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

Great Debates
21

Yeah, that last step, there – it just gets tacked on? I don’t get it.

There’s a quick bit along the way where the OP – arguing that some activities are always wrong – points out that saying the majority of people in our society participated in an evil deed wouldn’t even make sense unless we grant that some morality apart from them is the key. The OP then somehow concludes: God.

But on that read of it, it’s entirely possible to likewise say that God did something evil; that it’d be evil even if God did it. How does one deduce a deity from that?

22

Absolute Moral Laws?
You mean like don’t ask someone you hold absolute power over to sacrifice his kid, or give your daughters up to be raped, or authorize genocide and slavery/rape to take possession of someone else’s land, or curse someone’s offspring until further notice for a first mistake, or drown 99.9999% of life on Earth because one species ticked you off?

23

Wikipedia: faith: a belief not based on proof
Wikipedia: proof: sufficient evidence
KJV: Hebrews 11.1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
KJV: Hebrews 11.6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So, a Proof of God requires sufficient evidence for the things not seen. But that’s faith. And faith is a belief not based on sufficient evidence. So the more you prove God exists, the less faith you have, and without faith it is impossible to please God.

So if you continue this proof, you will be, at least, going to royally piss God off! At worst, your Proof will deny faith and God will disappear in a puff of logic*.

*[sub] Thanks be to Douglas Adams[/sub]

24

“Law” arguments almost always depend on the common-sense reality that if there is a “law”, then there must be a “law-giver”. The only problem is that there are no literal laws of logic, science, morality, or other such concepts. There is reality and there is our interpretation of reality. Being human, we tend to make associations between things that behave in similar manner, even if those things are fundamentally different in profound ways. When we notice consistent behavior in mathematics, logic, nature, etc. AS IF there was cosmic legislation prohibiting things behaving otherwise, we are reminded of the social order we live under and label such consistencies “laws”.

While this works very well in educating people in the operation of logic, mathematics, or physics, it is still only an analogy. They are NOT laws in the same sense as the legislation passed by a king, emperor, or congress. The OP could just as well assert that because living things grow teeth and plastic combs have teeth, then plastic combs are living things. This is in error because the teeth of plastic combs are not the same entities as the teeth in the maws of animals, despite being labeled with the same word.

25

The finest of circular logic -

26

I’m not even sure I exist. I’ll get to God if I ever I figure that out!

27

“The Proof That Unicorns Exist Is That Without Unicorns You Couldn’t Prove Anything”

Works for me.

28

All right, I’ll play.

I’ll agree with 1, 2, and 3 but stop right there at 4.

STEP FOUR: ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS

I don’t agree that if I don’t believe in absolute moral laws, that means I think the Nazis have the right to torture and murder me. Nobody has any sort of rights in this sense. The universe didn’t give either me or the Nazis any sort of rights. So I don’t have a right to not be tortured and the Nazis don’t have the right to torture. They might have the power to torture, and I might not be able to stop them, or maybe I do. Either way rights have nothing to do with it, except what we human beings decide for ourselves.

Do I want the Nazis to torture me? No I do not. Not because it violates God’s law, but because torture hurts and I don’t like it. I want there to be a rule against torture, not because God doesn’t like it, but because I’d rather live in a society where we have a rule against torture. Now, just because I have a preference for no torture, why does that give me the right to decide we shouldn’t have torture?

I don’t have that right. What I do have is the power to communicate with my fellow creatures, and tell them that if only we all agree to work together and not torture each other we’ll all be better off. And if someone breaks the “no torture” rule I don’t appeal to God to punish them, I realize I have to do something about it myself. Since I’m a fallible mortal human being, this mostly means trying to convince people to act together to stop the bad guys. And because most other human beings are fallible and mortal and realize that if the bad guys get together and do what they want we’re all going to be screwed, they agree with me.

