So Veeky Forums, can you prove the existence of God using logic alone?

>no ''muh Bible, Quran etc.''
>no ''I just feel it...''
>no ''he answered my prayer once...''

Just pure logical thought

...

Gödel's ontological proof

How could the world be millions of years old when it's 2016

explain

>ontological proof

We all exist

God want to try your faith, your faith is in crisis so God exist because if he did not exist you wouldn't had asked that. Pascal wrote:"you would not seek me if you had not already found me". We search continually God even if we don't find him. Our faith is in crisis.

Sure.

>The universe exists.
>The universe has one of three scenarios under which it can exist; 1) it is uncaused, eternal; 2) it is self-caused, or created itself; or 3) it was caused by another.

Of those three, and they are exhaustive, only the third fails to violate any known scientific laws, such as any of the laws of thermodynamics including entropy, spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, etc.

Logically, the creation infers the creator in much the same way the painting infers the painter and the building infers the builder.

Statistically, the chance that this universe out of an infinite number of multiverses (the evidence for which is hypothetical) just happened to get the cosmological constant precisely correct to 1 part in 10^120 is a logical absurdity.

Is that Goedel's?

The OP said using logic, user, not your argument from ignorance.

>the "testing your faith" excuse


try again boneheads

even assuming this is true, that doesn't prove that a conscious being created the universe. you could literally just attribute it to "quantum fluctuations" and it would be equally valid

>exc
Sorry i didn't understand your comment. Could you be more clear?

Yes, and by doing so, you would make "quantum fluctuations" your god.

Likewise, you could carve a face on a coconut and call it your god, and it would be your god.

Your post was in no way an argument.

Ontological arguments basically boil down to "We can define god, therefore god must exist"

In the case of Godel it's somehow dumber

Okay so here's the basic idea:

We must define to be god.
So we say: A thing is godlike if, and only if, it only has positive properties

The opposite of a positive quality is a negative quality.

Any property that is a necessity of a positive quality must be positive.

Existing is positive

God therefore cannot possess non-existence.

The rest is just fancy logic terms to back this.
That's it.
That's the argument.

>Doesn't even try to tackle the logical proof provided in the thread.

The steady state theory is gaining a lot of ground with scientists, ya know.

That's literally not what a god is.

What logical proof? I don't see any. You're only allowed to meme if you're right.

The universe was created by primal cause which is uncreated and eternal (nirgun), and in a sense the world is eternal and uncreated in that is an extension of the monad (sargun).

In the beginning, there is God. Now and ever, there was God.

...

While you may not think existence is a positive quality, we're talking about God.

And God's existence is orders of magnitude better than yours, on all counts.

So for God, existence is a far higher quality than it would be for you, who may be suicidal.

And most logical proofs include "God must be greater than anything we can imagine to be good, because God transcends our imagination, and a real God who transcends our imagination is greater than a God we can imagine".

It failed 60 years ago, and has not been revived.

When your logical "proof" has more unsubstantiated axioms than arguments I believe it doesn't need to be refuted.

Why? Am i not trying to show God's existance?

It literally is.

God is a title; that title belongs to the one who created the universe, a godlike act.

So if you think your carved coconut is responsible for your existence, that is your god.

If you think people do not have carved coconut gods, you have not seen what I have seen.

Goedel's above, the one you don't have the maths to tackle.

Logical proof was asked for and provided.

Said logical proof's only attacks in this thread are "nuh uh".

so then you admit your trinitarian Yahweh Sabaoth hypthesis of who "God" is is as equally valid as a coconut head

It's not an argument. If you're trying to argue for God you are failing at it miserably. Also quit namefagging you fuck

Can you even read? lol

The idea that god must only have positive qualitites is axiomatic, as is the notion that the opposite of a positive quality is a negative quality, as is the idea that the necessity of a positive quality is a positive.

It's no better than axiomatically stating god exists.

No, god has many definitions, and not all gods are said to have created the universe, nor is "created the universe" the extent of what it means to be god.

Godel, which is the proof offered in this thread, defines god as something with only positive qualities.

Christians define a god as the almighty creator, love, and a variety of other things.

Either way, "Quantum fluctuations" doesn't meet the requirement".

If I had to pick an example of blatant, retarded strawmanning this would be it. Thanks user.

Also, he isn't equating the Abrahamic god with a coconut if you could actually possess any level of reading comprehension.

How do you want it? Clocks in the sand, from necessity and contingency, to literally self-evidence, or something more along the Eastern line.

Maybe you could prove God positively does not exist using logic alone. That would be impressive.

how is that strawmanning? I'm well aware that he is attacking the opposition with the coconut head. I'm saying that both are equally unsubstantiated and throwing it back at him.

You don't NEED to.
He gives six axioms and argues from those six axioms it must be true, but those six axioms are easily disputed.

