Simple, logical arguments to prove the existence of God

[Trumble]

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.).

There is also very good reason to suggest otherwise on the grounds simply that people tend to generally obey certain moral codes as doing so is in society's best interests and hence, ultimately in their own. God isn't required, reason alone will do. Which you may well not accept, of course, but there is no need for the atheist to claim that "#2 is a claim made without evidence", merely that it is made without sufficient evidence, and that there are one or more plausible alternatives. Actually, even 'plausible' isn't strictly necessary if we are talking about a logical proof.. it is merely sufficient to show there are logically possible alternatives.

BTW, since when has 'liberty' been a potentially 'objective' moral value'? I would have thought liberty was about as relative as you can get; a great many people have advocated liberty while having wildly different views about what it actually is!

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

As we are talking logic you are doing what is known as 'begging the question'; your 'proof' that God exists requires that you assume He does before you start!

 

[Skavau]

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.).

But you reject moral reasoning. You've said so yourself to me.

But irrespectively, you are claiming that there is good reason to believe objective values exist. Please show how.

 

[Skavau]

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

I'm not denying the Big Bang.

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.

If you type 'pre-big bang universe' into google, you will find 130,000 search results. There has been a lot of speculation on what was prior to the big bang universe. Much of it is simply speculation and a lot of it fits more into philosophy than it does scientists - but nonetheless, there are lots of people out there that don't just claim there was an absence of existence prior to the Big Bang.

I will expand further here by asking you: Do you think that something eternal must always have existed? As in, was it possible for there to have been absolutely nothing prior to something existing?

 

[Froggy]

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.).

You are correct, certain values, such as being free may exist in every or almost every individual. That however doesn't necessarily mean such values are universal, an independent metaphisical entity or something. Perhaps people value freedom because it's in their instinct. Every higher animal values life, it will try to avoid getting eaten, humans are the same, just more complex, so it includes free thought and being stolen from.
On the other hand, the majority of humans appear to posses certain universal values animals do not, like most people will feel bad when they see a murder, even if they have never met the person. That's empathy, which is a natural state of the human mind and again, certain universal values do not mean they're actually universal.
And as trumble said, most morals is aquired through socail upbringing, even those morals derive from what I talked about above, it comes from us being humans and the weay we are and function.
That's an assumption of course.

 

[Musliman]

Personally speaking, only the progressions that science has made are quite convincing

 

[waqas maqsood]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

 

[aamirsaab]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

That's not what they argue actually.

 

[Supreme]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

It's not because God can't be seen- it's that objective evidence for Him can't be found. Air (and obviously, oxygen), can be measured, and they can easily be proven to be true- deprive something of air, you won't be able to hear soundwaves. Deprive a human of oxygen, they will not be able to breath. God is much harder to prove.

Now, scientific evidence is off the cards for God. Evidence for God can be, and indeed is, entirely subjective. If it wasn't, we would either all be theists or all be atheists. I do not believe in God because I expect His Holy name to pop up in a High School science Textbook in the next few years as opposed to the Big Bang or evolution. I believe in Him because I have found my own evidence for His existence, subjective, although thoroughly convincing.

 

[zana]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

 

[Skavau]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

That would be anti-theists...

Anyway, I can assure you I don't believe in a God.

 

[zana]

I meant that some people rather not believe in God the fact that a higher power watches over them and that they will face judgement one day, it may seem easier not to believe.

 

[barney]

Short answer. No.

If God could be proved to exist , we would all beleive, not need faith and all of us would be spared from the fire.

As it is God is invisible , unknowable, untouchable and when we ask for some sign, it dosnt happen. Our prayers are answered randomly according to the likelyhood of chance, the mighty miracles of legend dont happen anymore in an age of global communication.
The morals of scripture have been far surpassed by mankind many many years ago.
God would need a bigger god to create him.
The list of reasons why he is imaginary is almost endless. the list of reasons why we should hope that he is is Likewise.

 

[Uthman]

I noticed a few people saying that, if there was proof of God's existence, we would all be theists. I also used to propagate this idea but there is a fundamental flaw in this view: it incorrectly assumes that, if there were proof of God's existence, everybody would be aware of the proof.

