LOGICAL PROOF A GOD EXISTS

[SpheresOfBalance]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.
No, it's not! And a 2-year-old knows not the alphabet, let alone any of these words.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.
I don't necessarily agree on these specific questions being the definitive cutting edge of current science, but OK, they seek answers to questions!

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".
Why not that one? One can only follow the string of clues to their end.

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.
You cannot say this, you cannot know they are "never ending," just because they are not the last in the chain of questions. Are you trying to say you are clairvoyant?


Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.
That's an assumption on your part. That god exists at all, is an assumption. Where's your proof that god exists? What experiment did you perform in which you found that, certainly true, logical conclusion?



More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.
You've provided no evidence yet, let alone now.


This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.
That you use our partial understanding of the universe to draw your conclusions, is being understood more and more as you go.


Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.
That you have an imaginary catch all conclusion, for anything you don't yet understand, is becoming clearer and clearer.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.
That is in fact a possibility, but you have not gotten there through logical conclusion based upon sound premises. You just want to believe it's true. I understand that, it's much easier that way!

S.O.B.
No problem with your arguments. Dead on.

I wonder why you've bothered. There's an N.T. quote that goes like, "Cast not thy pearls before swine."

Greylorn

Thanks Greylorn, and after all our bumps in our road, you surprise me! It's refreshing indeed! Kudos to you!

I really do try and be as nice as possible, though a bit sarcastic at times. I believe it's best for me to provide arguments, even for those just beginning their quest to wisdom. As "god" only knows, these Spheres Of Imbalance are certainly not at that journeys end! I can only imagine myself as a nugget, as surely "now" has caused me to forget.

[Greylorn Ell]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.
No, it's not! And a 2-year-old knows not the alphabet, let alone any of these words.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.
I don't necessarily agree on these specific questions being the definitive cutting edge of current science, but OK, they seek answers to questions!

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".
Why not that one? One can only follow the string of clues to their end.

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.
You cannot say this, you cannot know they are "never ending," just because they are not the last in the chain of questions. Are you trying to say you are clairvoyant?


Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.
That's an assumption on your part. That god exists at all, is an assumption. Where's your proof that god exists? What experiment did you perform in which you found that, certainly true, logical conclusion?



More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.
You've provided no evidence yet, let alone now.


This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.
That you use our partial understanding of the universe to draw your conclusions, is being understood more and more as you go.


Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.
That you have an imaginary catch all conclusion, for anything you don't yet understand, is becoming clearer and clearer.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.
That is in fact a possibility, but you have not gotten there through logical conclusion based upon sound premises. You just want to believe it's true. I understand that, it's much easier that way!

S.O.B.
No problem with your arguments. Dead on.

I wonder why you've bothered. There's an N.T. quote that goes like, "Cast not thy pearls before swine."

Greylorn

Thanks Greylorn, and after all our bumps in our road, you surprise me! It's refreshing indeed! Kudos to you!

I really do try and be as nice as possible, though a bit sarcastic at times. I believe it's best for me to provide arguments, even for those just beginning their quest to wisdom. As "god" only knows, these Spheres Of Imbalance are certainly not at that journeys end! I can only imagine myself as a nugget, as surely "now" has caused me to forget.

S.O.B.
You put together a good and cogently presented set of arguments, and did a better job of it than I would have. That kind of work is needed to keep this potentially excellent forum a jerk-free zone. Having criticized you for stuff with which I disagreed, it was a pleasure to acknowledge you at your best.

I live at the end of a suspension-breaker, a road that defines "bumpy." It's a good filter. Anyone who drives it to visit me must really want that visit. They are few, but always positive. Perhaps you and I might share more positive encounters. You have expressed your logical side.

A side thought and personal opinion: Balance in conversations and politics is of some worth when opposing sides of the conversation are equally mistaken, for it prevents extreme and false perspectives from gaining control. Balance is of no value when one side is drop-dead stupid. It is the stupids who preach otherwise, for it is their only way of gaining a credible platform.

Greylorn

[HexHammer]

How is that proof, what is the bible was a lie?

[Slashin8r]

No one even bothered to read the title? This is a logical proof, not a scientific proof or religious evidence.