And so the Nazis are wrong, not because God says they’re wrong, but because I say they’re wrong. And I don’t have a “right” to say they’re wrong, I just have my fallible mortal personal preference. It turns out that in 2016 America lots and lots of people share that preference, and so we (usually) work together to prevent the Nazis from doing too much damage. If I lived in Assyria in 1000 BC then nobody would listen to me, and organized maniacs with bronze swords and chariots could do whatever they liked and there wouldn’t be anything I could do about it.

And so we see that we all work together we get 2016 America where most people peacefully go to warm beds with full stomachs, vs 1000 BC Assyria where life is nasty, brutish and short. No universal absolute moral law there, just my personal preference, and also the personal preference of 300 million of my closest friends. And if the Nazis prove stronger than us and overthrow our government and enslave and murder us, that doesn’t make the Nazis right, it just makes them stronger. And eventually the human species will go extinct and it will all be over anyway.

And even if there were a universal set of absolute moral rules, how do we figure out what those are? We inspect our consciences, and find that rape and murder offend our consciences, and therefore these are absolute moral laws handed to us by God?

Except how is this different than saying that we have a personal preference for avoiding being raped and murdered? God isn’t going to enforce the no murder law, it’s up to us humans. And if Charles Manson over there likes rape and murder is fine with him, how is telling him that he’s breaking God’s Law supposed to help? Either we stand aside and let him rape and murder, or we work together to stop him. Either way the only solution is human agency enforcing human-created rules that only work because a lot of people agree with those rules and they make sense to us.

And they only make sense to us because we’re a particular sort of social creature with a particular social organization and a particular evolutionary history. If we were different, our ideas about what is fair or unfair would be different. And even among different human societies we have vastly different ideas about right and wrong. Is it wrong to marry your cousin? It it wrong to kill people who violate the rules? Is it wrong for a man to lay with another man? Is it wrong to evade paying taxes? Is it wrong to kill someone who insults religious or governmental authority?

And on and on. And the only way to resolve all this is to look at the consequences of various particular choices, and deciding if those choices maks sense according to our fallible mortal personal preferences.

29

We’ve seen many threads like this in the past and not one has come away with convincing proof. I see several problems with your logic, but I wanted to focus on the absolute moral truth one.

I’m a big fan of Dan Barker, former preacher turned atheist activist. I’ll be using one of his examples to refute “absolute moral law”. First off, to me morality can be summed up as “A. Do no harm” and “B. If A isn’t possible, do the least amount of harm possible.” In Dan Barker’s example of child rape, consider the following ridiculous example. Say the earth has been enslaved by aliens and they tell you if you rape this one child we will leave your planet, but if you don’t we’ll feed every infant on earth through a meat grinder. Do you do this one horrific act to spare 100’s of millions of innocent children from horrific death or do you not rape the child because you want to keep your sense of personal honor? I would call this the law of lesser evil. Morality is specific to the situation.

30

I ain’t doing much at work at the moment, so I might as well wade into this.

I am a theist and more specifically a Southern Baptist Christian.

The problem is, trying to prove that God exists is not only extremely difficult, it doesn’t typically persuade anyone of anything that they did not already believe.

Either an intelligent being created the world and all in it, or it was just an accident. Proof of such a creator will not likely sway too many people.

I personally believe that life is too beautiful and complex to have been an accident. That single cells just decided to be more than they were (or just started to mutate or whatever) seems difficult to get behind.

But again, this is my belief. The bible I read (differing translations, but the typical Bible of Protestant denominations) says faith is required to believe in God. Faith does not require proof.

So instead of trying to prove God exists, I share my story with anyone interested in listening.

God does not tell me to convert people, He tells me to tell others about Him and let Him do the converting.

While I do believe in God, the proof offered above does not do much toward proving God exists, it just makes some statements.

As was stated, most of those things (laws of math, moral laws, etc) do not apply to non-intelligent animals, so could very well be considered just having been devised by man.

So maybe instead of trying to prove God exists, just share why you believe in God. Share your story. What has He done for you?

31

How do you define “harm”?