 

[barney]

I noticed a few people saying that, if there was proof of God's existence, we would all be theists. I also used to propagate this idea but there is a fundamental flaw in this view: it incorrectly assumes that, if there were proof of God's existence, everybody would be aware of the proof.

Not an issue. If god wanted to be proven, he could prove himself every day. Five thousand mile high letters of fire in the sky, instantly killing all Kaffir, painting the moon green or splitting it.

The reason he dosnt is either he dosnt want to prove himself, thus leaving the possibility of faith, or he dosnt exist at all.

 

[Skavau]

I meant that some people rather not believe in God the fact that a higher power watches over them and that they will face judgement one day, it may seem easier not to believe.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. It is often implied by many theists that some people just aren't committed enough to changing their life to appease God. That they value their own self-interest too much. That they find much more comfort in the hedonistic pleasures of this life.

But this does not make sense. For someone who values their own self-interest above everything else, believing in a theistic rendition of God would make much more sense than not due to the material benefits promised in the afterlife. That is to say that the potential for gain for a hedonist is much greater in an afterlife than it is on earth.

 

[Ramadhan]

That would be anti-theists...

Anyway, I can assure you I don't believe in a God.

so you don't believe that the universe may have been created by a infinite intelligent being?

Frankly, I just think atheists are allergic to the word "god".

 

[CosmicPathos]

Short answer. No.

If God could be proved to exist , we would all beleive, not need faith and all of us would be spared from the fire.

As it is God is invisible , unknowable, untouchable and when we ask for some sign, it dosnt happen. Our prayers are answered randomly according to the likelyhood of chance, the mighty miracles of legend dont happen anymore in an age of global communication.
The morals of scripture have been far surpassed by mankind many many years ago.
God would need a bigger god to create him.
The list of reasons why he is imaginary is almost endless. the list of reasons why we should hope that he is is Likewise.

You would come up with godless naturalistic explanations for those occurrences too.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

If it could be proved by logic you wouldn't need faith. It can not be proved by mere logic. Perhaps by logic given a certain set of assumptions (usually leading to a circular argument of one sort or another).

 

[Pygoscelis]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

You run into this idea every now and then on these boards and I can understand where it comes from. I used to believe the opposite (for many years), that nobody truly believes in a God and that people just pretend to for the communal feelings and cultural norms. Only later did I realize people actually *DO* believe in these Gods. It scared me a little when I realized this.

I still believe a LOT, perhaps even the majority of god believers are not so sure in their beleifs. I sometimes like to test some of them. For example find somebody who believes that the end of the world is nigh, and "knows" that the rapture will come by such and such a date. Offer them $500 today for them to deed you all their stuff after that so called end of the world date they believe in so strongly. If the date is true, it'd be foolish of them not to agree. But they won't... because they don't actually truly believe what they claim to.

There is a funny group of folks who go around offering these people pet insurance, saying they'll rescue and care for their pets after they are raptured for $x today. Another great idea. Don't they want their pets cared for? Yet, suprise!, nobody goes for it. Because they are only pretending to believe.

 

[CosmicPathos]

You run into this idea every now and then on these boards and I can understand where it comes from. I used to believe the opposite (for many years), that nobody truly believes in a God and that people just pretend to for the communal feelings and cultural norms. Only later did I realize people actually *DO* believe in these Gods. It scared me a little when I realized this.

I still believe a LOT, perhaps even the majority of god believers are not so sure in their beleifs. I sometimes like to test some of them. For example find somebody who believes that the end of the world is nigh, and "knows" that the rapture will come by such and such a date. Offer them $500 today for them to deed you all their stuff after that so called end of the world date they believe in so strongly. If the date is true, it'd be foolish of them not to agree. But they won't... because they don't actually truly believe what they claim to.

There is a funny group of folks who go around offering these people pet insurance, saying they'll rescue and care for their pets after they are raptured for $x today. Another great idea. Don't they want their pets cared for? Yet, suprise!, nobody goes for it. Because they are only pretending to believe.

A nice little nifty experiment. I am afraid it does not apply to Muslims though unless someone is lying. Lying would automatically make his position of being a Muslim weak (from Islamic perspective). So your experiment on a Muslim, who is lying, would not represent the behaviors of "real" Muslims.