Logic does not need many facts for it to be a true statement. Logic is actually more pure at its simplest, which makes it so more people can come to the same conclusion even with different backgrounds (e.g. science or religion).

Fact: We seek answers to questions. That is the purpose of a question.
Fact: We can always ask a new question regarding the answer found to any previous question.

This forms an inevitable chain of infinite questions and answers. Where science currently is in this chain is not relevant and therefore no scientific evidence is needed for this proof to be true.

The simplest definition to God is "creator" and this "creator" is supposed to be taken as always have been existing.

The purpose of the Steven Hawking theory is to show an example of the question and answer infinite chain. This one exists in a circular pattern, which of course is a nice way to make it infinite. Mr. Hawking must have been thinking about the chicken or the egg (of course the egg came first, but I think they really mean "chicken egg") a whole lot to think of that theory.

Science is making its way through this infinite chain and the only logical way to end it is to claim belief in a "creator" which then will make it a finite chain with the "creator" at the end (technically the beginning).

The reasoning for my remark with the 2-year-old is actually because my nephew, who was 2 at the time, inspired this proof by asking that damn question, "Why?". He learned that with that word follows infinite answers.

[HexHammer]

It's not logical proof, it's gullible jumping to conclusions.

Severly delusional.

[thedoc]

Fact: We seek answers to questions. That is the purpose of a question.
Fact: We can always ask a new question regarding the answer found to any previous question.

If you are using "fact" as indicating something that is true in all cases than both statements are false. If, on the other hand, you are using "fact" as something that is sometimes true but not always, then the statements are acceptable.

[Melchior]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.

Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.


More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.

This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.

Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.

Is there someone else up there we can talk to?

http://youtu.be/FWBUl7oT9sA

[ReliStuPhD]

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

No. Science cannot provide an answer to "why do we exist," nor does it attempt to. The same goes for "Why does gravity work the way it does?" You are confusing "why" with "how." "Why," in the way you've used it (grammatically), is a metaphysical question fully beyond the purview of science. Any scientist seeking to answer the "why" in these cases has stopped doing science and has begun doing philosophy. If you wish to reword those questions to be something like "How did human life come to exist on Earth?" or "How does gravity work?" your statement might hold.

As to "Where did matter come from," this is perhaps closer to an actual question for which question science might seek an answer.

[Greylorn Ell]

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

No. Science cannot provide an answer to "why do we exist," nor does it attempt to. The same goes for "Why does gravity work the way it does?" You are confusing "why" with "how." "Why," in the way you've used it (grammatically), is a metaphysical question fully beyond the purview of science. Any scientist seeking to answer the "why" in these cases has stopped doing science and has begun doing philosophy. If you wish to reword those questions to be something like "How did human life come to exist on Earth?" or "How does gravity work?" your statement might hold.

As to "Where did matter come from," this is perhaps closer to an actual question for which question science might seek an answer.

RSP,

We are on a philosophy forum, after all. I am inclined to give "why" questions a higher level of relevance.

If one assumes the standard scientist opinion, that human consciousness is an effect of organized biological structures, then of course you are right. However, I find that certain physical considerations lead to the conclusion that the reflective form of consciousness experienced by some humans, self-awareness, cannot occur within a machine operating according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

If that is indeed the case, consciousness has a different origin and may have appeared well before the matter-energy universe.

In the past, this kind of thinking led to the omnipotent, omniscient God concept, which is illogical and therefore of no value to philosophy. However, primeval consciousness is more likely to have first appeared in primitive forms no more than vaguely self-aware, a long way from omnipotence. As modern man has demonstrated, much can be accomplished by relatively ordinary human minds.

At least one other person appears to have similar views. Roger Penrose thinks that the essential ingredients for our universe are mathematics, matter-energy, and consciousness.

If it turns out that Penrose and I are on the right track, trying to answer "why" questions will prove essential to figuring out core workings of our physical universe as well as the purpose of human existence.

Greylorn

[Slashin8r]

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

No. Science cannot provide an answer to "why do we exist," nor does it attempt to. The same goes for "Why does gravity work the way it does?" You are confusing "why" with "how." "Why," in the way you've used it (grammatically), is a metaphysical question fully beyond the purview of science. Any scientist seeking to answer the "why" in these cases has stopped doing science and has begun doing philosophy. If you wish to reword those questions to be something like "How did human life come to exist on Earth?" or "How does gravity work?" your statement might hold.