32

How would you reply to a Jew who says “Oh, hey, God, sure – but while I believe the God of the Old Testament exists, I also believe that Jesus was a misguided carpenter who died a blasphemer; what’s your specific proof that ‘the Christian God’, instead of ‘the Jewish God’, exists?”

33

Pain, disadvantage, theft, I’m sure I could come up with other examples.

34

Things that are wrong with this, just on a quick first glance:

Moral laws are not scientific laws and are not subject to scientific methods, proofs, testing, or falsifiability. They are squarely in the realm of philosophy and cannot be lumped in with scientific laws or assessed the same way.

Laws are principles; the distinction of being “material” or not makes no sense.

It depends on the law, and it has nothing to do with what someone says. Many perfectly ordinary classical laws are not universal because they do not hold on quantum scales or certain extreme conditions like extreme gravity and singularities.

The answer depends on the timescale you choose. Natural laws don’t change from day to day in the present state of the universe. But they changed very rapidly throughout the very early universe, and may change again in the distant future.

Finally, even if those things were not fundamentally wrong, they are completely unrelated to the Conclusion and Step Eight, which just pop out of nowhere and bear no relationship to everything that came before.

35

A lot of these are not “proofs”, they do not prove anything nor do they necessarily lead one to the next step. Without that connection, the whole premise of your conclusion falls apart. I don’t need to acknowledge an absolute morality exists to believe in a law of nature, nor does any of your proofs point to one particular version of the Christian god.

As for the bible assuming god exists, good luck with that. In 5th grade I wrote a story assuming Santa exists with the Abominable Snowman, that has about as much credibility as the bible incredulously stating that god’s existence is obvious.

But congratulations, you’ve proven the Hindu god Ganesha to exist and we float on the back of a giant turtle hurtling through the cosmos.

36

I wonder if there was a guy, back in Ancient Greece, who followed the same steps before suddenly concluding, therefore, Poseidon – god of oceans and earthquakes! Brother to Hades! Uncle to mighty Heracles! – surely exists! It is proven!

37

For the OP, what’s the definition of God for this argument? “The Christian God” doesn’t cut it, that’s a multitude of contradictory definitions. Tell us what god is, what he does, what he can and can’t do, what his major properties are. If you don’t even know what it is that you’re trying to prove, the proof obviously isn’t going to be valid.

Either you believe that ‘creation’ is far too complex to have arisen without a creator, but God the all-powerful, all-knowing being who created all of this stuff is simple enough to have arisen without a creator, which seems a bit odd - most religious people claim that God is greater than humans, not something simpler. Or your argument based on complexity also applies to God, in which case there’s another level above God, who’s also complex, and so has yet another God who created him, and so on, which doesn’t fit the monotheistic model of Christianity. So which is it?

38

This argument doesn’t work against a God who is eternal and hence hasn’t “arisen” at all.

39

Apparently “logic” is used to show that everything must have a “creator”…until you get to the deity of choice, at which point logic is just tossed out the window and the answer is “Because God!”

40

The problem with the idea of “moral laws”, is that they don’t exist. Certainly not in the same way that “laws of science” exist.

If I drop an object, it will fall. That’s the law of gravity. (alright it’s more complex than that, I know very well, but I am keeping it really simple here.)

If I drop the object, and tell it not to fall, it still falls. If I drop the object why encouraging it to fall, it doesn’t fall any faster.

If there were laws of morality, then they would prevent such atrocities from occurring. If the law of morality says rape is wrong, and it is on par with the law of gravity, then rape would be impossible, just as it is impossible to prevent an object from falling by telling it not to.

“Laws” of morality have nothing to do with the “laws” that govern the universes physical behavior. Massive particles don’t get a ticket from the universe for exceeding the speed of light, they are simply unable to break that law.

Morality is a human construct, with humans encouraging compliance, and punishing non-compliance. If moral law came from a god, then that god would stop bad things from happening.

In fact, the very idea that bad people can hurt good people pretty much proves that universal moral laws cannot exist.

I stopped at the next step that told me that I had accepted the idea that laws of morality exist.