'Proof' God exists?

Question

If I understand him this is a paraphrase of the 'proof' CS Lewis offered for God's existence. Any correction or elaboration welcome.


Humans assume their thoughts have 'meaning'; there are only two options concerning meaning:

1) If there is no God the universe is an accident and therefore meaningless. If it started out meaningless it remains meaningless as meaning can't evolve or derive from non-meaning.

2) God created the universe and therefore there is some ultimate foundational meaning of which our human meaning (or reason) is subsidiary.

No one can argue against meaning because their arguing assumes meaning.

Therefore, God exists.


I'm no logician: assuming I've fairly stated his position, does this 'prove' God exists? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Logically, it does. But, you can logically state many things and have it not be true. The question is whether or not this is sound. It's hard to say. You'd have to logically determine that all of the aforementioned statements are inherently true. Is it inherently true that meaning cannot derive from something meaningless? What about in terms of art, see?

This, in terms of logic, is indeterminate. However, logically, it makes sense. But, you can argue the world is flat in logic and have it "make sense". For this to actually prove God, one must insert more aspects pertaining to the premises to aid the conclusion.

It does not suffice to say that one thing necessarily leads to another without much proof.

Answer 2

There is physical proof of a God that exists or existed. That proof is us. Now look at it this way: We are here, alive and breathing. Some type of life source had to of created our life force. Whether God is a energy in space or some other being, he does exist. People like like to say it was the big bang that created everything. But how about this: What if the BIG bang was God? Light matter and dark matter colliding, can cause the creation of everything. But it goes beyond our comprehension. Life can not come from something that doesn't consist of life. If there was no life, then there would be no life. Our body is made up of energy and that is what God is made up of. That is how we are in his image. That could be how he is with everyone at all time. Once we die, our soul (energy) can not die. It must either go into another life (Reincarnation) or back to the main source. Energy must remain moving because dead objects do not contain energy.

Answer 3

Every thing in your argument is wrong and contains logical fallacies.

1. God and accident form a false dichotomy. My belief for example is that nature derives from Mathematics, which is neither godlike nor accidental.

2. The statement meaning cannot derive from non-meaning is a complete non-sequitor.

3. " You start out 2 by assuming your god created the universe: Begging the question fallacy .

4. Arguing assumes meaning -- another non-sequitor.

It is obvious you are no logician.

Answer 4

The argument is false. There is no inherent meaning to the universe per se, but people are perfectly free to construct their own meanings for things, and of course they do so. Hence, the notion that meaning cannot evolve from non-meaning is false, and that wipes out the argument. More importantly, this is an attempt to prove (or disprove) god by logic alone, and that can never succeed, because logic is only a human construction, and not necessarily valid in the real world: we assume that it is, but it is only an assumption, and not either logically or evidentially essentially true. Thus, any argument about god must ultimately rely on evidence -- and there isn't any.

Answer 5

Sure, God exists, why not, but how and in what sense. Is he conscious? A force? Meaning behind the universe is irrelevant because the question is being asked by a being who can only perceive 3 dimensions of reality. What if the universe came from non-meaning in our 3 dimensions but has astounding relevance and meaning in the higher possibilities of existence, ie, astounding meaning in other dimensions? Like if you break wind in the 3-D then the beings in 5, 6, & 7D get a breath of fresh air and vitality.

Answer 6

It's certainly a logical argument in favor of a divine being. However this is similar to pascal's wager in that it makes the assumption that the God that must exist is their own version when that's not necesarily the case. For all we know the flying spaghetti monster really is God. lol. It also assumes that life in itself has meaning. While I do believe it does it's also possible that it doesn't. An argument based on assumptions will not stand for all you have to do is change the assumptions, the base vanishes/changes and can no longer support the argument.

Answer 7

The first statement is false. "If there is no God the universe is an accident and therefore meaningless." In an existence without meaning or God, there are no accidents because to have an accident is to imply there was an intent behind an occurrence to begin with. If there is no God, then the universe isn't an accident, it simply *is*.

Answer 8

This argument is flawed in that it is assumed there is meaning to everything. There is meaning to everything because we, as humans, give it meaning. Looking at the picture as a whole, nothing has meaning. It simply exists.

With that argument, we give everything meaning and therefore we have created god.

Answer 9

1) If there is no God the universe is an accident

What proof is there of the universe being an accident?

Answer 10

The obvious problem is that 'meaning' is a subjective judgment, not an objective fact that is 'out there' for us to discover. Therefore No. 1 is invalid.