• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Proof of the Existence of God

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
kinch

kinch

Wash me
Staff member
I have always liked one argument for the existence of God above all others: the Ontological Argument developed by St. Anselm, a great Christian thinker.

It is fun and interesting to consider because it is a priori, it requires no empirical evidence.

The proof goes something like this:

1. By definition, God is a being that than which no greater can be conceived.

2. God exists in the mind; He is conceivable.

3. A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

4. If God exists only as an idea, than we can conceive of a being greater than God—a being that exists as an idea and in reality.

5. As by definition God is a being that than which no greater can be conceived, God cannot exist only as an idea—thus he must exist in reality.

(Please don’t put too much reliance in the words I use to form the argument, it is their meaning that matters.)

Another way of looking at this is that there are four possibilities:

1. God exists in neither the imagination or in reality.
2. God exists in the imagination but not in reality.
3. God exists does not exist in the imagination but does exist in reality.
4. God exists in both the imagination and in reality.

Possibilities 1 and 3 are unacceptable as God exists in our imagination.
Possibility 2 is unacceptable because of the proof: if God is greater than anything else conceivable, and if we can conceive a greater God than one existing only in the imagination (a God that exists), than a God existing only in the imagination becomes a contradiction: we cannot imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. We are left with only possibility 4: God exists in both the imagination and in reality.

Discuss. :)
 
I came up with a similar "proof" for God back in college (being unaware, at the time, that the argument already existed)

It stems, in my view, from the statement - "God created man in his image"

OK... assuming that is true, what are some things I know about "Man"
Well, I can look to myself to see what sorts of things I have in common with other people... I came up with:

1. I have knowledge.
2. My knowledge is incomplete
3. Given enough time, my knowledge would be complete
4. Absolute knowledge may exist at infinity
5. Absolute knowledge would know how to exist
6. I forget where I went with all this, writing it out now makes me realize how many steps I was missing some 15 years ago.... basically what it came down to was, If "absolute knowledge" exists "at infinity" then, being outside the bounds of space and time, God may exist at any time in any space... and in essence came down - unbeknownst to me, to the very same thing that hit me in an epiphany of sorts that I had last year (When I changed my ... whatever its called - the thing under my nick...

I think, therefore, I am. ("I am" of course, being the name God gave to Moses as to whom he should be naming as the giver of the commandments)

Somewhere along the line my argument above developed in to a concept I called infinity minus 1 and after spending about 14 years developing this concept and dynamic systems and such, I arrived right back where I started... I think, therefore, I am.
 
Upvote 0
The first part assumes there is a God "God IS a being that than which no greater can be conceived." Well...right there is the problem. If #1 is true, then of course there is a God. I would think somebody that doesn't believe in God, would say that #1 is false.

Is there something out there that which no greater can be concieved. If the answer is yes, then your proof works. If the answer is no...then it doesn't.

So if there is a God, then it works.
If there is no God...it doesn't.

Merry Christmas.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
I thought I was going to get to see a picture of a pretty lady. :(
Click to expand...
ask and you shall recieve

C-Pretty%20Lady.jpg
 
Upvote 0
I remember studying Anselm's proof along with Aquinas and several other scholastic theologians of that time in one of my European history classes.

My professor held an interesting and ironic theory about these proofs. His assertion was that each of these theologians were convinced their proof was the correct one and so they went about trying to disprove the other ones. In the process, all of the proofs were eventually brought into doubt, and out of that doubt came forth modern atheism. He provided a pretty good argument, backed with historical evidence, to support this theory.

That lesson has always stuck in my mind and was one of the big turning points for me to understand the importance of faith over reason when seeking to perceive the Will of God (which is not to say that reason is not important, it is only to say it is secondary to faith in that pursuit).

That being said, I always liked Anselm's proof the best.

The first part assumes there is a God "God IS a being that than which no greater can be conceived." Well...right there is the problem. If #1 is true, then of course there is a God. I would think somebody that doesn't believe in God, would say that #1 is false.
Click to expand...

