Simple, logical arguments to prove the existence of God

[crayon]

Ok so.. do we really need background information on this? Don't think so..

So first of all, can the existence of God (any God, no Islam talk yet) or any higher power be logically proven? [I think the problem is that people differ on the definition of 'proof', which causes each side to think they have won the argument, getting us nowhere]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

What are some simple, logical arguments that support the existence of God/a higher power?

No "Quranic scientific miracle" talk please. And preferably nothing related to Islam either- just the existence of God in general.

It would be much appreciated, jazakum Allah khair. The sooner the better.

 

[Uthman]

:salamext:

That this universe has been created by an intelligent being isn't as irrational a position as many atheists and agnostics would have you believe. It is possible to, at most prove, and at least make a very strong case for the existence of a creator through the use of logical arguments.

Some of the arguments include:

- The argument from objective morality
- Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe
- The cosmological argument (there is also a slight variation known as the Kalam Cosmological argument).
- The ontological argument

I'll present the outline of them here but I won't substantiate them at this point because I don't have time. If you want me to explain some of them in further detail, let me know. Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and Adam Deen have written some excellent articles explaining some of these on their blogs which can be found here and here. I highly recommend reading them.

The argument from Objective Morality

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.

Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life can be due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Ontological argument

This argument takes a very unique approach by basically saying that God exists by definition. It can be quite hard to get your head around it at first but when you ponder on it, it does make some sort of sense. I'm paraphrasing from what I remember here:

1. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable entity that could possibly exist
2. If God only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a God is not the greatest conceivable entity (because a greater entity would be a God that exists in reality)
3. Therefore God, by definition, exists in reality.

Needless to say, the ontological argument hasn't converted any atheists to theism (as far as I'm aware).

Generally, the approach of Western philosophy to proving the existence of a creator has been such that the arguments are not easily understandable to the layman. The arguments can be extremely complicated and they don't tend to prove a great deal. Furthermore, some of the arguments have negative ramifications about God himself which isn't acceptable for us as Muslims.

Of course, it isn't necessary to construct complicated theorems to prove the existence of a creator and the Islamic approach to proving the existence of God is a testament to this. The Islamic approach does not suffer from the deficiencies of the traditional Western approach (as outlined above). Maybe we could discuss Islamic methods next.

 

[crayon]

^Perfect, exactly what I was looking for. Jazak Allah so much khair. I'll probably look more into those arguments you mentioned, particularly in the blog posts, so unless I have any specific questions, you don't need to explain any of them further.

"Maybe we could discuss Islamic methods next."

That would be brilliant.

 

[CosmicPathos]

I was reading an argument from design regarding the distance between the Earth and the moon. If we bring the moon close to Earth now as it probably was in the past because the Moon was created from the Earth and moved away into its own orbit, chaos will ensue on Earth. Life would vanish.

The atheists counter-argue that of course chaos will ensue. But that is because we are damaging an already established system. The system could have evolved differently, lets say if the moon was closer to Earth than it is now, if life were to emerge, it could have in an entirely new set of conditions where Earth's day would be 7 hours long (due to nearness of moon to Earth, Earth's rotation speed would increased) etc. So the assumption in this case is that life "could have" emerged in a totally different set of settings. And that is how we can explain the crazy impetus behind the search for life in the extra-solar planets found so far so that it can be proven that life can emerge in totally non-Earth like setting. What implications it has for God? It could show that life is not unique after all and hence God-explanation is not needed.

 

[noorseeker]

For a human being to exist , we need air to exist, hence we need trees to exist, hence we need water and sunlight, hence we need the sun to exist, hence we need the universe to exist.

So looking at it the way i put it above, or you can find other examples,
Its hard to believe everything was created by chance, if one of those examples was missing from the chain, we wouldnt be here.


Imagine a world with no animals or humans, ask yourself this, would their still be trees bearing fruits, and the lands bearing vegetables.

 

[CosmicPathos]

For a human being to exist , we need air to exist, hence we need trees to exist, hence we need water and sunlight, hence we need the sun to exist, hence we need the universe to exist.

So looking at it the way i put it above, or you can find other examples,
Its hard to believe everything was created by chance, if one of those examples was missing from the chain, we wouldnt be here.


Imagine a world with no animals or humans, ask yourself this, would their still be trees bearing fruits, and the lands bearing vegetables.

There could be, an atheist would say, as life could have taken different forms.

 

[noorseeker]

it could take different forms, but life needs things to sustain it

 

[Trumble]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

Not so far, although it can't be logically disproven either. Still, people have only been trying for the last two thousand years or so, so it might be a bit early to give up! Uthman has summarized the arguments nicely, although they all have responses - and if you actually intend to present any of those arguments yourself I strongly recommend that you become aquainted with those as well or else you will get 'shot down' pretty much instantly by any passing philosophically minded atheist. And there are responses to the responses, and responses to the responses to... and so on, and so on, just as with the principal 'classical' argument for atheism, the 'problem of evil'.

