Philosophical Enlightenment - Can people prove that God exists?

Beauty
Beauty | Source
Jesus
Jesus | Source
Terrain
Terrain | Source

Can God's Existence be Proven?

I can comprehend that God permitting evil to exist is part of his plan or system, and that in some way it leads to something good. I believe that you must have chaos in order to be able to define order or visa versa, and in the same respect you must have something bad or evil before you can define something good or the opposite. Which came first is a matter of endless speculation, and one could argue on the equality or superiority of each in relation to the other as easily. Of course, these are just definitions, which are dependant of understanding the terms used themselves. By the terms I mean good and evil, or chaos and order, which could vary widely depending on the individual defining them. I mean to say that without definition they don’t exist, they become just words, and the acts or happenings associated with them become undefined in terms of whether they were good or evil, or chaotic or orderly.

God the First Cause

The objection is that nature is on a path to a determined end, and that everything is traceable back to God as a first cause. This means that nothing can exist without a first cause, and that the first cause of everything is God. I see this as a possibility, but I could argue that the universe and everything in it is cyclonic, and we are a product of millions of coincidences that came together to allow our existence. I am a firm believer that all matter, including energy, that exists at this point has always existed and always will exist, it is only changed from one form to another through interaction with other matter. One could assume that this change of matter has been going on forever and will continue forever, which alleviates a need for a first cause. This point of view dismisses a need for God, but definitely not a possibility. If you look at it scientifically, for God to exist he must be out side of this system of matter that we call our universe. Perhaps, he exists on another plain or dimension that our senses are unable to detect or perceive. The rules of our universe may not apply to him and perhaps he is the first cause of everything within our dimension.

Contingency

The Argument for Contingency in my opinion is faulted. I don’t believe that the idea that we are the product of a succession of dependent beings makes our existence impossible or even unlikely. I believe that it is possible for us to have gotten here through a succession of beings that were and are dependent only on their surroundings. That doesn’t mean that the cycle is infinite either. There could have been a beginning to life on Earth without a cause from an external source. The cause may have been simply possibility, and the determination of each of those beings to continue to exist in a changing environment. If God is directing it he must have a way of manipulating the very atomic structures that exist within our world. I see him as The Master Scientist of the universe. Honestly, I’m not convinced that Philosophy, or Science, or mankind in general can prove or disprove the existence of God, maybe it’s meant to be that way, it wouldn’t be faith if you could prove it, and it wouldn’t be an issue anymore if you could disprove it.

Cosmological Argument

Finally, I will comment on An Examination of the Cosmological Argument. As I stated before, a series of dependent beings would not necessarily have to begin with anything more than the right combination of chemical compounds set in the proper environment to bring forth life. You wouldn’t necessarily have to have a first cause that is an intelligent motivated being at all; the first cause could have been a completely coincidental combination of the correct elemental compounds that found themselves in a situation that allowed them to develop from just compounds into a life form. I believe that every member of a collection of dependent beings has a cause or explanation, but their beginning didn’t necessarily have to be dependent upon another being, just the right circumstances. Therefore, I argue that both sides of the argument are somewhat flawed in that the series wouldn’t need to be infinite, nor would the first cause need to be intelligent. To look at nature would make one believe that it was designed, and planned by someone or something intelligent, but reason alone can’t say that it is absolutely necessary.

What is Philosophy?

A Watch
A Watch | Source
Creation
Creation | Source

The Pattern of Creation

I agree that the obvious design of a watch sets it apart from a stone, at least at first glance, but to look deeper it would become obvious that each was made of atomic structures. It is obvious that the watch has been carefully designed by a person, from which materials made of atomic structures were used, of which, that person could claim no part in creating. Only the manipulation of the matter that was necessary to make the pieces that were necessary to produce the watch. If, I were to agree that this does indicate that the very matter itself must have been created by an intelligent, motivated being, then I immediately see a pattern of creation. Would I assume that the creator of the matter too, had a creator, and that creator had a creator, and so on infinitively? Now I’m back to square one asking myself; can an infinitive number of events have occurred? The argument that the rock might have always been there doesn’t work unless you believe that an infinite number of instances could have transpired, than there would be no beginning, therefore; no need for a creator. Furthermore, if one were to say that man is now guilty of creating machine making machines, as proposed by Swinburne, it only adds to the probability that there might be an infinite number of creators each responsible for its creations. Then there’s the question of the type of creator that created our world, is he perfect, and all powerful, and inherently good, and infinite. For that matter, is he even a he, perhaps he is a she, or both, or neither. What in nature indicates that God is a male? Plenty of female figures are perfectly capable of creating machines, many have been known to do so, and I’m sure if you look hard enough you could find a hermaphrodite that created some sort of machine as well. It would seem to me that the indication that’s most likely in this light is that there are multiple Gods, being male, female, and perhaps even both. Don’t forget the machine making machines that we make, they are neither male nor female they are just machines. I do see how you might come to the conclusion that the creator of the world around us, including us, is infinite, because his creations seem to be infinite as well. I don’t mean to say that we are infinite, as a race or individually, but the matter that we are made of and everything else in our world seems to be so. Remember that every indication of matter suggests that all matter has always been here and always will be. New matter can’t be created, and existing matter can’t be destroyed, at least not by any means known to man. It can however, be changed through interaction with other matter. Keep in mind that by matter I mean all matter, every particle in our universe including energy, light, and everything else. So, we as people are not infinite, our machines are not infinite, the machines made by our machines are not infinite, but the matter that makes us all is, so the conclusion would be that their creator could be as well. When I ponder whether our creator is intelligent, I wonder about the idea of intelligence. Birds, and bees, and ants all make extravagant homes for themselves, but would you say that they are intelligent. In one regard they must be to construct such dwellings, on the other hand do they really think, are they even sentient, or do they just do what they do out of instinct. Intellect is a very complicated subject. One could argue that the machines that we make are intelligent. They do, after all, perform tasks and calculations that man himself could never do. Perhaps we are to God what our machines are to us, and our machines see us as their God. I realize that this statement seems absurd, but if intellect is as broad of an idea as it seems, it could be construed as such.

