ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

Proofs for the Existence of God

Updated on April 28, 2014

Existence of God: Philosophical Arguments

Almost all of the arguments ever developed for the existence of God fall into one of the following categories. Chances are, if you come across anybody proposing an argument for God, on Hub Pages, on a blog, or anywhere, it will fall under one of the following types. The details of the argument may change, but if you can understand the essential type, you will be able to understand how it works, and how the logic fails.

1. Cosmological argument

The claim: Everything has a cause, and therefore reality must have a cause. That cause is named God. God was the uncaused cause of everything, the uncreated creator.

The flaw: If everything has a cause, then God also has a cause, because God is part of everything. Therefore God cannot have been uncreated. Separately, if God is indeed uncreated, then not everything has a cause. Therefore perhaps reality itself has no cause. In other words, reality is uncreated and eternal--if it can work for God, then it can work for reality.

2. Design argument

The claim: The universe exhibits design and complexity. Things which show design must have had a designer who is even more complex. That designer is named God.

The flaw: If the universe is complex, then surely God himself is even more complex. Therefore, since everything that is complex requires a designer, God himself requires a designer, who must be even more complex than he is. However, if God was not designed, then not every complex thing requires a designer. In which case the universe does not require a designer. Once again, if it works for God, it works for the universe. In addition, the argument's second premise is incorrect: things which "show design" do not necessarily need a designer.

3. Argument from life

The claim: Life cannot arise randomly or spontaneously from inanimate matter, and yet life exists. Therefore a God was necessary to create life.

The flaw: In fact, it is possible to explain the origin of life without God, and without any supernatural force.

4. Argument from revelation

The claim: The Bible says that God exists. The Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore whatever it says must be true.

The flaw: Circularity. God exists because the Bible says so, and we should trust the Bible because it is the word of God. This argument assumes the very thing (God) we are trying to prove. The same argument and logic can be used for any text that is considered revelatory--the Quran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, or anything else.

5. Argument from miracles

The claim: The presence of miracles points to a supernatural force or god; miracles do occur, therefore there is a supernatural force or god

The flaw: The fact that miracles exist does not prove that they were caused by God (they could have been caused by an ancestor spirit). Thus this argument commits the fallacy of begging the question--it assumes that which is to be proven.

Separately, it is impossible to prove that miracles occur because in order to prove that an event occurs, you must use the laws of nature, but miracles by definition are violations of the laws of nature.

6. Ontological argument

The claim: God, by definition, is perfect. A perfect thing, by definition, exists. Thus a nonexistent God is absurd because God, by definition as a perfect being, must exist. Logically, referring to a "nonexistent God" is analogous to referring to a "four-sided triangle." A triangle logically cannot be four-sided, and God logically cannot be nonexistent.

The flaw: Yet again, this argument assumes the very thing it seeks to prove. It first assumes that God exists, and then designates him as "perfect." The argument has the relationship between existence and perfection backwards. Perfection is a quality enjoyed only by things that exist. If God exists, then he is certainly perfect. But the argument has not demonstrated that God exists. In essence, it claims "if God exists, then God exists."

The argument treats existence as a quality of an object. According to Kant, "existence" is not a quality that a thing can either have or lack. A thing must first exist, and then, as a condition of its existence, have X or Y quality. To speak of a thing having the quality of "existing" is absurd, as only existing things can have qualities in the first place.

7. Moral argument

The claim: Morality exists. Morality's existence cannot be explained in the absence of God. Therefore God exists.

The flaw: In fact God is not needed to explain the existence of moral sentiments in people. Evolutionary, psychological, anthropological, sociological, cultural and historical explanations can be made for the existence of morality.

8. Purpose argument

The claim: Without the existence of God, people would have no reason to live or be good. Therefore there must be a God.

The flaw: This is not a proof of anything, only a wish or desire. The fact that people have no reason to live in the absence of God does not mean that God exists. Moreover, people do have many reasons to live and be good in the absence of God, as countless atheists, agnostics and secularists demonstrate.

9. Argument from faith

The claim: The existence of God cannot be proven through reason, but only through faith. The use of faith shows that there is a God, therefore God exists.

The flaw: Faith is not a reliable means for "proving" anything. The fact that the theist chooses faith as the means for proving God indicates that they are assuming (on faith) the very thing they are trying to prove. Faith, by definition, is nothing more than saying "I believe in God" which does not prove anything. The theist's faith shows there is a God, but perhaps someone else's faith shows there is not a God.

10. Argument from experience

The claim: Many people claim to have a personal experience with God, therefore God exists.

The flaw: The fact that someone claims to experience God, or feels a feeling that they call "God" does not mean that it actually was God. Feelings are frequently unreliable.

11. Pascal's wager

The claim: We have nothing to lose by believing in God, but everything to lose by not believing in God. If I believe in God but am wrong, I am not harmed. But if I do not believe in God and am wrong, I am harmed. Therefore the prudent thing to do is to believe in God.

The flaw: This is not a proof for God, but rather an encouragement for believing in God, which has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

Separately, it is prudent to believe in God only if you define God in the correct way, and pick the correct religion. Moreover, this argument assumes that God is not omniscient, because God does not know one's heart, and one's true cynical calculus.

12. Transcendental argument

The claim: Laws of logic, morality and knowledge cannot exist without God. God is the necessary, prior condition for the existence of logical, moral and natural laws, as well as the basic objective intelligibility of the universe. Such laws exist, and the universe is intelligible, therefore God exists.

The flaw: This argument is subject to a logical bind of the same structure as the cosmological and design arguments. If logic requires a designer, that designer by definition must be logical. But if the designer is logical, then who designed his logic? If, on the other hand, the designer’s logic does not require a designer, then logic does not always require a designer, and therefore the logic of the universe may have been undesigned.

Separately, this argument puts the cart before the horse. The "laws" of nature and of logic are simply human interpretations of how the world works. There is nothing in the universe written "this is the law." The conception of a "law" is entirely within our own minds.

The real question, then, is not "why does the universe operate precisely to these laws." The real question is "why are we able to measure the universe and its behavior this precisely." And the answer to that should be obvious. The fact that we are able to imagine a universe with slightly different laws is irrelevant. Nobody argues that "the fact that we are able to imagine a unicorn existing requires us to explain why no unicorns exist in this universe."

Conclusions

These are extremely brief summaries of each of the main arguments for God. Again, almost all arguments for God fall under one of these categories. There has never been a reliable, logically coherent argument presented for the existence of God, in all of human history.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Say Yes To Life profile image

      Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

      “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” ~ Dale Carnegie.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Those who are open to it, are able to be swayed by logic. Other than that, in a more indirect way, history indicates that people become less religious and more critical of religious beliefs over time as they become more educated and more aware of the power of evidence and reason.

      History has also shown that violence tends to harden people's beliefs, not do away with them, as countless crusaders and religious persecutors through history have found out. It also demonstrates that one cannot make a reasoned argument and probably has very weak beliefs.

