How to go about proving God's existence or nonexistence? And what would be your starting definition of God?

Question

I see a lot of bickering about whether God does or doesn't exist, but what I don't see is someone who treats the problem in a manner that bespeaks a rational experimental setup, if only in the realm of philosophical or thought experiment. My question is : what criteria does an entity or phenomenon have to satisfy in order to qualify as being "God," and what criteria eliminates a being or entity as being "God?" I am interested in method more than ideology and how one could possibly go about taking the FIRST STEPS in tackling the sticky problem of "does God exist?" I'd be interested to hear from people with widely varying viewpoints and religious or philosophical beliefs, as long as the answers are reasonable and not based solely on emotional appeal or exclusionary religious dogma. Thanks for your answers!

I started to formulate this question when considering the teleological argument of complexity being equated with the necessity of a Creator, as if complex systems required some Manlike agency to come into being. This bespoke a projective tendency of Mankind to attribute natural phenomena to a deity that they could identify with; I wondered how to step outside such a limitation, i.e., how to step outside of my position in the middle of the complexity in order to apprehend its nature and what is "God" about it...

To piegie314: I was actually referring to the Yahoo! Answers community and was simply seeking opinions from this substratum of thinkers, but yes, I'm sure there's lots of information to be found!

Answer 1

Firstly, I think your question rocks.

Though I'd have to say it is currently impossible to prove or disprove god's existence, and that even attempting to do so would need LOTS of space, I'd love to play.

I'd start by defining a Frame of Reference (Let's just strip that down to FOR, shall we?). The logical one would be, "The Universe", since that's as big and complex as we've managed to get.

From a classical viewpoint, the criteria for god would be:

1) God can be defined as an all-powerful being. This would mean that this being has direct, manipulable access to all aspects of the defined FOR.

2) God can be defined as the creator of everything within the frame of reference, and the frame of reference itself. Classically, that would mean that god stands outside the FOR.

3) God can be defined as omniscient and omnipresent within the FOR. God is aware of every event that occurs.

Now, before you try to prove that a being with all these attributes does exist, you would have to try and prove that a being of this nature could exist for the given frame of reference.

Starting with
(1) can a being exist that has direct access to the FOR? ...

(2) Can a being have created the FOR? ...

(3) Can a being be aware of EVERYTHING that happesn within the FOR? ...

Disproving those would pretty much deep-six the case for god. Assuming you managed to prove all those things as possible then, you would have to try and prove that the Frame of Reference could not exist or have come into existence WITHOUT those criteria being fulfilled if you were trying to prove the existence.

I'm not gonna even TRY and do it here though: this is something people have spent their entire lives contemplating, and I'm a midget amongst giants when it comes to philosophy. This is the structure I'd try first though.

PS. You'll have noticed that I keep saying "From a classical viewpoint" Most philosophy and philosophical discussion relies on a mechanistic view of the world to function. But with Quantum Physics, and now String Theory, the Holographic Paradigm et al, we're finding levels of reality where common sense just does not hold. Things travel backward in time, wink into and out of existence, cause their own creation, etc. I think classical philosophy has reached the limits of its usefulness, which is WHY nobody seems to be able to debate instead of fight anymore. Until we factor in these reality shifts our understanding of "creation" is undergoing, we're falling about in the dark, quite frankly.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Hmm...if you haven't found any rational discussion on the existence of god, you may be checking the wrong sources. There is a vast history of philosophers arguing on this very point.

The most common argument is the argument from First Cause: If the universe had a beginning, and it couldn't have created itself, then there must be something outside of the universe that created it. We call this creator "god."

The atheist's reply to this was that the universe did not necessarily have a beginning. Years later, when the big bang theory was created (by Father Lemaitre, a french priest) it was proved that the universe had a beginning, and thus there must be a creator. Unfortunately, Christians later rejected the big bang as blasphemy, deliberately throwing out a major point in their favour. Atheists have since ignored the First Cause argument.

Do some more research into philosophical proofs for god, and you'll find a lot more.