As to "Where did matter come from," this is perhaps closer to an actual question for which question science might seek an answer.

Maybe I should call this "Logical Proof that Philosophers Must Believe in God".

I do understand that it may not work every time for the "how" or "what" in science, but as long as science wants to progress (and I don't ever see scientists content with "seemingly knowing everything") there will always be a question to follow every answer.

[Slashin8r]

Fact: We seek answers to questions. That is the purpose of a question.
Fact: We can always ask a new question regarding the answer found to any previous question.

If you are using "fact" as indicating something that is true in all cases than both statements are false. If, on the other hand, you are using "fact" as something that is sometimes true but not always, then the statements are acceptable.

You seem like a scientist to me, maybe you should go find some evidence to back up your claim. I found my evidence in a dictionary and common sense.

Question: a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.
The English language has defined the word "question" for me, so I do believe that "Fact 1" is true and always will be true. The purpose of a question is, in fact, to seek out an answer.

Then, of course, everything can be questioned. This is common sense. So, therefore, "Fact 2" is also true and always will be true unless the answer is "God" to which the purpose of answering with "God" is to provide an end-all answer.

[ReliStuPhD]

RSP,

We are on a philosophy forum, after all. I am inclined to give "why" questions a higher level of relevance.

If one assumes the standard scientist opinion, that human consciousness is an effect of organized biological structures, then of course you are right. However, I find that certain physical considerations lead to the conclusion that the reflective form of consciousness experienced by some humans, self-awareness, cannot occur within a machine operating according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

If that is indeed the case, consciousness has a different origin and may have appeared well before the matter-energy universe.

In the past, this kind of thinking led to the omnipotent, omniscient God concept, which is illogical and therefore of no value to philosophy. However, primeval consciousness is more likely to have first appeared in primitive forms no more than vaguely self-aware, a long way from omnipotence. As modern man has demonstrated, much can be accomplished by relatively ordinary human minds.

At least one other person appears to have similar views. Roger Penrose thinks that the essential ingredients for our universe are mathematics, matter-energy, and consciousness.

If it turns out that Penrose and I are on the right track, trying to answer "why" questions will prove essential to figuring out core workings of our physical universe as well as the purpose of human existence.

Greylorn

Perhaps so, but those "why" questions will require something other than Science.

[Greylorn Ell]

RSP,

We are on a philosophy forum, after all. I am inclined to give "why" questions a higher level of relevance.

If one assumes the standard scientist opinion, that human consciousness is an effect of organized biological structures, then of course you are right. However, I find that certain physical considerations lead to the conclusion that the reflective form of consciousness experienced by some humans, self-awareness, cannot occur within a machine operating according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

If that is indeed the case, consciousness has a different origin and may have appeared well before the matter-energy universe.

In the past, this kind of thinking led to the omnipotent, omniscient God concept, which is illogical and therefore of no value to philosophy. However, primeval consciousness is more likely to have first appeared in primitive forms no more than vaguely self-aware, a long way from omnipotence. As modern man has demonstrated, much can be accomplished by relatively ordinary human minds.

At least one other person appears to have similar views. Roger Penrose thinks that the essential ingredients for our universe are mathematics, matter-energy, and consciousness.

If it turns out that Penrose and I are on the right track, trying to answer "why" questions will prove essential to figuring out core workings of our physical universe as well as the purpose of human existence.

Greylorn

Perhaps so, but those "why" questions will require something other than Science.

Indeed. They will require some philosophical insights. However, those insights will be worthless if they cannot be scientifically verified and expanded.

Consider Special and General Relativity, for example. Those inherently philosophical theories arose from Big Al's philosophical insights into the way we measure events in space and time. He expressed those insights in a combination of words and mathematics, thus creating a fine blend of philosophy, mathematics, and physics-- a philosophical theory that can be verified.

His theories would have been worthless if not verified.

If philosophers had useful minds, they would discard all theories that cannot be verified. But that would put them out of easy, government subsidized work.

Greylorn