    • PDXBuys profile image

      PDXBuys 2 years ago from Oregon

      I sincerely believe that there is only one real way to win this argument: You beat a man over the head causing him severe pain or fear of death until he agrees with whatever you tell him to believe. You cannot convince him to believe by using logic and reason alone because logic and reason will not yield an answer. They cannot yield an answer.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Ronel:

      "where is your proof that God does not exist?"

      Your assumption is wrong. You assume that the burden of proof is on the disbeliever. In reality, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim (whether the claim is about God or anything else).

      The disbeliever is an innocent bystander. He didn't make any claim one way or another.

      If I told you "your boss was born on Mars," you would say "how do you know? What's your proof?" And then I would respond "Where is your proof that your boss was NOT born on Mars?"

      That's the argument you're making, and it makes no sense.

      "daily life revolves around a powerful force: God."

      No. There is no reason to believe God exists.

      "Funny enough, people who do not believe in God also live by faith in their daily life. Whether it is to hope that someone is not lying. Or to have faith that they will receive a job. The only thing is: they just don't link their faith to a God."

      The "faith" you are referring to is based on reason and empirical evidence. There is no reason or empirical evidence for the existence of God, or any other supernatural entity for that matter. That's why faith in "God" is often referred to as blind faith.

      "Because if you live with no reason at all, why do you exist?"

      I do have a reason for living. So your premise is faulty.

    • profile image

      Ronel Wakeford88 2 years ago

      You say that there is no proof that there is a God. I ask you then, where is your proof that God does not exist? You have no proof whatsoever that God does not exist. You cannot travel to the outskirts of the universe, look for heaven, and come back and say that there is no God. The arguments given that there is no God, sounds more like speculation. It is not documented proof. The way I see it, both parties are in a race in proving what they believe. While Christians, like me, live by faith rather than seeking proof that God exists. Funny enough, people who do not believe in God also live by faith in their daily life. Whether it is to hope that someone is not lying. Or to have faith that they will receive a job. The only thing is: they just don't link their faith to a God. Well, if you have faith and God does not exist according to you, then why bother having faith in the first place. Which brings me to my point - daily life revolves around a powerful force: God. So if you are an atheist, I would say that 50% of the times, you are arguing against your own theories. So please, before it is too late: repent! You'll be better off than living a lie or thinking that you just exist with no reason. Because if you live with no reason at all, why do you exist?

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Nope.

      There are no scientific theories that offer proof of God anyway, so your premise is faulty in any case.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

      Sec

      Only ones that offer proof of God

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Oz:

      I don't try to debunk scientific theories.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Lerys:

      Thank you, glad you liked it.

      The idea is that logic cannot arise from something illogical. Order cannot arise from chaos. If this is true (which it is according to the believers who make this argument), then if logic exists, it must have been designed from another, at least equally logical, being.

      I, on the other hand, believe that it's possible for order to arise from chaos (indeed, nature proves this to be the case). Therefore I am not biased to think that logic had to be "designed" by a conscious being per se.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

      Sec

      the only scientific theories you debunk with Hubs are the ones defending the science behind religion.

    • Lerys profile image

      Lerys 2 years ago

      The arguments were great. There's one statement however that I found unconvincing. Under the "transcendental argument" heading, you wrote:

      "If logic requires a designer, that designer by definition must be logical." I don't see how the designer of a system inevitably becomes constrained by its laws.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      "Some of us have actually seen Christ Jesus. How do you explain that?"

      I explain it by saying that you did not actually see Jesus. Rather, you saw something you interpret at "Jesus." If you had been born in another culture, or another time, you would not recognize that image or that experience as "Jesus" but rather as something else altogether, or as nothing special at all.

      Just because we have a hard time understanding our universe and the feelings we have does not mean that any of it was designed.

    • profile image

      Ronel Wakeford88 2 years ago

      I am a believer of God and His Son (Our Lord) Christ Jesus. No one can tell me that the beauty we see around us never had a designer. No one can tell me that love existed on its own. Love is the most powerful emotion we have. Love is not logical, it was created. And I can actually speak up for the Word Of God, seeing that it is the only book with prophetic words that actually came true. People should try creating animals from scratch. People should try creating an entire globe from scratch. Everyone is sadly mistaken if they think that all of this beauty just exists without a creator. And no, feelings are not the only source of our faith! Some of us have actually seen Christ Jesus. How do you explain that? And please, do not see my comment as rudeness, but only as an obedient way to prevent more people from spitting in God's face. And whether this comment makes you believe in the Lord or not, truth will reveal itself on judgement day. Good luck.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Say:

      Those are exactly the kinds of issues I thought about years ago when I was critically analyzing religious belief for the first time. Indeed, they all claim exclusive truth, and yet by definition, they can't all be exclusively true, lol.

      It makes a lot more sense to say that people have developed different beliefs in line with the historical experiences of their regions and cultures. Man-made creations, rather than divinely inspired.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Oz--I'm not sure I follow your argument.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

      Secularist

      I said lets NOT conveniently forget Gödel and you have a knack of doing just that. Why don't you do that with Einstein's premises?

    • Say Yes To Life profile image

      Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

      In the Western World, people who don't believe in one omnipotent God are suspected as lacking morals, since they're not accountable to this God. However, in the Eastern World, such a belief is seen merely as an opinion. I discovered this in the process of working on a four-part hub series on the 10 most practiced religions in the world. Half are monotheistic, 3 are polytheistic, 1 is not based on any theistic belief system, and 1 is flat-out atheist. I'm still working on the 4th one, but if you wish, you can check out the others, starting with this one:

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-Take...

      It seems to me if there truly was only one omnipotent God Who created everything, He would appeal to all nationalities, not just one. I found this HIGHLY interesting article on the web. I don't know how to share it on HubPages, so I can only post the link:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essay...

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 2 years ago from New York City

      Oz--I think you made that argument in another thread. Proofs like that can only "work" if one accepts the premises, etc. Been there, done that.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

      Lets not conveniently forget the eminent maths figure of Kurt Godel whose math proof of God has been tested and proved by super computers.

    • profile image

      Shawntv 3 years ago

      It's believed that Adam and Eve were the first. Does god exist yes. Proof? Yes. Did the people of earth just poof into existence by the millions. Yes. Would god want to create the world to start as a huge sin. No god is good. Would god want to start the world with one girl and one boy and go on from there. No because that would be a huge sin by him and making a sin be impossible to commit. That is because the world would have to be started off incest. God would not want that to happen and he would never. So that's out the question. We did not come from one man and one girl because then that would be a sin. So

      The only way is; yes we did all poof into existence because that would be the right thing to do. For all atheist if evolution exists and we came from apes then they would have to created the world themselves too right? OFF INCEST. Fathers having sex with daughters and that is still a huge sin. So believing in evolution and believing in two starting in the beginning is believing in satan creating the beginning. So yea I do believe in god creating us all just like poof to begin us. God does not base his works off sin so how could evolution exist and how could the world starting as two exist and that is proof that god exists. If you believe in the world being started off from incest then wouldn't incest evolve with our brains and be stuck in our ways. We would all still be doing it now right. But we're NOT. Were good people coming from god who poofed into existence from the almighty God who start from good. God is good so everybody gets a chance to be good. It's all right here. We would still be having sex with our brothers sisters and mothers if god didn't create us but were not. Were all made from God! You don't have to believe in any religion. Just God.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      People like this always defeat themselves; their fallacious and illogical arguments need no rebuttal because everybody can see how ridiculous they are.

