Proof that God Exists

proofThe first thing you see when you visit is a page with four buttons.

“Absolute Tuth Exists”
“Absolute Truth Does not Exist”
“I Don’t Know if Absolute Truth Exists”
“I Don’t Care if Absolute Truth Exists”

The first button takes you to a page with two buttons.

“Laws of Logic Exist”
“Laws of Logic Do Not Exist”

If you continue to click on the first button on each page then you will read that the laws of logic, math, science and absolute morality are immaterial, universal and unchanging and could only exist in a universe governed by God.

This sounds like a syllogism:

(1) Absolutes exist.
(2) Absolutes can only exist in a universe governed by God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

In order for the conclusion (3) to be true, both (1) and (2) must be true. I don’t know if the first is true, but it seems to me that it is possible that it is true. [I have discussed elsewhere the idea of absolute morality.] Premise (2) on the other hand is more difficult to believe. Maybe it is just part of the nature of matter to behave in a way that gives us what we call the laws of science. When I have discussed my doubts with Christians they tell me to ask God to show himself to me. They say that if I immerse myself in the Bible I will begin to see the truth of God’s existence. If prayer is necessary to believe in God, then what is the point of using deductive logic?


5 thoughts on “Proof that God Exists

  1. I think your syllogism accurately represents the argument being presented, and I agree that both (1) and (2) must be true for (3) to be true.

    As for Premise (2), Greg Bahnsen used to challenge debate opponents to show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can be immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind. Specifically addressing the laws of logic, his contention was that Atheists can use them, but they cannot justify their existence.

    In his debate with Gordon Stein, he said, “The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I’d like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?”

    I think it’s a great question, and one that is not answered by saying they are part of the “nature of matter” since laws of logic have no connection to matter.

    Regarding brayer “being necessary to believe in God,” I don’t think that is true, nor do I believe the Christians you have spoken to believe that is true. (In your comment, you switched from “immersing yourself in the Bible” to “prayer being necessary”.) I do believe that God can use the Bible to convince you that He exists. How does this contravene deductive logic?

  2. Why do they say to “ask God to show himself to you”? Why would they ask me to do something that was unnecessary?

    Setting aside the human mind for a moment, electronic devices use logic circuits. This logic works because of the nature of matter. They are not as complex as the human mind and they don’t “think” like humans, but nevertheless they use logic. Is my calculator a transcendental machine?

    Just because a rock sits in one place until acted upon by a force (law of inertia) , then you conclude that there must be a God? Can’t we say that is just the way matter is?

    The concept of God does not explain the laws of science. It just postpones answering the question a little bit. God could have created a universe that was inconsistent and unpredictable and with no laws.

    Why is it necessary to push the boundaries of credibility? There are some questions that we currently just can’t answer. Isn’t it more intellectually honest to say, “I don’t know”?

    Gordon Stein asks, “how is it possible to have laws?” I ask, “how is it possible to have God? Where did God come from?”

  3. Yeah, I just don’t get how 2 is true. Just because I can’t “show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can be immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind” doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way to show it.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    For 2 to be true, some evidence that it is true has to be presented. I don’t see any.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s