How is existence proof of God's existence?

Question

I often hear that everything is proof of God. Is this the First Cause argument?

Clear V, this is no attack...Justa question of the thought process behind these comments.

Answer 1

It is not. One then could argue that existence is proof of 6 foot invisible rabbits, that makes about as much sense.

Personally I believe everything is ultimately mathematics, and that ultimately nothing is really created. I believe Causality and Time are in some sense illusions resulting from consciousness (observing systems) extremizing Fisher Information within a neo-platonic variation of the "Many Minds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Frieden/Fisher_Information.htm

However I would never argue that "Existence is proof of my beliefs", that would be arrogant and absurd without being able to prove all other explainations are impossible. The Christians who make these absurd claims have never even heard of other explainations let alone be able to prove them false. Most of them do not even know what a proof is.

Furthermore they do not even consider the absurd consequences of their own claims. They argue a bacteria is too complex to just exist or form on its own yet swallow an infinitely complex god doing so without even gulping. They further invent strawman arguments using words such as random when they obviously do not even know what the words mean.

Typically they make false strawman arguments, dishonestly assuming other explainations for existence must say something they do not. For example

"Nothing comes from nothing". Did anyone ever claim reality came from nothing? Certainly not me, I believe reality is mathematics which is certainly not nothing.

"Complex organisms do not just randomly occur." Whoever said reality was random. We know in fact it is not. We observe non-random physical laws. If reality was random when you dropped a stone it would just as likely fall up as fall down. It obviously doesn't.

Answer 2

It is the uncaused cause argument, and the Neo-Platonists who made this argument knew full well as they made it that they were engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading, positing that existence requires creation but creating a special exception for their own hobby horse, the Israelite god.

The conclusion the Universe had a beginning and will have an end came out of the limits of human perception that caused pre-scientific humanity to mistake changes in state and structure with beginning and ending in an absolute sense. We now know that isn't ever the case. Nothing is created ex nihilo or annihilated in an absolute sense ever, so we have no grounds to impose that mistaken notion of reality on the cosmos in order to pimp a specific Canaanite mountain god and a particular mythology.

Answer 3

It is a variant of the first cause argument. It comes out of the classical world view and is very anthropocentric. Even if there is a God, it does not follow that it made the Universe simply for our existence. If there is a God, for example, the deist God, there is no evidence it would even know or care that humans exist. We are just a natural by product of the system. So anything we do is by definition, all natural. Things like tables are just artifacts of a natural process for which we are the catalyst.

Answer 4

I don't know about First Cause, but Intelligent Design addresses this issue.

Intelligent Design is based on the premise that the universe as constituted is unlikely, in the sense that a book is unlikely. A book implies an author; for a book to have assembled itself at random is so unlikely as to be ridiculous. In that sense, the book iteslf can be called "unlikely," and its very unlikeliness implies intelligent design, i.e., an author. Proponents of intelligent design, if basing their argument on logical grounds, must first establish that the universe as constituted is so unikely as to be ridiculous. If this is argued convincingly, then existence is proof of a Creator's existence (not necessarily the Biblical god).

Myself, I would hate to base my faith on such a flimsy premise. I doubt the universe as constitued is unlikely--I suspect it only seems so due to our limited scientific awareness. I would wager that continued accumulation of knowledge will make the universe seem more and more likely. In which case, were my faith based on unlikeliness, I'd be screwed.

Answer 5

Well, I think that the world around us, in its natural state, is at least proof of intelligent design. When the solar system and an atom have the same design...when you look at the symmetry of a spider's web...when you look at the amount of order that's in our universe, I come to the conclusion that there was some intelligent design. Some may argue with me, and they're entitled to their opinions. I'm merely rendering my own.

You won't find me shoving my opinion down anyone else's throat. You asked a question respectfully, and I'm respectfully sharing my opinion.

My hope is that all others who answer this question will follow the same example.

Answer 6

Yes everything is proof of god.. That makes no sense.. Because what is god proof of then? Another god? How far does it go?
They say that because they have got no better arguments. Most christians are unable or refuse to think deeper then that.
EDIT:
Notice how that mormon down there gave no answer to your question. Just confirms everything i wrote.

Answer 7

It is the first cause argument but that argument is fallacious. Debunked a 100 times before.

Answer 8

Can you turn out the enormous bang and evolution ? no you are not able to and except...you can not turn out to any individual that god does now not exist. so do not factor palms until your palms are blank and incidentally. the bible has extra ancient proof than your evolutionary thought and enormous bang which claims that the universe got here from not anything appears like a big bounce of religion to me.

Answer 9

It's not really but it is the best argument they have got. A sort of argument from ignorace, god of the gaps thing.

Answer 10

I am only going to refer you to my comment made to you in the blog that you answered "lets define god first, then ...." read it for your instant answer...