Is it possible to prove prove/disprove the existence of God or Gods?

Question

I came across this proof from Descartes, and it is interesting, take a look:

1. I think, therefore I am.
2. I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.
3. There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).
4. I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.
5. My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.
6. The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance.

Therefore, God must exist.

It is pretty sound from a logical standpoint, and although I know you're not supposed to disagree with Descartes, I think that his fourth step is a fallacy, because it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend infinity, and therefore perfection.

However, I was wondering if anyone knows of a proof mathematical/logical or otherwise of the existence or lack of God(s). Logical answers only please, thanks!

Yes, step one does work because if it everyone thinks it is congruent with the rest of his proof, and if it isn't and only one person thinks then that one person would be God.

Also sorry about the repetition of the word "prove" in the title. My bad.

Answer 1

Gods are now and have always been creations of man. Just like faeries, demons and leprechauns.

It would be possible to prove if it exists and is natural. God is supposed to be supernatural and thus can't be evaluated in a scientific way.

If there were an entity which was the basis of the Cosmos, it would be of natural origin.

It's interesting that when trying to convince unbelievers of God you speak of not comprehending. It is lack of comprehension that leads one to conclude that life is the result of magic manifested by a magical being. Who's illogical?

There is no logic in your claim.

Answer 2

1.. I think, therefore I am.
that's more or less a given.

2. I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.
not true, as proven by many people here, who don't really seem to think their ideas through for themselves.

3. There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).
Not necessarily, at least not from human perspective. We may find the evidence of a massive event, and measure the debris, craters, ashes, etc (the objective rality of the effect) without knowing for certain what caused the event (the formal reality of the cause).

4. I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.
I do not believe the human mind can truly graps infinity. Perfection is subjective. I am not a telepath, so I cannot know for certain what Descartes (or anyone else) has for ideas; at best language gives an inexact approximation of ideas.

5. My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.
His (or anyone's) idea is inherently subjective; there is no objectivity about it.

6. The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance.
no, his (anyone's) imagination is the only possible cause; whether or not that imagination was sparked by an external force/being is open to debate (but not proof).

therefore, proof still does not exist.

Answer 3

Philosophically this is a load of rubbish.

Item 2): If I think that I am the president of the United States, doe that then make me the president?

Item 3): This says I can not conceive of something better than what is there. This is obviously rubbish, otherwise there would have been no advances in technology.

Item 4): He can claim this. He is wrong. Trying to perceive perfection is like trying to perceive the infinite. You can not do it. there is no benchmark to compare it against.

Item 5): Is pure conjecture.

Item 6): is based on item 5, and so is pure conjecture too.


You can prove that something exists. I can prove that my home exists by going there and living in it.

It is harder to prove non-existence. I can prove the non-existence of 5 sided triangles, or of married bachelors. These things are a contradiction, and so can not exist.

So any definition of god that contradict reality or is a logical impossibility can not exist. It can be seen that a god that is all knowing and all powerful can not give free will, because that free will is effected by the environment that God knows of and controls. So such a god can be proved not to exist.

A general definition of some form of deistic god can not be disproved.

Answer 4

I'm not sure about the logic of the whole thing, perhaps it's logically sound, but I have to say that not one step is even slightly compelling for me, that if I were a believer in God, which I'm not, I would still have no use for this line of reasoning. I honestly wouldn't expect anybody to change their mind or base their beliefs on this argument.

I'm not saying I'm more intelligent than Descartes or anything like that, just for me it is absolutely empty and meaningless and sits there like a dead, dried up frog.

I suppose the problem with each part is that he provides no evidence! People can imagine lots of things, even a perfect being, but that doesn't mean it must exist

Answer 5

My short answer is no. My longer answer is: it depends on how, exactly, you define deity. Define "God" to be something too specific (omnibenevolent and omnipresent and omnipotent and omni-this and omni-that) and you can prove such an entity does not exist. But if you define "God" to be something vague enough like "God is Love" or mundane enough like "God is this car", granted you could say this "exists", but you really don't get anywhere.

And personal experiences do not count as "proof". Nor, do I think, people should really care. If a subjective experience is enough for a particular believer, so be it.

Speaking as a mathematician myself (BS/MS), there are no mathematical proofs or disproofs regarding God's existence. All you can do is come up with more complicated or impressive-looking ways of using the same old arguments you can state without math (argument by design, ontological arguments, etc.) Somebody here tried to use "statistical improbability", but that whole argument rests on the premise that "a deity did it" is the only explanation for something complicated.