Probably just as well, think of all the philosophers of religion who would be out of a job if such a logical proof DID come along. :statisfie

 

[tango92]

for me the simplest proof was, God exists because he told us so.

as far as i know all human civilisations had there god/s who they worshipped. even if the peoples had thought up God as some kind of concept they wouldnt have started worshipping him for no reason.

furthermore we are lucky in this time and age to have high historical knowledge. we know that there have been many (an atheist would say "self proclaimed") prophets of God.
now see a person doesnt just wake up one day and decide "im going to invent a new religion which just so happens to share the same values as the religions before me even though i dont know of all the other world religions" . and have that religion acepted by their people without some kind of truth behind it.

 

[titus]

im going to invent a new religion which just so happens to share the same values as the religions before me even though i dont know of all the other world religions

If you are referring to your Prophet, he was quite familiar with Christianity, Judaism and pagan religions.

 

[Uthman]

Regarding Islamic methods:

If you look through the Qur'an, you might notice that it doesn't spend a great deal of time addressing people who don't believe in the existence of God. Sheikh Yasir Qadhi calls this "the Qur'anic methodology for dealing with atheism." The Qur'an, Sheikh Yasir says, assumes the existence of God to be an indisputable, self-evident given. When the Qur'an does address atheists though, it's arguments are extremely powerful. There was an excellent Al-Maghrib seminar on 'Aqeedah which he gave where he spent some time talking about this but I can't find that online so the following video will do to summarise the Islamic approach:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz1IrqgDhjI&feature=PlayList&p=853352FD6E438A94&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=59[/media]

He talks about such things the creation itself as a proof and the Fitrah amongst other things.


I also want to talk a little about the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. This is very useful for us as Muslims because it proves the following two things:

- That God exists
- That the Qur'an is a revelation from Allah

Historically, it was only the second point that really mattered but, in the modern world, atheism has risen to unprecedented levels so we can also now use the Qur'an to prove the existence of God.

But how is the Qur'an a miracle? Again, I'll have to very briefly skim over it but perhaps other members who have studied this topic will have time to explain it in detail.

There are several aspects to the miraculous nature of the Qur'an but primarily it is a literary miracle. Hamza Tzortzis made an excellent website dedicated to explaining the literary aspect (and the objective nature thereof) of the Qur'an's miraculous nature which can be found here. There are a variety of pdf documents on the website which you can access by clicking 'view' under each category. He has also written extensively about it on his blog (which I linked to previously).

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi also has a chapter in his book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an about the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. If you haven't read this book, it's definitely worth purchasing. In it, he talks about the literary aspect as well as other aspects such as prophecies (which are clear and specific) and the fact that the Qur'an contains information about previous nations which Prophet Muhammad saws had no recourse to. And yes, there can be no denying that Qur'an as a scientific miracle is one such aspect as well.

Finally, Abdur Raheem Green spends some time talking about this in his series The Proof that Islam is the truth which can be found online here.

I urge all Muslims to study this topic because unfortunately it is all too common for Muslims these days to be ignorant of it which means that they have to base their belief in Islam on faith alone which is shaky. Studying the miraculous nature of the Qur'an allows us to base our belief in Islam on proof which is a much more solid foundation.
​

 

[Lynx]

Ok so.. do we really need background information on this? Don't think so..

So first of all, can the existence of God (any God, no Islam talk yet) or any higher power be logically proven? [I think the problem is that people differ on the definition of 'proof', which causes each side to think they have won the argument, getting us nowhere]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

What are some simple, logical arguments that support the existence of God/a higher power?

No "Quranic scientific miracle" talk please. And preferably nothing related to Islam either- just the existence of God in general.

It would be much appreciated, jazakum Allah khair. The sooner the better.

Well there are attempts to prove God logically. When you say logical proof then you are talking about a specific definition where the conclusion follows necessarily from true premises/set of assumptions. Uthman outlined the basic ones but remember that each argument has tons of variants.

I should point out though that most philosophers have rejected all arguments so far so you should look up the counters to every argument.

http://plato.stanford.edu/
You can search up each proof in this site and you'll get a history of all the variants and counter-arguments.

and Uthman is quite right in pointing out that accepting some of the arguments would involve severely changing one's definition of God as found in a particular religion, especially Islam.

 

[Skavau]

The argument from Objective Morality

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.

Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life can be due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Concerning #1: We have to believe that the universe is 'fine-tuned'. Our existence does not necessitate that it must be. For every single human alive, there is a failed species.