      Just give them enough rope and they will hang themselves, as they say.

    • Link10103 profile image

      Link10103 3 years ago

      In one of his last comments on another hub he told me to respect other people, yet right before that sentence he said he wasn't going to bother reading my long comment countering all the points he made previously because it was all pointless.

      Might need to start drinking myself just to deal with people with such backwards a$$ logic...

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      I'm just going to reproduce Miguel's final comment here (this is what Link responded to in his last comment).

      Just for the record, and because I lean towards more speech, rather than less. But I had to delete his comment because he linked to a Youtube video that was too disturbing and weird.

      ***

      Miguel:

      "that's it! you are the expert about God and for your hypocrite atheism and complete intolerence for religious people you just report! the next time don't manipulate my responses just to make me look like the bad guy! and about reporting i preffer that you could do it in my face! what a brave dude! you are so brave and esceptical that i want to share something with you all! i dare you to watch completely:

      [video removed]

      anyway you don't believe in that or you're just another teammate so you are inmune to it"

      ***

      Somebody needs a stiff drink. Lol.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Link:

      Haha, I can see how that might make him see red.

      Miguel has indeed been banned from the site.

      All I can do is shake my head. As they say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

      Thanks for looking out.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Miguel:

      "what a moron! i was going to talk to you about respect and maturity but it's pointless you are not worth of it"

      Amazing.

      Not only do you completely contradict yourself--a personal insult, then in the same breath claiming a high ground for "respect and maturity"--but your personal attacks and emotionalism conclusively demonstrate you have nothing constructive to offer this conversation.

      "you can only kill yourself as the shallow being you are. i dare you to publish this answers!"

      Oh, you bet your ass I'm publishing it, so everyone can see how empty, hollow and filled with rage and emotion you are.

      These will be the last comments from you though, as it certainly crosses the line.

      How pathetic. And unfortunate.

    • Link10103 profile image

      Link10103 3 years ago

      I dont see how anyone here manipulated your response, you are your own free person and can say what you want.

      Since its clear you have the intelligence of a 8 year old, I guess I should point out that reporting you had nothing to do with religious intolerance, it had to do with you telling secular to kill himself because he has no religion. That is a no no on pretty much any site on the internet my friend.

      What exactly does your video prove? I was under the impression this hub was about the existence of god, not demonic possession. I notcied you have a tendency to start talking about random topics when someone backs you into corner. And as disturbing as the video was, you see the same if not worse in the movies.

      I also told you, twice in fact, that I would report you. So again, no idea why you are on about bravery.

    • Link10103 profile image

      Link10103 3 years ago

      Secular

      In a discussion with someone else, I said god was a judgmental, merciless psychopath. Miguel over here said my comments were pointless because I compared god to being a politician....I dont know anything about politics, so I don't see how I could have done that.

      Report and move on...

    • profile image

      Miguelangelus 3 years ago

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you got it all backwards as it was expected. what a moron! i was going to talk to you about respect and maturity but it's pointless you are not worth of it... you have no purpose in this life! the life is meaningless for you! you can only kill yourself as the shallow being you are. i dare you to publish this answers!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Your emotionalism just demonstrates how empty and hollow your arguments are.

      "you speculate when you declare something without evidence! like a lie! but when you believe or thrust something or in someone without evidence thats called faith!"

      So, let's see here... When you "declare" something without evidence, that's speculation. But when you "believe" something without evidence, that's faith.

      Lol.

      So according to you, as long as you don't "declare" what you believe without evidence, you are still in the faith zone. So, I guess since you have been declaring stuff about God all over the place here, you must be "speculating" according to your own definition!

      Haha.

      "we just know it!"

      That, ladies and gents, says it all.

      Too bad you can't even recognize your own narrow assumptions.

      You don't even understand the basics, and you are trying to convince people that God exists. Lol!

    • profile image

      Miguelangelus 3 years ago

      How can you say what's different between cold and hot?? can you feel the difference? do you have evidence of that feeling? and how can you prove that we sense it as it was the same for both?? have any evidence of it? you don't even understand the basics... and you are trying to convince people that god is a lie! after thousands of years of religious history from more advanced civilizations than the current one!

    • profile image

      Miguelangelus 3 years ago

      wrong are you! you speculate when you declare something without evidence! like a lie! but when you believe or thrust something or in someone without evidence thats called faith!

      "How do you know that is God that you "feel" and not some other force or event?" we told you! we just know it! we don't need any evidence like i said earlier!

      Wrong about what?? evidence again? what secularist10 really needs in his life is a dictionary.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Lol, if anyone is acting like a child here it's you.

      Oh, I "fully understand" what you are describing. And you are wrong.

      How do you know that is God that you "feel" and not some other force or event?

      You need actual evidence for your beliefs. Without some kind of evidence, all you have is speculation and subjective opinion.

    • profile image

      Miguelangelus 3 years ago

      "human knowledge is limited. Which is why it is absurd for anyone to believe that they "know" God exists." do you have any idea of what knowledge, intelligence and wisdom mean? and what the difference is?? what is the relation between information and faith? how much does a study have to be certified or proven for you to see it as a real fact? do you think that people believe in god because there is enough evidence?? in the contrary we just know! we can feel his existence! his words reach us! can you fully understand that? or you need some certified evidence? it's absurd to think that we are not just carbon made forms with only 5 senses? think from out of the box and you'll find more answers!

    • profile image

      Miguel hijo de Dios (The Observer) 3 years ago

      I'm completely sure you have no idea what i'm talking about! i'm so sorry about that man! good luck!(sorry if i yell hahahahahahaha) sometime PERHAPS you will notice that the earth isn't the center of the universe and it's not square shaped! if you know what i mean ;) leave the kind of topic for grownups!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Miguel, I don't know why you are yelling and shouting so much.

      It's not clear exactly what your point is because you're kind of all over the place. But you said that human knowledge is limited.

      I completely agree. Which is why it is absurd for anyone to believe that they "know" God exists.

      We do the best we can with the limited knowledge we do have, and that entails focusing on evidence, logic and reason, not ancient myths or subjective beliefs.

      ""A nonexistent thing could not think, do or say anything" that's wrong!"

      Really? Have you ever seen something that did not exist, do something?

      It's obvious that if I am doing or saying or thinking something, I exist. It's so obvious I don't understand how anybody could question such a simple statement. Unless you do not understand what you are talking about.