Answer 6

specific. a minimum of verified (technology would not 'tutor' issues exist, purely validates the belief) the two a god exists, or no longer. That fact in basic terms has meaning if there could be some distinction between such existence and non-existence. We try that claimed distinction, the consequence the two revealing god or no god. what's that distinction? it rather is for people who declare a god to assert - precisely what's a god, and what are its homes? All that would could be conventional with the intention to start attempting out. that ought to be hassle-free, as without somebody having the flexibility to already understand that, no one is able to declare a god exists interior the 1st place. So all it rather is mandatory is for such believers to describe that nature of god which would be detected. sadly, it is not befell so far - whoever knows this detectable nature isn't asserting, otherwise no one unquestionably knows even with their claims otherwise.

Answer 7

"I know you're not supposed to disagree with Descartes"

Well that's too bad because I disagree.

Even IF steps 1 - 6 were logically consistent, going from "The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance" to "Therefore, God must exist." is a blatant inequality.

Answer 8

It don't prove squat.

First off, I think, therefore it is possible that I only think I am. Kind of ends things right there.

If I take all those suppositions (and they are only suppositions) as true then you are left with having proven that infinite substance exists. WTF is that? Then you have to define infinite substance as God which is just an arbitrary definition which is purely subjective.

I think and therefore I think there is a God. No proof, just wishful thinking.

No there is no way to prove that God exists. As to proving God does not exist, it depends on how you define God. The more you limit God by definition, the easier it is to disprove. If you give no definition other than something really squishy such as "God is infinite substance", then it cannot be disproved, but it really has no meaning.

Answer 9

Proof does not lie only in the scientific.

There is also legal proof, for instance.

Sherlock Holmes said (or should I say, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said) that once you have eliminated the impossible, then what is left, no matter how improbably, must be the truth.

It is easy enough to prove scientifically that evolution is a fraud.

If you know anything about the laws that govern the distribution of energy in a closed system, if you understood the law of entropy, you would begin to see that evolution contradicts these two laws.

Furthermore, if you studied the roots of evolution and exactly what Charles Darwin based his theory on, you would have further understanding of the fallacy of evolution.

Darwin started with a false premise, a misunderstanding of the contents of the living cell, then logically built up a complete system. Anybody who understands logic at all would know that if the premise is false, then the conclusion will also be false.

He knew nothing of the internal workings of the cell; the mitochondria, protein and protein synthesis, the conversion of raw materials into usable energy in the cell, the RNA, the double-helixical double-stranded DNA, etc.

Even the simplest single-celled amoeba or protozoan is more complex than a Cray supercomputer, and we are intelligent enough to realize that the Cray was designed, built, and programmed by intelligent people. And yet, when it comes to the nucleus of a cell, et cetera, people throw away their brains and conclude that this highly complex organism was the results of a series of mindless accidents! Totally illogical, and utterly unscientific!

Evolution is just downright nonsense, and it flies in the face of both science as well as logic.

And like I pointed out at the beginning, once you've eliminated the impossible (ie evolution), then whatever is left (ie that God created Life in this universe), no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Answer 10

Who says you're not supposed to disagree with Rene Descartes? He was a mere mortal and as prone to error as all the rest of us human beings.

In the beginning, there was Aristotelian Solipsism. Solipsists thought their own subjective (perceptual) experience was actually real and that the physical realm was an illusion created by their minds. Since Solipsism allowed people to imagine their own thoughts were real, it was literally the foundation of much human superstition. Jesus Christ and all the founders of the early Church, as well as the authors of all the books of the Bible were Solipsists.

Then Galileo began to question Aristotle's assumptions and Newton proved the physical realm was actually completely real. Scientists realized their own subjective experience was an illusion created by their own living brains. It became clear that most of what a person could imagine was not actually real.

Descartes unsubstantiated opinion was called Dualism, and it maintained that subjective (perceptual) experience and objective (physical) reality were both real. Dualism allowed the Catholic church to ignore that science, entirely supported by tangible evidence, directly contradicted their revealed dogma. Dualism is the philosophy that has allowed millions of people to simultaneously practice both science and Christianity. Dualism allowed humanity to enjoy the benefits of science, while still clinging to the ancient superstitions. (Your Descartes quotes are from his proof of God's existence, an earlier work.) Descartes was terrified of the Catholic church's arbitrary authority in France and feared he might become a victim of the Inquisition. He sold off his family's properties in France and moved to the Protestant Netherlands, where he was safe from the Pope.

Modern atheism maintains that only the physical realm is actually real and maintains that Solipsistic belief is utterly false. There is no room for imaginary or supernatural entities within strict atheism, precisely because no tangible evidence exists to support their existence. Scientific atheism maintains that only the physical is actually real. Everything else is a mental construct, created by our five senses and our living brain.

As to a logical proof that God does not exist: The fact that believers are unable to provide even one shred of reliable evidence to support their assertion that God exists, proves that He doesn't. That proof would stand in any court of law.