Proof That God Exists: An Open Debate For The Existence of God

Great Debates
1

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”** -Galileo **

PROLOUGE
Hello,

I have been a member of message boards several times in my life, and this board will be the latest one I’ve joined. I have been looking for a board for years now to have intellectual conversations and debates with people, and after browsing the content of this site, I feel I might have finally found what I’ve been looking for. This will be an open debate for the existence of God. Debates such as these have been going long before my time on this Earth, and they will most certainly continue after I’m gone. Regardless, I get the impression that the members of this board may enjoy discussing a topic as rich as this one, if I am wrong; I apologize in advance.

I would like to offer what I feel to be absolute proof that there is a divine creator and that this universe was created by forces beyond our comprehension. This view is biased, considering I am a Christian; however I could have easily identified as an Atheist at several times in my life. This viewpoint is not completely my own, but taken from another site online. [1] The original author of the vast majority of this article is a man by the name of Sye Ten Bruggencate. I came across his site a few years ago and was introduced to the term “transcendentals” for the first time in my life. The following is part of what is taken from the listed site within the sources, and part of my own writing. I hold no claim to all of the below article, only part of it. The original source material is in no way my own work, but borrowed from Sye.

With that said, I feel the Christian God is the one true God of this world. I have respect for all other religions of this world, and I can understand why many believe the way they do; after all, I was raised in a Christian household myself. I could get into the full details of why I feel justifed in stating that Christianity is the one true religion of this world and that the Christian God created this universe, but this isn’t a biography and I already have much to read here.

To give slightly better insight of me and explain as briefly as I can; I was raised in a Christian household, but lost all faith in God at times, as mentioned above. I never fully believed there wasn’t a God, only that mabye Christianity wasn’t the answer and that there might not be a God after all. As I matured and aged, I was introduced to other world cultures, of which I am still mostly ignorant of, and realised quickly just how many different beliefs this world shared. I explored a variety of options, but in the end, Christianity just made the most sense to me.

I would love to go into further detail, but as I previously stated, there is already enough information for you to read here.

I feel I have said enough to give you at least a vague understanding of my thought process, so in conclussion, I will move on to the main body of this article.

The following are eight steps to proving the existence of God. These steps will gradually highlight key factors of our life that, in my humble opinion, provide all the evidence a person needs to realize there is in fact a divine creator; and the most logical choice for that creator is the Christian God.

These steps are grounded in what we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. Regardless of how I feel about life, I can never again deny that there is a God after seeing this proof. I hope it will do the same for you.

PROOF OF GOD
You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. [2][3] You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone these word’s I’m writing, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these eight steps to the logical proof of God’s existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing). I warn you though, this is not for the faint of heart and will require a rather large part of your time to read. If you don’t have at least thirty minutes to spare, then I suggest you come back another time.

[SIZE=“1”] [4] STEP ONE: LAWS OF LOGIC[/SIZE]
In the above text I mentioned ‘logical proof.’ The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way. With that said, you have to ask yourself this, “Do laws of logic exist?”

If you believe that laws of logic do not exist, how do you make decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How do you choose whether to drink water or poison for nourishment? One interesting aspect of denying laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction, is that since you DO NOT believe in laws of logic, you actually DO believe in laws of logic. If contradictions are allowed in your worldview then so is that one.

So obviously, I would think that everyone here believes in laws of logic, yes? So, if you believe in laws of logic then I’ll continue to step two.
[SIZE=“1”][5] STEP TWO: LAWS OF MATHEMATICS[/SIZE]
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.

Again, I would say everyone here believes there are laws of mathematics, yes? Moving on…

[SIZE=“1”][6] STEP THREE: LAWS OF SCIENCE[/SIZE]
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.

[SIZE=“1”][7] STEP FOUR: ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS[/SIZE]
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws ‘prescribe’ how humans ought to, or ought not to behave. Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
So, do you believe in absolute moral laws?

If you do, then continue to step five. If not, then please read the following. The following is intended only for those of you who believe absolute moral laws do not exist.

4a.) I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.

If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?

There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. “The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed.” If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.

You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference.

[SIZE=“1”][8] STEP FIVE: THE NATURE OF LAWS (A)[/SIZE]
By reaching this point you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next I will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?

The following is for those of you who believe these law’s are made of matter. If you believe these law’s are just that, law’s and nothing more, continue to step six please.

5a.) If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are made of matter, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you… just show me the number ‘3’ somewhere in nature. Not ‘three things,’ not a written representation of the number 3; but the real physical, material number 3.
**STEP SIX: THE NATURE OF LAWS (B) **
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?

The following is for those of you who believe the laws of nature are not universal. If you do believe they are universal, then please continue to step seven.

6a.) If you believe that the immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are up to the individual, then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to come up with their own laws in these matters. Not only would these alternate laws be common, they would have to be ‘right’ since there would be no universal standard to evaluate their correctness. Not only could no conflict ever be resolved, there would be no conflicts since everyone would be right.
We know however that this is simply not the case. In base ten mathematics, when you add 2 + 2, you expect the correct answer to be 4, and would not accept a different answer as being correct from someone who lived down the street, or in Bangkok. You would not accept that child molestation would be right anywhere in the universe. You would not accept a logical contradiction as being acceptable no matter where or when you were confronted with one.
You deny that laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality, are universal yet you base your life on their universality.
STEP SEVEN: THE LAWS OF NATURE (C)
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing then please read 7a, if you believe they are not changing; then please continue to the final step of proof I offer.