    • profile image

      Miguel hijo de Dios (The Observer) 3 years ago

      like timmy said... nothing that makes me a human being can proof that i exist and we don't "believe it"... WE JUST KNOW IT! that's faith! you can't prove it and it doesn't mather that you can't but you can feel it from your internal being (you just know it)... i see it over and over again, we trying to explain everything like we could understand it, you are just trying to understand god's existence from a human point of view "A nonexistent thing could not think, do or say anything" that's wrong! i hear that like "the earth is squared shaped" we know nothing about time flow, space, light, not even our own brains! much less about god or devil. we have to stop thinking about the unknown and the unanswered questions like a humans do! we are not as image as god! trying to understand if there's a god or how he did and continue doing things is like trying to understand how infinite the universe is! we think we know about the universal laws and time/space behavior and we still do wars and continue with our own destruction... We can't have absolute thinking (if all is caused god is caused, if everything is complex is designed so god had a designer) i guess we are just too intelligent to understand the real meaning of life! and that's not the way of reaching any truth.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 3 years ago from New York City

      Hi Timmy, well, in the case of oneself, as Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." So basically the fact that you are even thinking or doing anything, demonstrates that you exist in some way. A nonexistent thing could not think, do or say anything. But in the case of God, we are talking about something external to us.

    • profile image

      timmyelliot 3 years ago

      I'm an atheist, but really, is there an proof for our own existence (i.e. proof for "I exist") that doesn't have an equally strong counter-argument? And yet, I do believe I exist.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 4 years ago from New York City

      Thank you! Glad you liked it.

    • ReasonablyLogical profile image

      Zachary 4 years ago from USA

      Rationality at its finest! I appreciate you laying out the arguments and debunking them. I find it amusing how people tend to tip toe around a concrete definition of a god, as if to repel these arguments. Great work!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 4 years ago from New York City

      Anonymous--yes, the point of this article is to demonstrate that none of these arguments in favor of God holds water. It is the lack of proof that is the issue. There is no disproving the existence of God or any other mythical creature for that matter.

      "... it is unnecessary to call any particular one "God.""

      This is not an entirely accurate characterization of my argument, but it's not really important.

      "... therefore, one solution to this is that only finite things are caused, and that God, being infinite, needs no cause."

      You are free to define "God" as the sum of all these individual finite states as you describe, but that is not the traditional conception of God, and it is not the conception of God being used here.

      The conception of God here is the traditional one--an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything that exists separate and apart from the universe.

      The notion of an eternal universe with no beginning and no end is far more intellectually sound than the notion of an "unmoved mover" or "first cause." The former is entirely consistent with everything we know about causation and physics, etc, but the latter requires us to have two sets of rules--one for the nature that we observe and live in, and another for a creature that was first imagined in ancient primitive societies, and for whose existence there is no rational basis.

    • profile image

      AnoNymous9 4 years ago

      As to number 12, I'm not sure I see why the answer to the question, "Why are we able to measure the universe and its behavior this precisely?" is obvious.

      As nearly as I can tell, the only obvious secular answer to that question is, "Because the state of the universe is precisely what we have measured." Which leads to the question, "Why does the universe operate precisely to these laws?" which you have already defined as identical to the question, "Why are we able to measure the universe and its behavior this precisely?" The same invalid circularity that denies us ontology and revelation creates a bunch of answers to the question of "Why?" leading only back to each other.

      Obviously, then, the way to break this circularity is to ask the real question, "Why does the universe, its laws, or anything in them have to have a cause?" or, "Why are 'why?' questions relevant?" That answer, of course, you covered under the headings of the cosmological and design arguments: there doesn't have to be a relevant "why?" with respect to God, and therefore the universe.

      I'm going to mention but ignore the fact that clearly, those are not refutations of God, merely proof of lack of proof. I only mention it to recognize that I'm sure you've covered it all too well enough above, with people who think one should disprove for non-belief.

      Back to the question: the word "cause" can be considered in two useful senses. The first sense is as the discrete instantaneous state of the universal wave-function which resulted in a subsequent given state of the universal wave-function. (Even here, I can't escape the concept of cause.) The second sense is as the discrete logic function in accordance with which the universal wave-function changed. Causative events, and causative logics; matter-energy and space-time.

      Your logic is that, given the chain of causative states that would stretch all the way back until never if everything required a prior causative state, it is unnecessary to call any particular one "God." It is, however, not inconsistent to say that God is the infinite sum of all discrete parts of that series of prior causative states. As any mathematician would tell you, it would be invalid to treat this infinity as if it were finite; therefore, one solution to this is that only finite things are caused, and that God, being infinite, needs no cause.

      Likewise, against the design argument, your logic is that, given the chain of causing logics that would stretch all the way back until always if everything required a prior causative logic, then it is unnecessary to call any particular one "God." Once again, the distinction between the finite causative logics of nature and the infinite causative logic of God would become a thing of paramount importance.

      To clarify, I'm saying that these arguments are "not-in"validated by the proposition that everything has to have a cause. They aren't proof, only because we don't have to accept the premise they're built on; but the arguments also don't have to be untrue. The only "flaw" with the proposition is that they define the implications of non-belief in God instead of proving that God Himself exists.

      Personally, since science demands that there exist knowable proximate causative logics in the world, causative logics that are derived from prior discrete causative events within the wave-function, I find it far more cogent then to believe that there are also ultimate causative logics and events making up what I call God. But I do recognize that this is my personal opinion, and not proof of any tangible kind.

      Once more, a thought-provoking hub. I'd never been on Hubpages before today; I'll have to come back eventually.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 4 years ago from New York City

      Roger, your comment is as useless as it is hilarious. Certainly, if you have some disagreement with anything that has been said, you can muster a little more than a drive-by quip. Unless, of course, your argument is... well... too shallow?

    • profile image

      roger 4 years ago

      soooooo shallowww...all your arguments ....

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Haha!

      I don't know what you're smoking, but it can't be legal.

      Believe it or not, some people have lives outside of the internet. Three whole hours! Wow! Unsurprising that you would ignore substance to focus on nonsense. Also unsurprising that you would lower yourself to name-calling. Although I do give you points for originality. I've gotten a lot of insults from your ilk, but I don't think I've had that one before.

      Now everyone sees just how empty your arguments are. When push comes to shove, you must resort to name-calling.

      In any case, for anybody who cares, my response was hardly disingenuous. It was an affirmation and agreement of what you said in your previous comment, which was entirely consistent with my position that there is no proof for God.

      What on earth makes you think I "know" God exists? And that I "never doubted it" to boot? LOL!

      I have been clear in this article and all my others--there is no evidence and no reason to believe in God.

      For some reason you think your arguments have been persuasive. That's just sad. You have yet to address the critical issues I raised earlier, to say nothing of the weakness of the original argument to begin with.

      I suggest you go back to play in the kiddie pool. You're not ready to swim in the intellectual deep end.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      It took you over three hours to come up with that disingenuous response?

      Well, now you know God exists, although I know you never doubted it. You're Evil.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Correct you are. The universe exists outside of us.

      Our perception/ idea/ understanding of the universe obviously depends on our existence.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "And the idea (or awareness) of the universe resides in the minds of sentient beings, of which there were none before humans existed (barring extra terrestrials of course)."

      Response: the characteristics of the universe were discovered to be true by corporeal life, as such the universe was already true before corporal life discovered that it was true, otherwise there would have been no discovery that the universe is true.