#2 and #3 invoke a false dichotomy. Even if our existence is not due to 'physical necessity' or chance, it does not necessitate a designer much less a designer invoked to be a God of sorts.

The Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.

The Ontological argument

This argument takes a very unique approach by basically saying that God exists by definition. It can be quite hard to get your head around it at first but when you ponder on it, it does make some sort of sense. I'm paraphrasing from what I remember here:

1. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable entity that could possibly exist
2. If God only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a God is not the greatest conceivable entity (because a greater entity would be a God that exists in reality)
3. Therefore God, by definition, exists in reality.

The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

 

[tango92]

If you are referring to your Prophet, he was quite familiar with Christianity, Judaism and pagan religions.

did you know him personally? and im not here talking about islam anyway.

all religions arent confined to these 4. do some research on the original teachings on all the religions of the world. the simliarities can be remarkable.

this is despite the "inventors" being far apart in terms of time and distance. and repeating my earlier point, people cant be bullied into accepting a new religion. there is always major adversity when change is imposed suddenly on people. the "inventors" (prophets) of the religions must have had something substantial to show there people in order for there whole religion to be accepted.

 

[tango92]

.


The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

this can only work for god, due to the definition of greatest. it mean greatest in every respect.

an infinitely tall person can exist both in the real world and in the mind. neither is taller than the other.
but as for an imaginary god and a real god, the real god is greater in power.

 

[Skavau]

this can only work for god, due to the definition of greatest. it mean greatest in every respect.

This is an arbitrary distinction.

an infinitely tall person can exist both in the real world and in the mind. neither is taller than the other.
but as for an imaginary god and a real god, the real god is greater in power.

All the Ontological Argument does, is at best state the obvious. Something is greater if it exists in reality. It fails to substantiate the claim that conceiving of the greatest thing possible (something which we have no real objective basis to claim) means that it must exist.

 

[CosmicPathos]

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.


Concerning #1: We have to believe that the universe is 'fine-tuned'. Our existence does not necessitate that it must be. For every single human alive, there is a failed species.

#2 and #3 invoke a false dichotomy. Even if our existence is not due to 'physical necessity' or chance, it does not necessitate a designer much less a designer invoked to be a God of sorts.


Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.


The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

There are three independent evidences which prove that Universe (matter and time) came into being and that Big Bang explosion is a reality.

1- Cosmic background radiation: the remnant of such an explosion. It can be readily measured. The average temperature of universe is 3K.
2- Red-shift, galaxies are moving away from each other, universe is expanding, by extension, universe started expanding from something.
3- The presence of heavy elements. Within the 3 minutes after Big Bang, we had only 3-4 elements present namely H, He, Li and trace Be. Heavy elements have emerged within stars. Universe is approx 75% hydrogen and 25% He. Everything else is trace.

It is your speculation that universe, as we know it, is eternal. Universe is not eternal. Unless you call the pre-Big Bang ball of infinite matter and density "universe" too. I have not come across any scientist who calls that state before the Big bang a universe.

Since time did not exist before Big Bang, you cannot say that this ball was present eternally. If you do then its your assumption that time existed before Big Bang occurred. Such a ludicrous assumption is a product of chronically-ill and deluded mind.

 

[tango92]

This is an arbitrary distinction.


All the Ontological Argument does, is at best state the obvious. Something is greater if it exists in reality. It fails to substantiate the claim that conceiving of the greatest thing possible (something which we have no real objective basis to claim) means that it must exist.

not arbitrary as were talking about God as per the definition we apply to him as greatest at everything.

yes something is greater if it exists in reality but something is not taller if it exists in reality. eg i imagine a ruler which is 30 cm long, and i buy a ruler 30cm long. they are both 30cm long. therefore the argument only works with god. i dunno maybe there is another adjective for which it works?

 

[Skavau]

not arbitrary as were talking about God as per the definition we apply to him as greatest at everything.

The application of the ontological argument is selective. Any concept is greater if it exists in reality. That was what I meant by 'arbitrary'.

yes something is greater if it exists in reality but something is not taller if it exists in reality. eg i imagine a ruler which is 30 cm long, and i buy a ruler 30cm long. they are both 30cm long. therefore the argument only works with god. i dunno maybe there is another adjective for which it works?

Yes, it is taller if it exists in reality. Just as the ontological argument claims that God can only be validly claimed as the 'greatest' if he actually exists. A proposed idea of an 30 foot individual can only be considered the tallest person if he or she actually exists.

The Ontological Argument correctly points out, that yes, for God to be considered the 'greatest being' (a subjective criteria) he must actually exist. The argument however forgoes the natural response that an atheist could make is that our concepts of a God are in error.

 

[VizierX]

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.

Not really. There is very good reason to think objective values exist. Even you stubbornly behave like objective moral values exist despite your natural atheism (eg. liberty, freedom of thought etc.).