7a.) If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing, then living with the expectation that they do not change would be inconsistent with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before. You don’t think twice about drinking pure water because you know that the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don’t wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow.

You see, you deny that the universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are unchanging yet you base your life on their unchanging nature.
CONCLUSION
To reach this point you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible.
[9] Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

The Bible teaches us that there are two types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans Chapter One, verses eighteen through twenty-one states:
*The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. *

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…
STEP EIGHT: THE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM YOU COULDN’T PROVE ANYTHING

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with ‘ [10] transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘ [11] transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him.

Truth, knowledge, and logic are all necessary to prove anything, and you assumed and admitted to all of them by reaching this proof.

Sources:
[1]http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
[2]The existence of a Supreme Being is both unknown and unknowable
[3]http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/proving_gods_existence_is_impossible/
[4]Law of thought - Wikipedia
[5]Mathematics - Wikipedia
[6]Scientific law - Wikipedia
[7]Moral absolutism - Wikipedia
[8]Natural law - Wikipedia
[9]Teleological argument - Wikipedia
[10]Transcendentals - Wikipedia
[11]Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia

2

Is this a done deal, or will you be back to answer questions about your thesis?

3

Which “god” do you think you’ve proven to exist?
Edited to add: And which version of The Bible do you use as your source?

4

@ Bryan Ekers: I will be back as regular as I can, but at the moment, I’m about to leave for the doctors office. I will most likely be back very late tonight, or sometime tomorrow. I look forward to any discussion we may have.

@ Czarcasm: As stated within the article, the Christian God. The version I used was the king james version.

5

I’m pretty confident that the OP is a drive by posting, so I’ll just say you lost me at “PROLOUGE.”

6

I can assure you that I am not.

To quote The Terminator: “I’ll Be Back.” :wink:

7

Could you be a bit more specific as to which god, please? There as an untold number of sects that call themselves “Christian”.

8

Your post literally doesn’t argue for the existence of God once. It just lists things and then says God exists because the bible says so.

These types of posts are fascinating to me. The person making them always seems to think they’re actually making some sort of point, but to an unbeliever they’re always specious on the face of it.

9

While that is very true, to the best of my knowledge, all of the sects worship one God, regardless of beliefs. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I present this from a non denominational view point. I do not attend a church currently, but view Christianity as a collection of beliefs from all denominations. I wish I had more time to elaborate, but I must go for now. I have a doctors appointment to make. I will be back to discuss this further though, I promise.

10

I’ve always felt that saying God exists because the Bible says so, is the same as using a word to define itself.

Every holy book says it’s god exists because the holy book says so.

11

Someone has taken too many (or too few) philosophy courses.

12

I am not a well read nor highly educated person. My belief in a creator God is based simply on the thought that creation is far to complex to be an accident of nature. the decision here is are we discussing a religion or a creator. One question to be asked and often ignored by Christians is, who was God speaking to before Abraham? Personally I think that we will need to look further back than biblical scripture and listen to other far older faiths and their teachings.

13

Most(if not all) of the sects that call themselves “Christian” worship a being they name “God” but, due to differences in interpretation of the various versions of their Holy Books(s), the aspects and descriptions of the being they call “God” can(and often does) differ from sect to sect. You say you do not attend a church currently-this heavily implies that you used to attend, and the teachings of that church might have influenced how you interpreted the King James Bible. In fact, it also might have influenced the fact that you chose the King James Bible to base your ideas from.

14

Somebody has taken too much something. I was going to guess the brown acid.

15

Do you feel you are qualified to pick which beliefs from each of all the denominations fit in this conglomeration you have labeled “Christianity”? A lot of these beliefs will have to be discarded to avoid discord and contradiction-did you happen to discard any of the teachings of the church(s) you used to attend to make room for the beliefs of any of the other sects…or did you just allow beliefs that didn’t conflict with what you already believed?

16

Allow me to praise you for the courage and confidence requisite for you to assert and (presumably) defend such a position in a forum such as the SDMB . . . you poor bastard.

17

What are “laws of logic”? You give a single example but do not define these well at all.

I believe in moral laws, but I believe they are entirely creations of people. Without people (or some other thinking creature or being), there is no morality. I believe that society functions best when people behave morally, but this is a human creation and not an absolute law, in my view. Only thinking beings can behave morally or immorally.

I entirely reject your “proof” that God exists.

18

In your conclusion, you have a very vast absence of steps between laws exist and the god of Christianity is the only god. It’s no different than me making an argument of laws exist therefore hamburgers are the best food without any intervening steps or evidence to present.

Other religions make their own declarations of the existence of their own gods, can you provide a reason or argument that makes the Christian declaration the correct one over the hundreds of others?

19

As Dopers familiar with me know, I’m an unabashed (liberal) Christian and believer in God. So I appreciate the opportunity to be the first to say “Yes, this will go well.”

20

Thanks, OP. I’m dyslexic and I often stay awake at night wondering if there really is a doG.