      In other words, one can't discover something that doesn't already exist!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      "Is the idea of the universe true?"

      Exactly. And the idea (or awareness) of the universe resides in the minds of sentient beings, of which there were none before humans existed (barring extra terrestrials of course).

      Why do you keep repeating the same question over and over again? I already answered your last question multiple times.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "To say "is evolution true" is also bad grammar. I already said that. The proper phrasing is "is the theory of evolution true."'

      Response: Not containing the words "the theory of" within the sentence "Is Evolution true?" is not a grammatical issue. It is less precise, nothing more. However if you prefer "Is the theory of evolution true?" then be my guest. You can also have, "Is the idea of God true?" and "Is the idea of the universe true?"

      As I said earlier, "Of course, when scientists are attempting to determine whether a phenomena is true or false, they are not worried about grammar, they are simply interested in determining if a suspect phenomena is true or not. Well, they determined that the universe is indeed a true (fact) phenomena, but the phenomena was also true (fact) before corporeal life existed, so who knew the universe was true (a fact) then?"

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      To say "is evolution true" is also bad grammar. I already said that. The proper phrasing is "is the theory of evolution true."

      True/ false applies to statements. Real/ unreal applies to objects.

      And why are you referring to me in the third person? I'm right here. Lol.

      "so who knew the universe was true (a fact) then?"

      I already answered this question. It would be nice if you actually read what I wrote.

      The answer is: No one! No one was here! Lol.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      Part II (see my last comment for Part I) :

      secularist10 says, "I'm a professional writer and editor, for what it's worth."

      Response: then you should know that "God", like "Evolution", is also an IDEA, and as an idea is subject to being described as "true" or "false".

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "They are not using that word correctly."

      LOL! Of course secularist10 can't explain why "Is God true?" or "false" improper grammar!

      If I were to say, "Is Evolution true?", would secularist10 scream "bad grammar!" Nope he wouldn't, so why is secularist10 so afraid to admit what he knows to be true, that "Is God true" is perfectly fine grammar?

      Of course, when scientists are attempting to determine whether a phenomena is true or false, they are not worried about grammar, they are simply interested in determining if a suspect phenomena is true or not. Well, they determined that the universe is indeed a true (fact) phenomena, but the phenomena was also true (fact) before corporeal life existed, so who knew the universe was true (a fact) then?

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      They are not using that word correctly. The internet is rife with people using improper grammar, so if that's your standard, no wonder.

      But the last two have more of a rhetorical connotation because they are using the common phrase "true or false." They are using that phrase to convey a point. Technically, the proper way to express it would be: "God exists. True or false?"

      "True or false" in that case applies to the preceding statement.

      I'm a professional writer and editor, for what it's worth.

      Here's a sample from the homepage of the first link (Going to Jesus):

      "You are hurting? You have suffered a crushing loss. You have been disappointed, misunderstood, betrayed. What are you to do? What do you think?"

      This is poor grammar and poor writing. It would be better to write the questions as "Are you hurting? Have you suffered a crushing loss?" And so on.

      But even aside from your flawed use of the word "true," my original point was that you confused and mismatched "true" and "truth" in your opening argument. This was worth pointing out because your argument was based on those words.

      Anyway, this is all very interesting, but I note yet again that you are avoiding the main issue that undermines your argument: assuming the thing you try to prove.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "Lol. I assure you they do not."

      Response: As I said, you can look up the phrases, and since all who read this thread have looked up the phrases "Are Ghosts true?", "Is the Loch Ness Monster true?" or even "Is God true?" and found those phrases, you're in error once again.

      Passages dealing with God being true or false:

      "Is God True Or False?" --(http://www.goingtojesus.com/topic_holyspirit.html?...

      "If God is false, why are we here?" --(http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TAPSRA...

      "GOD:True or false" (http://paranormalis.com/threads/god-true-or-false....

      "God. True or False?" -- (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/god-true-or-...

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Lol. I assure you they do not. You will not find any such phrase uttered anywhere by anyone who knows how to speak the language correctly.

      Alas, you have not addressed the main issue once again.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      Part II (see my last comment for Part I) :

      Assessing, through the scientific method, if the the general nature of the universe we live in is true or false was a part of the discovery process 500 years ago when science was assessing the nature of our universe. Science doesn't immediately know if a phenomena is true or false UNTIL it's been put through the scientific method gauntlet.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "No, nobody ever says "are ghosts true" or "is the Loch Ness monster true."'

      Response: They sure do. Look it up!

      Now, one might think gravity is true (fact), but to actually know it is true, one puts the hypothesis through the scientific method.

      secularist10 says, "You can say "the theory of evolution is true," because a theory is a type of a statement (or series of statements)."

      Response: My proof relies on objective facts/laws of nature (such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) or the universe itself, not theories.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Ok, then how come nobody ever says "gamma rays are true" or "gravity is true" or "bacteria are true"? These are scientifically discovered phenomena that are outside our immediate awareness. Once again, the word "true" is not used in that way. We say instead "gamma rays exist" or "bacteria exist." Truth or falsity applies only to statements.

      No, nobody ever says "are ghosts true" or "is the Loch Ness monster true." We say "do ghosts exist" or "are ghosts real." Incidentally, are you a native speaker of English? Just curious, as that might be the problem.

      You can say "the theory of evolution is true," because a theory is a type of a statement (or series of statements).

      But again, this is the least of your concern.

      The main problem with your argument is that you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove (that God exists). You assume that something must exist for the universe to exist. That something you call God. But on what basis do you assume that something must exist for the universe to exist? You have not addressed that.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      Part II (see my last comment for Part I) :

      People ask, "Are Ghosts true?", "Is the Loch Ness Monster true?" or even "Is God true?" All phenomena not clearly known to exist, though now we know God does exist!

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "How come nobody ever says "the apple is true" or "the President is true" or "my computer is true"?"

      Response: because those items are clearly seen to exist. The makeup of the universe, or the objective laws of the universe (such as gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) are not clearly seen, but need to be assessed first, THEN seen as true. Such phenomena outside our immediate sensory perceptions need to be assessed as true or false via the scientific method.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      How come nobody ever says "the apple is true" or "the President is true" or "my computer is true"? The word "true" is not used in the way you are using it. But again, it's words, not the main issue. Not important.

      This is the main issue you are raising:

      "Now, who knew the universe to be a fact (objectively true) before corporeal life existed?"

      Nobody. Nobody was here.

      "I'm not referring to a "truth", and a fact (an objectively true thing in this case) doesn't depend on the existence of corporeal life."

      The word "true" is a derivative of "truth" so you are referring to truth, and I never said that a fact depends on the existence of corporeal life. Read it again. I said that our conception of truth depends on the existence of the universe. Our conception. If the universe did not exist, we would not be here, therefore our conception would not be here either.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      secularist10 says, "Dean, your use of the word "truth" is rhetoric. It is ambiguous."

      Response: Nothing ambiguous about the universe being objectively true, a fact.

      secularist10 says, "Truth applies to statements, not physical things."

      Response: I said the universe is true, not a truth.

      secularist10 says, "The universe" is not "true."

