’t assume your premise (or really, you can’t assume the conclusion of the lemma that leads to that premise in the main argument). I provided a counter example. A real example of something I referred to that doesn’t exist. You can’t say “it exists because it has to exist because you referred to it.” It doesn’t work that way unless you assume it as an axiom. It may be an axiom in some universe, but whatever universe it is it ain’t this one. ”[T]he visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to” has to exist, at least a concept, and existence as a concept is existence, for you to draw relations to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/56 "2012-09-05T21:40:00Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > ”[T]he visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to” has to exist, at least a concept, and existence as a concept is existence, for you to draw relations to it. I guess you’re right if you draw an equivalence between a concept/form and the actual entity. That’s going to be a tough sell, however. Most people don’t consider a representation as interchangeable with the actual thing (except in cases where the representation IS the actual thing, such as money – but even then there’s a division between me saying I have a million dollars and having a socially agreed upon bank framework in which that million dollars is represented legally). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/57 "2012-09-05T21:44:12Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > ”[T]he visible, tangible unicorn present in this reality that’s in front of me I just referred to” has to exist, at least a concept, and existence as a concept is existence, for you to draw relations to it. The concept of a thing is not the thing. It is decriptive information. This is even true for the descriptions of concepts, you can describe a concept which does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/58 "2012-09-05T22:02:02Z")
Anti-God perfectly cancels out all the actions of God. And Anti-God exists, because I just described it. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/59 "2012-09-05T22:12:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Anti-God perfectly cancels out all the actions of God. > > And Anti-God exists, because I just described it. Well, I posit an uncountably infinite number of identical gods all doing the same thing at the same time! Ha, beat that! ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/60 "2012-09-05T22:13:53Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > I have a feeling the original poster isn’t coming back. That’s because he doesn’t exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=4)