Not really. Statement #1 really means: "If God did exist, by definition, God would be a being that than which no greater can be conceived." So there is no assumption in this statement, it is simply that in the late 11th Century, there was no reason for Anselm to write "if God did exist" since there was no challenge of atheism at the time.

3. Given enough time, my knowledge would be complete
Click to expand...

I take it you are not much of a fan of the post-modernists then as they would reject this outright. Of course, us pre-modernists (not many of us left unfortunately) also reject this outright as well.

I've always been interested in this infinity-1 theory of yours. Especially in light of my understanding of God, which says your definition misses God entirely. I guess to frame my understanding of God within your vocabulary, I would call Him infinity+1.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
I take it you are not much of a fan of the post-modernists then as they would reject this outright. Of course, us pre-modernists (not many of us left unfortunately) also reject this outright as well.

I've always been interested in this infinity-1 theory of yours. Especially in light of my understanding of God, which says your definition misses God entirely. I guess to frame my understanding of God within your vocabulary, I would call Him infinity+1.
Click to expand...

You're right, God would be Inf. +1... My theory, at the time, was more a discription of man... Sorry for forgetting to mention that. Anyway....

It's been a long time since I thought about the type of things I thought about when I was 22.... All I specifically recall about the things I thought is that whatever it was brought me to conclude that Descarte was right, I think therefore I am. I've been searching my e-mail for an email I sent my Mom when I realized the signifigance of what I think I figured out, and have been less than successful diging it up... or making sense of the stuff I did dig up (as it's out of context at this point)

Anyway, my conclusion rests pretty much on this: Everything is a reflection of some part of God. Math.. Astronomy... Human relationships... It's all God. You can't help but look anywhere without seeing some part of God.

I should also mention, even if Darwinian evolution is true, it is still only a reflection of God. In short, there is no mistake by man, and no correct conclusion by man, that can exist to destroy or even threaten God. I promised Clarity I'd mention some multiple universe stuff, so I'd probably head back over to the Evol thread to expand this thought....
 
Upvote 0
In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause.
But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or un-satisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. The following verses from the Bhûridatta Jataka bring this out clearly:

<CENTER><!--mstheme--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=476 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="55%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord? <!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="45%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
ki.m sabbaloke vidah alakkhi.m
ki.m sabbaloka.m na sukhi.m akâsi<!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="55%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create? <!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="45%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
mâyâmusâvajjamadena c'api
loka.m adhammena kimatthakâsi<!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="55%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!<!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="45%"><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
adhammiyo bhûtapat Ari.t.tha
dhamme sat yo vidahi adhamma.m <!--mstheme-->[/FONT]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--mstheme-->[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]</CENTER>
(Translated by the Author)
​
The Buddha
​
[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
Tao - I think eastern Philosophy is missing a great deal from our discussion regarding God, so thanks for posting that.

Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

I would say that there is no such thing as good or evil, so the argument fails to say anything at all. I would say, some time people lie to save another from pain or embarassment.. is that evil? I would say, inequity and injustice know no definition but for the subjective concepts contained within each. Is it inequitable for Bill Gates to be loaded? Some say yes, some say no... Who's right? No one. There is no inequity. There simply is. Injustice in the eyes of man need not be injustice in the eyes of God.. leading me to the next point -

"Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!" - Is a clear example of Man pretending to know more than God on matters of right and wrong. In short, is Man becoming the "morning star" himself and stepping in to the notion of, "God? Are you kidding me? I could run this shithouse better." The argument from Evil is as unavailing as any other argument, for it has the fundemental flaw of assuming it's actually talking about real things, and furthermore assuming that Man has the capacity to judge those things better than God.

<!--mstheme-->
 
Upvote 0
I took one quarter of Philosophy at OSU, and the prof spent a good class or two disproving Anselms argument.
It might sound nice, it did to me the first time I read it, but it has some seriously huge holes in it.
I wont get into it, because I honestly dont remember, it was almost 4 years ago...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top