      Response: The universe certainly is true, a fact!

      secularist10 says, "And moreover, "truth" is a concept that we humans, as conscious beings, have created. "

      Response: Are you denying that the universe wasn't a fact (true) before corporeal life existed? Now, who knew the universe to be a fact (objectively true) before corporeal life existed?

      secularist10 says, "We already exist within the universe, so our conception of "truth" itself depends on the existence of the universe, not the other way around."

      Response: I'm not referring to a "truth", and a fact (an objectively true thing in this case) doesn't depend on the existence of corporeal life.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Dean, your use of the word "truth" is rhetoric. It is ambiguous.

      "The universe" is not "true." The statement "the universe exists" is true. Truth applies to statements, not physical things. And moreover, "truth" is a concept that we humans, as conscious beings, have created. We already exist within the universe, so our conception of "truth" itself depends on the existence of the universe, not the other way around.

    • profile image

      Dean Michael Jackson 5 years ago

      You left out the Physical Proof for the Existence of God (# 18):

      The Proof for God's Existence laid out:

      (1) The universe is [the universe];

      (2) “True” means there is cognition;

      (3) The universe is also true;

      (4) Since “true” means there is cognition, and the universe was true before corporeal life existed, then there was a cognitive entity that knew the universe was true before corporeal life existed.

      Just as there are many more "truths" to be learned about the universe, so the universe is "true" as we currently know it and was "true" before corporeal life existed in the universe. "Truth" requires knowing and knowing requires cognition, therefore who was cognizant and knew the universe to be true before corporeal life existed in the universe?

      --------------------------------

      The proof that this cognitive entity, that existed before corporeal life existed in the universe, created the universe:

      My proof affirms that there was a non-corporeal cognitive entity (a spiritual entity, not physical) that knew the Universe was true the moment it came into existence after the Big Bang. What this means is that there was a cognitive spiritual entity in existence at all points where there was a physical reality. Well, since this spiritual entity was there always alongside physical reality within all the minute realities of the Quantum universe, and those complex Quantum realities were true, then the cognitive entity knew such complex Quantum realities were immediately true upon their origination, but in order to know immediately such truths of the Quantum universe are indeed true, the spiritual entity would had to have created the Quantum universe.

      In other words, truth = creation = God, which brings us to what Jesus was prepared to tell Pontius Pilate, but Pontius Pilate walked out of the audience hall after rhetorically asking Jesus ‘what is truth?’

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Repeating the same thing over and over indicates one's argument is hollow. I don't really understand what you are referring to with "2nd, 3rd,...premises." But, whatever. The End, I guess.

    • profile image

      eric-d-agustin 5 years ago

      I just repeated what I already said. I need only to refer you to the next sections of my 2nd, 3rd,...premises -- END.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      You are just repeating what you already said. I need only refer you to my previous response.

      As a secularist brother of Socrates and Hume, I too believe that we are finite human beings. I DO care if I do not know much about something. I would rather believe in something that has evidence and reason supporting it than rely on someone else's "knowledge" about a supposed "God."

      "God" is an idea that was dreamt up by ancient primitive people who knew almost nothing about science or nature.

      I would rather trust human ingenuity, curiosity and wonder than the fairy tales of ancient primitive peoples.

    • profile image

      eric-d-agustin 5 years ago

      My 1st premise is this and I repeat,

      As a Christian brother of Bro Eliseo "Eli" Soriano, I believe that we are finite human beings. I don't care if I do not know much about God. But I would rather believe God than rely on someone else "knowledge" about Him, the world and/or the universe. Whether PROOFS or NON-proofs about the EXISTENCE of God, there IS God.

      It still does not answer all. Search yourself -iff you only want to to arrive at the 2nd premise, 3rd premise...and before our time comes to an end.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      "My point is 'NOT knowing much' about God who is an Infinite/Immortal Being!"

      You are assuming God exists in the first place! LOL! That is the whole point of this article--to show that God cannot be proven to exist.

      "Zeus is just an idol to me and not even a god."

      Well, your "God" is just an idol to me and not even a god. So we're even.

      No substitution errors here. There is no proof for God, Zeus, Vishnu or any other such being. Therefore there is no reason to believe in them.

    • profile image

      eric-d-agustin 5 years ago

      M.I.S.-EXEGESIS/CONSTRUAL

      "I don't care if I do not know much about God."

      My point is 'NOT knowing much' about God who is an Infinite/Immortal Being! He is unlike any other. Unlike us, we are but finite beings. We are here today and gone the next time.

      Substitution E-R-R-O-R

      "Whether PROOFS or NON-proofs about the EXISTENCE of Zeus, there IS Zeus."

      Zeus is just an idol to me and not even a god. I will not even compare myself to him (zeus). (I hope I did not offend him/her who is a zeus-zealot.) So, why make use of this kind of substitution error?

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      "I don't care if I do not know much about God."

      Really? You don't care if you don't know much about the entity that you are supposed to worship and dedicate your whole life to? I guess you do more research before buying a pair of shoes than you do before bowing down and dedicating your entire life to an invisible being. Doesn't seem very wise to me.

      "Whether PROOFS or NON-proofs about the EXISTENCE of God, there IS God."

      I wonder if you would say the same about Zeus? Replace "God" with "Zeus" and see if it still makes sense for you:

      "Whether PROOFS or NON-proofs about the EXISTENCE of Zeus, there IS Zeus."

    • profile image

      eric-d-agustin 5 years ago

      As a Christian brother of Bro Eliseo "Eli" Soriano, I believe that we are finite human beings. I don't care if I do not know much about God. But I would rather believe God than rely on someone else "knowledge" about Him, the world and/or the universe. Whether PROOFS or NON-proofs about the EXISTENCE of God, there IS God.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Well, I wasn't upset nor am I upset. I've heard many theistic arguments before, and from theists far nastier than you. I actually found your comments tough but quite respectful. I'm sorry if I came across hostile or ad hominem, that was not my intent.

      You did introduce your education and upbringing into the discussion, so I referenced it in my response, if that is what you are talking about. I don't see where I made any personal attacks. Your arguments fail quite well on their own merit, so no personal attacks are needed on my part.

    • MilesArmbruster profile image

      MilesArmbruster 5 years ago from Somewhere on the journey

      Thank you for your response. I am sorry that I upset you so that you had to cast aspersions on my understanding to make your argument, that was not my intent. One of the reasons that I have enjoyed your hubs is that you are level headed and don't use ad hominem arguments. Mea maxima culpa.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      You misquoted me of course. The first was in reference to the general objective argument, the second was my personal belief.

      "But you have not proven that there is no God."

      That was not my intention, nor will it ever be my intention. You claim to have special knowledge of my beliefs and assumptions and perspective and whatnot, but you are actually incorrect on one of the most basic points here: that it is not about proving there is no God, it is about proving that there is no reason to believe in God.

      It is a negative exercise, not a positive one. No actual claim is being made. Only the negation of a claim. You keep missing that.

      Me sitting alone minding my own business was intended to demonstrate to you that non-belief in God is the default, and the norm of the human mind.