Answer 4

"If the definition of what God is changes every time a successful counterargument is raised then a concrete idea of god is non-existent." We think in concrete ideas even of the abstract. This is how we were designed. The created is not on par with the Creator. No matter how hard we try we will not settle on a concrete definition of God. Empirical evidence would eliminate the requirement of faith. It is by plan. That is not what I said at all. Perhaps read again. God requires we come to Him in faith. "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourself. It is a gift of God." In the face of empirical evidence there would be no saving faith. There would be no reward for it for absolute proof would be evident. It pleases me you see me as a fool. Then, for the sake of my own ability to defend my beliefs, why don't you give me a difinition of my God? I have already said I can not define Him within the parameters/restrictions you have set forth. Define this thing you say can not exist and explain to me once again how this existence is not possible. Please, keep this definition within the scope of your own rules. I will most likely readily agree that within those confines He can not exist. I maintain that God transcends your reasoning ability.

Answer 5

It would seem that there are only a few ways to resolve this question definitvely.

The easiest would be for God to step in and prove his own existence in a way that was undeniable by all humans.

Another way would be to demonstrate that our universe and its physical laws could not in any way be self generagting AND that our universe is not a component of some unobservable multi-verse. (Demonstrating both of these in a way that is conclusive seems unlkely).

On the flip side, there is probably no way to prove the non-existence of god.

Answer 6

you go about this by 1. giving up your logic and scientific reasoning--what you don't see, you believe, what you do see, you call nonsense. 2. you use the word 'prove' when talking about the existence of god, but you cannot prove it other than by quoting a book written some time after the stone age, and use this book, which is self-serving, to 'prove' that which is unproveable.

Answer 7

If I am correct, this quote by Professor James E. Talmage explains well the reasoning for a God that you are trying to avoid:

“The observer is impressed by the manifest order and system in creation; he notes the regular succession of day and night providing alternate periods of work and rest for man, animals, and plants; the sequence of the seasons, each with its longer periods of activity and recuperation; the mutual dependence of animals and plants; the circulation of water from sea to cloud, from cloud to earth again, with beneficent effect. As man proceeds to the closer examination of things he finds that by study and scientific investigation these proofs are multiplied many fold. He may learn of the laws by which the earth and its associated worlds are governed in their orbits; by which satellites are held subordinate to planets, and planets to suns; he may behold the marvels of vegetable and animal anatomy, and the surpassing mechanism of his own body; and with such appeals to his reason increasing at every step, his wonder as to who ordained all this gives place to adoration for the Creator whose presence and power are thus so forcefully proclaimed; and the observer becomes a worshiper.”

So with this in mind, I believe that one of the best ways you can find proof of the existance of God is simply by asking Him. Now I know that to many this may sound like a childish argument that could not possibly work, but I will go so far as to say that all scripture states that we are "children of God" and so with this Heavenly Father we have been given a way to communicate with Him: Prayer.

Many will argue that prayer is pointless because God already knows what you are doing and what you will do and what is going to happen, but imagine that you are a parent with a child who is away. Even if you know what they are doing and what has happened and what will happen, you would still love them and would like to have them call you and tell you all about it themselves.

Another point is that God doesn't just give us blessings without us being obedient to some sort of Law. That would be against His entire existance to give us something for no reason at all. If we disobey a certain law, we cannot have certain blessings from Him. Therefore, when we obey His command to pray to Him, we are given the blessings that pertain to that command. Also, as the scriptures say: "ask and ye shall recieve, knock and it shall be opened unto you, " what happenes if we do not ask? We will not recieve. This implies that God is waiting with blessings to give us, when all we need to do is ask.

So, after this explanation, I would challenge you to pray to your Heavenly Father and ask Him to let himself be known unto you and after asking that, close your prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. I know that if you do this you will be answered, maybe not right away, but be patient and you will be given a knowledge that God exists.

Answer 8

You can't prove something does not exist. You say something is truly absurd, but there is no way to prove a negative.

You can work on proving one does exist, but no one else has been able to prove it since the beginning of time, so good luck with that.

Answer 9

It is the exact same process as any claim of existence. Religions have manged to pull the big con in that they make claims that are somehow 'special'. They are not, evaluate god as you would unicorns, fairies or any other claim of existence, look for the evidence.

Answer 10

It exists in the minds of those who choose to believe in such notions.

If you're looking for tangible physical evidence - forget it. There is none.