Summary

In summary, my view is that each idea expressed has been interesting and has caused me to engage in deep thought, but I still stand firm that to announce that you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists or the contrary, displays that your philosophy has not considered every possibility.

Proof of God

Do you believe God's existence can be proven?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know
  • Don't care
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 16 comments

zzron profile image

zzron 4 years ago from Houston, TX.

Great hub topic. I would say yes God can be proved to exist. Just look in the mirror. He created you as he did all things. The stars in the universe, the Earth, all living things etc... Nothing would exist without God first creating it. Things did not come into existence by their self although some people who do not believe in God would argue this with you.

It only makes perfect sense that God does exist and God gives us free will to believe in him and to except him as clearly stated in the bible. There will always be people who will choose not to believe in God and he is aware of this and who these people are. I know for a fact that God is real and does exist even though I can't prove it the way some people may want you to. I guess you can say its a feeling you have where you just know that you know.


rcollester3 profile image

rcollester3 4 years ago from Middle Tennessee

Very nice and well written hub. I voted yes in your pole. I believe that proving is in the definition. Many things in Science are "proven" through the collection of data and observation of that data and observation of interactions with other known constants. Many things that are "proven" have never been physically observed by any direct sense. Electricity is a fine example. An electron cannot be seen. But, we can prove it's existence through observed interaction with other known elements and constants. We can observe the effects and consequences of direct experimentation and therefore, "prove" it's existence. I believe the same process is appropriate for the provability of the existence of God.


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

Thank you, zzron and rcollester3 for reading and commenting. It is much appreciated. I can't believe I joined over a year ago and have only just discovered the joy of having my writing be appreciated by others.


John Sarkis profile image

John Sarkis 4 years ago from Los Angeles, CA

Excellent hub

John


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

John thanks again for your support !


move2move profile image

move2move 4 years ago

Well, in quantum physics, it has been proven a while ago that the world we are actually looking at ... doesn't even exist and is just an interpretation/decoding of our brain of what we think reality is; just one of the aspects that explains why nobody sees the world exactly the same way, similar..but not the exact same way ...

So, bottom line ... people try to "prove" that GOD exist or not and haven't even figured out the reality of what they're even embedded in themselves.

... or is it the other way around..?

Not that this might be a condition, but ... when you can't even figure that out ... what do you even try to prove ...lol...when it can be proven that what you taste, smell, see & touch ... actually doesn't exist and is just a decoding of electrical signal within your brain :D?!!

Yet, it starts to become easier and easier to start having a true understanding of what GOD might be and yet ... making an undeniable experience seems to be what is needed to get it and thinking that you can measure GOD with machines ... hmm .. maybe .. WHO Knows ..?! But in its whole extend? There I agree with this theory of "Non-locality" they talk in quantum physics. Plus it really makes sens. Surely it gets closer & closer to the answer if you ask me, but still, that's just observation, not the experience.


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

move2move very interesting concept about our reality, thanks for reading and commenting.


Ruby H Rose profile image

Ruby H Rose 4 years ago from Northwest Washington on an Island

Great Hub. Does God exist, yes? Can it be proven? No, Great Mystery, is just that, hahaa. Keeps us motivated to keep searching. Thumbs up, keep writing great stuff. Love it!


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

Ruby H Rose, thank you for taking the time to read and comment, I appreciate it.


tammyswallow profile image

tammyswallow 4 years ago from North Carolina

I think there is some proof in the existence of God in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved. When we die, we immediatley loose a few pounds from the loss of energy in our bodies. No one knows where it goes or where it came from. There is so much we don't know about science and I am sure it is because we are not meant to know it. Science itself cannot fill in the blanks. For this reason, it is apparent that we were somehow created. Hope that makes sense. :) Great hub.


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

tammyswallow, thanks for reading and commenting. The point about loosing a few pounds after death is very interesting thanks for bringing it up. I think there is lots of proof of God on a personal level, but as a science it becomes much more difficult to prove.


move2move profile image

move2move 4 years ago

Probably because the way science wants God to be proven doesn't fit with the way God actually works; something to think about too. Scientific parameters are often pre-defined in science, so how could they when rejecting everything that doesn't fit with their believed expectations?!

What I mean is, you can't expect to understand how a wale lives and breath by putting him in a tiny Goldfish Aquarium ... :-P ...

But that's actually changing pretty quickly in some scientific areas where They understand that "Observation" alone, isn't enough to fit the bill ...


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

move2move, science has certainly been making leaps and bounds in recent years. I think this generation will produce some truly great scientific minds as they seem less concerned with traditional methods and will likely be less afraid to try something new.


move2move profile image

move2move 4 years ago

Indeed, that's what meant with my last sentence :-)!

Science and spiritual knowledge in our society might finally merge to a unite if you ask me, just a question of time!


eddiemars profile image

eddiemars 4 years ago from Greenville, SC

Great Hub. I like the balance you struck. This is an interesting subject to me because when you say God, what do you mean? If you ask 10 people that question you'll get 10 different answers even if all of them say they believe in the God of the bible. I believe we get our proof that God exists 1 second after we die. Problem is, we can't share our finding with anyone.


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN Author

eddiemars, thanks for taking a moment to share your thoughts. I believe that if we look, there is proof of God on an individual level during this life. Have a great day, and God bless.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working