      You wish to believe that God can be characterized as the default belief. Well, you are free to believe whatever you want, but the fact is that if that were true, we would not have to educate children on what "God" is. Everyone would be born with knowledge of God, his specific qualities, etc. They would not need to be told what God is. This is of course not true. Everyone is born an agnostic or atheist (depending on the definition one uses), but nobody is born a theist.

      "I could easily disprove all of the "flaws" you identify in your hub by merely defining God differently. (and I do define Him differently.)"

      Then you define God differently than the standard definition. This article uses the standard definition of God. If you want to define God differently, then you have to specify that.

      "You can't prove that [leprechauns] don't exist, and nobody can prove that they do. Unless they reveal themselves..."

      Precisely. And the same can be said of God. Therefore if you believe in God, you must believe in leprechauns and an infinite number of similar hypothetical creatures. It is a logical necessity because of the rule you have established. Of course, theists prefer only to believe in THEIR magical creature, and call the rest of them "silly."

      For all your apparent education you seem to miss this basic point. That if you are to establish belief in X as the default, where X is an idea that cannot be disproven, then you must also believe EVERY SINGLE OTHER idea that cannot be disproven, which means leprechauns, Yeti, Loch Ness monster, ghosts, little green men from Mars, etc. An infinite number of things. None of these things can be disproven, and therefore by your standard must be believed. Simply because they cannot be disproven. One cannot prove a negative.

      God is a positive claim. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. But we can demonstrate there is no logical reason to believe in God.

      You say such a demonstration depends on our starting assumptions. But these starting assumptions are simply the starting assumptions of the human mind. The human mind believes in very few things as an assumption--the existence of the self, which is self-evident, and the existence of the natural world, which derives from the existence of the self. (In fact one could argue no blind faith assumptions are needed at all.) That's it. Everything else must be observed or deduced from observation. Period.

      This naturalism inherent to the human mind is something you cannot escape. Although I'm sure you will try to by claiming "you say 'to-may-to,' I say 'to-mah-to', you say naturalism is the default state, I say supernaturalism is the default state."

      But just saying that does not make it so.

    • MilesArmbruster profile image

      MilesArmbruster 5 years ago from Somewhere on the journey

      Uhhh... Oops.

      1) "Nope, I have made no assumption. I made no claim."

      2) "I assume for working purposes that God does not exist."

      Exactly my point. When you establish your "working purposes" with any assumption, you have set the ground rules that are self supporting of the argument you want. All of your statements are merely choosing a starting point. The especially ironic part is that, once again, you have merely proven my point:

      I was sitting there, enjoying my lunch. My mouth was shut. Then the non-theist came along and said, "Hey, God doesn't exist." So I pondered as I chewed, ok, let's analyze this claim. For me, I assume for working purposes that God does exist.

      And, as an aside of my own, I was raised an atheist by adamant atheists. 50 years ago they taught me all of the "flaws" that you identify in your hub. They honed my argumentation with endless references to the scholars and philosophers. (My dad had a double Ph.D. and my mother had a handful of degrees.) And still all of the arguments (on both sides) start with assumptions about the nature and meaning of language, how logic works, rhetoric, argumentation, how to handle data, the nature of knowledge and "proof" and all of them are limited by the depth of our understanding and our ability to express it in language. And yet those assumptions define the rules for the argument and determine in advance which way the argument goes. I could easily disprove all of the "flaws" you identify in your hub by merely defining God differently. (and I do define Him differently.)

      Oh... yeah, some people believe in leprechauns. If you read the endless silliness of people who are devoted to the legends of leprechauns you will find that the only people who get to see them are people who believe in them. That's a problem. You can't prove that they don't exist, and nobody can prove that they do. Unless they reveal themselves...

      One final comment on this hub. You have shown that there are reasons to not trust all of those archaic arguments for God. But you have not proven that there is no God.

      Well, anyway, I will keep reading your hubs and enjoying them. It's like re-visiting my childhood.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Nope. I have made no assumption. I made no claim. It is the theist who made the claim.

      I didn't say anything. My mouth was shut. Then the theist came along and said "hey, God exists." So I say, ok, let's analyze this claim.

      (As an aside, personally, I do not believe that God does not exist. I simply have no position on the matter. I assume for working purposes that God does not exist, just as I assume that leprechauns do not exist, or the Yeti does not exist. But any of these things may exist, technically.)

    • MilesArmbruster profile image

      MilesArmbruster 5 years ago from Somewhere on the journey

      Hey Secularist - but don't you see? You are making an assumption. Who is the "authority" that establishes your claim that non-belief is the default position. I can equally claim that belief is the default position (and many have) and then "It is the one who makes the [negative] claim (in this case, that God [doesn't] exist[s]) who is obligated to legitimate it, not the one who disbelieves the claim." All of your arguments against God start with a presupposition that makes your arguments as circular as the arguments you deny.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Thank you, Miles.

      Non-belief in a claim is the default position. So the nonexistence of God does not require the same logical legitimation that the existence of God does.

      It is the one who makes the positive claim (in this case, that God exists) who is obligated to legitimate it, not the one who disbelieves the claim.

    • MilesArmbruster profile image

      MilesArmbruster 5 years ago from Somewhere on the journey

      Good hub. I am always impressed with how much effort you put into your hubs. However, I do wonder why you put so much effort into these arguments. Anyway, I especially liked your conclusion - I am trying to decide whether the best description is to call it concise or cogent. On the other hand, it does leave me pondering how easily your statement can be turned on its head; "There has never been a reliable, logically coherent argument presented for the non-existence of God, in all of human history." For the same reason that you can't prove God's existence, you can't prove that He doesn't exist. Keep up the good work!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Kevin:

      That is one form of the Cosmological argument, not the only one.

      One problem with this version of the argument is that if "every material thing has a cause" this might simply imply an infinite regress.

      Also, does every material thing have a material/ natural cause? Or is it just "a cause" of some kind--including natural as well as supernatural causes?

      If supernatural causes are allowed, then this is a problem because there is not a single observed instance of a material thing having a supernatural cause. We can only see material causes. Therefore the arguer must assume God/ the supernatural exists: every material thing has a material cause, EXCEPT for the first one, which is God.

      So one has assumed the very thing they are trying to prove.

    • profile image

      Kevin 5 years ago

      "The flaw: If everything has a cause, then God also has a cause, because God is part of everything"

      The argument is that every material thing has a cause (or is contingent).

    • favouriteboyforev profile image

      favouriteboyforev 5 years ago from delhi

      here my mean by unknown is not the unknowable,actualy i said that by going so deep we can understand this by self-realisation but can never decribe this to others by mere talking or disscussing,this is the matter of experience,yup this is also sure i didnt experience this all,i am just talking this bcz my mind accept this,and this is may be bcz of my logical mind and my past perceptions,i just tried to understand these things by the book "beyond the himalayas" ,this is also true that i am still confused about god..but its true that i totally believe in Karma more then god .

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Elyon Knight:

      "Do you believe that Einstein's theory of relativity is accurate? Based on the absence of evidence that it is real (and based on your arguments above) we must NOT believe it to be true."