Goedels proof is a logical proof, sure, but it's not actual proof.
It's not evidence.
It's a shitty argument from the turn of the first millennium AD restated as a math problem.

It's equally as valid to say that because I solved X to be 9 in my last math test given what was given axiomatically, that means X is now forever 9 outside of the problem.

I was only trying to show God'existance "using logic". I didn't want to argue about. But i don't see why my opinion is wrong

See

Come on, he/she said nothing about Trinity, Yaweh, or his/her own religious beliefs and you assumed totally what they were as a way to bring down his/her argument. That can only be strawmanning.

Because it's not an argument. There is no logic in your post. Also, learn to spell, idiot.

Of course not.

I'm just saying a golden calf is only monetarily better than a carved coconut, not spiritually better.

Yes.

lol

God = Creator

QM obviously does not meet the criteria for being the creator of the universe, but if you believe it does, then QM is your god. And you worship a false god.

Most people worship false gods.

you're right, I made an assumption. a very safe one at that. the chance that he is a christian is greater than 90%. this argument comes from a christian theological tradition and his line that "God is a title for the creator of the universe" is a line you'll here a million times from christian apologists on Veeky Forums

Then you'd realize refutations to these pathetic arguments extend past "nuh uh". You are doing the exact same thing you're criticizing the rest of the thread for, oh the irony.

The only argument is "existence is not necessarily a positive quality", to which the response was "maybe not for you, but God's having a great life".

I assume that you want a proof of God which also makes the Christian faith valid as well.

If that's the case, you're asking for something impossible unless you accept some of Aquinas' arguments.

You're asking for a proof for a being that defies transotivity. I doubt you'll get one.

The best you'll get is a proof for the internal sense perception that people have, your "I just feel it". There is nothing wrong with that, if you are explaining why you believe in God. It just doesn't hold up in am argument trying to prove God's existence to anyone but yourself.

*hear

Not significantly, no. To say God's existence is not a positive quality is to say "nuh uh" to Goedel's ontological proof.

None of the lines of argument I outlined derive their value from the unclosed ontological argument.

Godels representation is a translation of the argument into first order logic, and may be more fully expressed.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the earth shows his handiwork.

To God, all who say God does not exist are not seekers asking for more evidence, but rebels in opposition to God. The above is proof enough of God that God sees any atheist/agnostic as standing before him without excuse.

Jesus rose from the dead after being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, performing signs and wonders and miracles, and fulfilling hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah, proving his claim to be God, or I Am.

>a proof for a being that defies transotivity

All you need to do is prove the existence of an omnipotent being. Omnipotence carries the implication of potential, not necessarily realization. An omnipotent being can rewrite the rules of logic at a whim, and must by definition be in that regard truly non-limited beyond the limit of limitation.

No, the argument is that every single part of what he says is an axiom except the conclusion, which means that he may as well have stated axiomatically "God exists".

This is not me being emo.

And saying "Your life must suck" is not an argument for the existence of god.
Apply yourself.

No, pointing out that Godels proof is retarded, and stating how (Namely: It's entirely based on axioms that are by necessity unproven)

Hey, let me try this on you.

God only possesses positive qualities.

Being pansexual is a positive quality

The necessary quality of a positive quality is positive.

Therefore god has to be on tumblr.

No?

seeI was exactly right. I wasn't intending to stawman, only to get to the heart of that matter: he was trying to make a dodge on the matter by proving "God" with as loose as a defintiion as possible to the point that it doesn't even have to be a conscious being for the purpose of sneaking in that specifically his idea of God is correct

1.God want[s] to try your faith
2. Your faith is in crisis
3. So, God exist[s] because if he did not exist you wouldn't had asked that

I don't mean to be rude, but your argument expressed simple predicate logic appears as:

1. A (Where A means, 'God wanting to test your faith')
2. B (Where B means, 'Your faith being in crisis')
3. If ~G, then ~T (Where G stands for 'God existing' and T stands for 'questioning the existence of God')
4. So, G.
The point is (though put nastily) that the argument has terms that seem superficially related, but logically express different statements at each turn.

Again, your argument that existence may not be a positive quality is a reflection of your life, not God's life. God's having an awesome life. Your life without him sucks.

And yes, since God exists, you may as well just say "God exists" and learn to deal with that fact.

Pansexuality is not a positive quality, and certainly would not apply to God.

So your analogy is as ridiculous as your sense of logic, reason, and spirituality.

Not my idea of God.

God.

Thanks for the strawman admission, though; your denials strained credulity.

>Pansexuality is not a positive quality, and certainly would not apply to God.

If you can define existing as positive axiomatically, why can't I define pansexuality as positive axiomatically?

> God's having an awesome life.

Prove it.

>God only possesses positive qualities.

idiot

Yes, your idea of God.

You defines god as narrowly as possible, argued for that, then changed what god was.

That's all you fuckers do, all day, every day.
It's sad, it's dumb, it doesn't make sense, and it's why religion has less and less influence every day.

Yes, Goddel was an idiot, I'm glad we agree.

positive in what sense then?

cause thought I heard someone say problem of evil as if it's even legitimate.

Goddel doesn't define that.

Goddel simply says "God has only positive qualities".

oh in terms of the predicate logic

honestly I can't even get behind that definition, as it is unnecessarily delimiting. Saying literally God can """only""" be a particular set of things seems wantonly obtuse.

The universe exists
God created the universe.
Ergo God exists

why are atheists so dumb??

No, not my idea of God.

My understanding of God from having a relationship with the living God for decades.

They're not.

They're in open rebellion against God, whom they hate, and deny exists. And upon whom they blame all their problems, because "he could have prevented them".

Fucking Poe's law

I can't tell if you're meming or actually autistic.

Aren't positive qualities subjective?

What if in my atheist mind god's positive quality is his inexistence?

God is the only substance, everything else is an attribute or a mode

Cited by people who admit they lack discernment.

It's amazing you can only think of two false explanations. Try harder.

You would be projecting your shitty life onto God, who's having an awesome life.

And who wants to share it with you, but will absolutely not force it upon you.

>God by definition possesses all positive qualities
>Existence is a positive quality
>Therefore God must exist

Yeah well, God 2 also possesses all positive qualities, and existence is one of them, so he exists too.

Also Gods 3 and 4 exist for the same reason.

What prevents this line of thinking? How can a Christian defend a definite belief in one God from this logical standpoint if it also supports an infinite number of them? It doesn't make sense to me.

Cells, atoms, and just general physics have laws. If nothing in this universe matters, why are laws even existent?

God said there are none like him; he looked.

God is never wrong.
God is never mistaken.
God never lies.

Your "idea" of God is too small and your God 2 is no better than a carved coconut.

You're pointing to the Bible as proof which isn't a valid example per the OP. You're not giving a logical proof.

>God said
Not an argument.

Meming and autistic are the most likely answers. Assuming you're the same poster, rationalizing disbelief as rebeliion is one of the most autistic things you can possibly do. Seriously, it's in the OP, you need to argue with logic and reason yet you theistards continue not to.

"laws" are just the terminology we use to define natural phenomena that we observe, it doesn't actually mean the universe is bound by created rules it means "things appear to consistently behave in this manor."

Logic by itself is useless.
You need the application of verifiable knowledge to gain any real understanding of the world you live in.

Any statement that degrades the necessity of the scientific method also degrades the necessity of logic.

manner*

yeesh

bait thread.

What did he mean by this?

Logic by itself is not useless. Even if we couldn't represent shapes at all in a physical form or test how they work on paper, we know that logically a circle can't have right angles and that 1 plus 1 must equal 2.

That is knowledge we can know simply by way of logic, and doesn't need testing. Which is important because it's very basic stuff.

>God, who's having an awesome life.
well he's constantly fucking whining about how disappointed he is in everything, had to kill his son, wipe out humanity once or twice, and is in a seemingly eternal struggle for our souls with the forces of evil. seems like god's life isn't so awesome.

This is the only real answer. Faith is Faith because you believe regardless of there being no proof. There is no proof of God and there never will be, that's the point of faith.

Personally I don't have faith in God but other people do. It's just faith, that's all it is. It's like a feeling, you can't prove it right or wrong.

bait post.

bait reply.

Sure, I agree whole heartedly.

But OP will just say "that's dumb because x, y, z, and it doesn't follow"

t. never read Kierkegaard
Also
Don't need """logic""" to prove God. That's not what a Christian is supposed to do.

Faith is merely the human ability to believe what you have not seen.

You believe quarks exist, for instance, even though you have never seen one.

And you can believe God exists, even if all you have for evidence is the entirety of the universe, and everything in it.

I would argue that depending on only basic stuff is no way to have a civilization. Beasts certainly have a logic of their own, but their inability to record and explain their observations prevents them from achieving a higher quality of life.

no, people believe in quarks because there is a reasonable expectation based on evidence. huge difference.

(1) Person X died an atheist.
(2) He now realizes his mistake.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

is this muh antropocentric argument?

Veeky Forums tried to go fedora once.. It failed.

If it's impossible for life to come out from nothing then how god was made? It's just impossible for god to exist out of nothing, the same with fucking life.

>inb4 don't question god's existence
>he works in secret ways

Check mate, theists


Well any way,

since we are in Veeky Forums I will give a short answer:

Your typical version of a theist's

god=eternal

And the plotholes in the bibles

Atheist's

life=eternal(infinity)

My original post, OP,- combine it; you got infinity!
Infinity can be a source of things aswell. You know, words are just nothing but sound/air and frequencies, so Infinity can also mean that it's a ''it''! Means you can have faith in infinity!

Infinity is the real god if already