      What are you talking about? Einstein's relativity has been verified and proven countless times over the years.

      "Do you believe that you have a brain? Based on the laws of science (since we cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste your brain) we must accept that there is no evidence that you have one."

      Again, what the heck are you talking about? Not only can we open up a person's head and see and touch their brain, but we can detect it through various noninvasive tools like a CAT scan. Moreover, all of the functions of the human body are impossible without the brain, thus any living person whose body is performing these functions must have a brain.

    • GodlessHeathen profile image

      GodlessHeathen 5 years ago from Arizona

      Although you may have a partial point, I was referring to an atheist brain....we actually do lack evidence of a theists brain...

    • GodlessHeathen profile image

      GodlessHeathen 5 years ago from Arizona

      What a ridiculous argument. Yes we can see the human brain and it can be touched and if you wanted to, you could even taste it..though I don't know why you would want to. We can also prove other things like gravity and air that can't be seen as well, I have heard this nonsense before and it gets more ridiculous every time one of you repeat it. Is this the best you can do?

    • ElyonKnight profile image

      ElyonKnight 5 years ago from Sydney Australia

      Do you believe that Einstein's theory of relativity is accurate? Based on the absence of evidence that it is real (and based on your arguments above) we must NOT believe it to be true. Do you believe that you have a brain? Based on the laws of science (since we cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste your brain) we must accept that there is no evidence that you have one. Again, based on your argument above, non-belief in the existence of a brain in your head is the only position to take.

    • GodlessHeathen profile image

      GodlessHeathen 5 years ago from Arizona

      ElyonKnight

      The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

      You're right...I can't prove there are not purple cows on the moon, therefore we must hold out the possibility of this....such great logic theists have....

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Non-belief is the correct position to take until evidence is provided for the positive claim, Elyon.

    • ElyonKnight profile image

      ElyonKnight 5 years ago from Sydney Australia

      The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Some good points, Heathen. If even a small part of God is knowable, then he must entirely be knowable/ discoverable.

    • GodlessHeathen profile image

      GodlessHeathen 5 years ago from Arizona

      The Unknowable God

      Most theists will say Gods true nature is unknowable, that we can never really know what or who God is. This is actually one of the only things that I would agree with. Only things that exist can be known, if something is unknowable, it means that it does not exist.

      Let's use the example of a " ". What is a " " you will probably ask? Good question, because I have actually said nothing, which would be the only thing that could possibly be unknowable. Once you name something or give it characteristics it becomes knowable. The fact that a theist gives this mystical creature a name "God" and then tries to describe it automatically makes it knowable because if something can be described it can be known.

      So in reality if "God" is unknowable it means he does not exist, so when someone moves their lips and utters this strange sound known as "God" it is as if they have said nothing at all, much like " " would be...I have said nothing.

      So either God is knowable, or God does not exist.

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Hi Favorite Boy,

      Well, you contradict yourself because if God is unknowable, then how can you say any of the things you have said about him?

      Your more intellectually humble approach is certainly more coherent and makes more sense than the traditional Abrahamic approach to God, because you claim fewer things about God and you claim less knowledge about something so profound and mysterious. But it is still lacking, because you still cannot get past the basic unknowable nature of God, as defined.

      Try to divide a finite number by infinity, and then tell me how a finite entity can begin to understand even a small part of an infinite one.

    • favouriteboyforev profile image

      favouriteboyforev 5 years ago from delhi

      god beyonds every arguments,every logic,

      god is unseen and unknown,which is known and unsee is not god

      god has no face,no shape,no religon,no name,

      god is not a creator not a destroyer,

      the whole universe is one we are the god and god is in us,we cant seprated us from god,here is nothing like part,bcz everything is connected to eachother whatever that is,

      by talking,by reading,or by listning intlectual talks we can never know about god,we just can get the idea of god and that is not god,

      this is the final truth which we cant get from outside,for this we have to go inside deep,and that will tell us what the human body and soul(energy) is and that will lead us to the truth(final and extrem truth)and after that nothing will be remain for know,thats called (self-realisation)and self-realised people(like buddha,christ,shiva)never fallows any relagion,not believe in any god,they never does worship

      so what is god..is everything and is nothing in same type

      and we believes what we want to believe and what we want to believe depends on our percepetion and belif,and our perception and belief creats by our surrouding and learnings,these things makes our mental conditioning and with any mental conditioning we cant know the truth,bcz then what we will know will be the reflection of our mental conditioning our mental formulation...thank you

    • GodlessHeathen profile image

      GodlessHeathen 5 years ago from Arizona

      Great Hub, I also have a Hub on this subject:

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/IsGodJust...

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      Thanks, Rah. I appreciate it :)

    • Rah128 profile image

      Rah128 5 years ago from Southampton

      Hi Secularist,

      By far one of the best hubs i have enjoyed reading in a long time.

      Love it an voted up.

      Rah :)

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 6 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      "Haha, whoa! Not so fast there, my friend. They are 3 different religions, not one." - Judaism, Christianity and Islam are indeed one and the same, as I see them anyway. It's like three men dressed differently and who like to eat different things - they're still all men ... and quite alike.

      "But everybody knows what the mainstream popular conception of God is." - I don't. I'm a pagan and I am not sure what mainstream is or what mainstream thinks.

      "But other pantheists assert that nature has a spiritual/ supernatural quality, which is an unprovable proposition." - This can be proven through Magic, in my opinion but even if one can show you the power of Magic, you may just think that you were tripping-out and not believe it so what would be the point?

      "So yes, of course Islam is closer to Christianity than it is to, say, Buddhism, because both Christianity and Islam are part of the Abrahamic tradition. But for the most part academics classify them as two different religions nonetheless, which seems very reasonable." - If you look at how we classify species of animals, sub-species, classes, orders, sub-orders, etc., many animals may seem different when indeed they are very much alike. Same with Judaism, Christianity and Islam - they are basically one and the same. Otherwise we can say that Orthodox Christians are different that Catholics ... only their egos suggest to them that they are different.

      "My cat created the world and human beings." Really? Can I meet your cat? (Too bad you cannot see my grin right now rofl!)

      "I am working more with common, colloquial and more-or-less universal definitions of these things." - I do not know what "common" is or "normal" - These concepts do not exist for me - they are meaningless. Why? Because my Spirit is thousands of years old and I see things a little differently.

      "There has never been a reliable, logically coherent argument presented for the existence of God, in all of human history." - Ask your Spirit about it (the existence of God). Or ask Death about it - anyone can do that and at any point in our human history. Your Spirit and Death can answer your dilemma.

      I enjoyed your blog and I certainly enjoyed you discussion with Mr. O'Brian. I do think it is the discussion that is most important and not who is right or wrong. As Nietzsche would like us to say, we are beyond good and bad.

      Cheers. May Wakan Tanka guide your path!

    • secularist10 profile image
      Author

      secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

      Editing: I also just realized that in my response to Robephiles I went from "thirdly" to "fifthly." The last paragraph should have begun with "fourthly."