I can prove God exists

Introduction

You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him.

I assume I'll probably lose a lot of rep for this thread, but I don't care. I will be doing this in steps, and it will require you to read the steps and make a choice. Skipping ahead will not make sense, so you have to go in order. Don't try and argue against me or debate me if you haven't went through all of these steps.

Now not only can I prove God exists, I'll be doing it in a manner you probably haven't seen before. I don't use evidential apologetics anymore, because that gives you more authority than you have. Let me give and example for that, and then we will get started.

You're a police officer. You leave your vehicle unattended, with your uniform and badge in the vehicle. You walk into a building. You come out, and it's gone. Someone has stolen your police car. Later on, you are driving another car, and get pulled over for speeding, when you weren't speeding, and get a ticket.

The person that pulled you over and gave you a ticket is the person that stole your uniform and car. Now, are you going to dispute the ticket and argue that you weren't speeding? No. You're gonna argue that he stole your car and your uniform! You can't give him the authority he doesn't have by arguing about him issuing you the ticket.

Go in order, follow directions.
Let's get started.

Step 1
Do you believe in Absolute Truth?


Yes --

Spoiler

Proceed to Step 2.

No --

Spoiler

Is it absolutely true you don't believe in Absolute Truth? If so, proceed to Step 2.

I don't know --

Spoiler

Is it absolutely true you don't know if you believe in Absolute Truth? If so, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2
Laws of Logic
You have acknowledged there is Absolute Truth. Now you have to decide if you believe that the laws of logic exist. Logically proving God won't work if you deny the existence of the laws of logic. One law of logic is the law of non-contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction). This law states that, for example, it can't be true that my computer is in front of me and my computer is not in front of me at the same time and in the same way.

Laws of Logic exist --

Spoiler

Proceed to step 3

Laws of Logic do not exist --

Spoiler

If you do not believe in the existence of the laws of logic, then how do you make daily decisions? Whether or not to eat cereal or rat poison for breakfast, or the side of the road you are going to drive on. These decisions require you to use logic. So in saying that you believe the laws of logic don't exist, then you are saying that you either came to that conclusion arbitrarily and that next time you may make the other choice, or you used logic to come to the conclusion that the laws of logic do not exist. Which is logic.

If you do affirm the existence of the laws of logic, then proceed to Step 3.

Step 3
Laws of Mathematics
Do you believe in the laws of mathematics? Basic arithmetic operations are addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. There are obviously more complex ones as well. The law of addition allows us to know that if we add 4 to 5 we end up with 9 (4+5=9). This is basic stuff.

Laws of Mathematics exist --

Spoiler

Proceed to Step 4.

Laws of Mathematics do not exist --

Spoiler

I assume that if you walked into a bank and asked the bank teller to give you change for a $50 bill and they gave you two $5 bills, you would not be happy. Why? Because you used the laws of mathematics to know that 5+5≠50. So you use the laws of mathematics all the time. If you still deny these laws, then your journey to seeing the proof of God ends here.
If you have reconsidered your position on this, and affirm that the laws of mathematics exist, then proceed to Step 4.

Step 4
Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, most often expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. With the knowledge of the law of gravity, we can predict how fast an object that is heavier than air will fall to the ground, given all the factors for the equation.

Laws of Science exist --

Spoiler

You've probably guessed by now, Proceed to Step 5.

Laws of Science do not exist --

Spoiler

If you do not believe in scientific laws then you would have no way of predicting what matter does. I'm sure that you live your life inconsistently with this way of thinking. If you feel pain from cutting your finger with a knife one day, would you try cutting it again the next day to see if it becomes a pleasant experience, or would you expect matter to behave in a way that is law-like and try to avoid the cutting your finger again? When your dog is pregnant, do you worry about the possibility that it might produce a poisonous snake or do you trust the laws of science for a litter of puppies?

You see, your life is based on the predictability of nature.. but you have chosen that you deny the laws of science. Unless you reconsider your choice, your road to this thread's proof that God exists ends here. I pray that you realize how inconsistent and irrational this way of thinking is, and you decide to affirm these laws to seek the proof. If you still deny these laws exist, the road ends here.

If you have reconsidered and affirm that the laws of science exist, proceed to Step 5.

Step 5
Absolute Moral Laws
This is where some are gonna fall off of this process. I have rarely heard of anyone that deny the laws of logic, mathematics, and science. On the other hand, I've heard plenty of people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science and mathematics display reality, and how things will and do behave... Absolute moral laws "prescribe" how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.

Rape and child molestation are two examples of absolute moral wrongs. If you affirm that these two things are always absolutely wrong morally then you affirm the existence of absolute moral laws.

Absolute Moral Laws exist --

Spoiler

Proceed to Step 6.

Absolute Moral Laws do not exist --

Spoiler

n my opinion, the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities such as rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Is this what YOU believe, not taking into account what other people believe?

So if you affirm that molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong, then you affirm the existence of absolute moral laws.
If you think there is nothing wrong with molesting children for fun, then you truly must believe that there are no absolute moral laws. This means that no man has any right to impose laws of morality on any other man. So we have no right to condemn Nazi Germany for following self imposed morals.

It is no question that societies interpret morality in different ways, but if you examine the following sentence you will see the lack of logic in thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.

So if you have reconsidered and you affirm that absolute moral laws exist, proceed to Step 6. If you truly still deny, your road to seeing this thread's proof of God ends here. I pray you think about this further, and decide to come back to this after reconsideration.

Step 6
The Nature of Laws, part I
By reaching this step you have affirmed that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Now we shall examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?

The laws previously stated are not made of matter --

Spoiler

Proceed to step 7

The laws previously stated are made of matter --

Spoiler

Can you touch, smell, see, hear, or taste the laws of logic, mathematics, science, and morality? Can you show me the number 4 in nature? Not four things, or a written/formulated representation of the number 4, but the real, physical, material number 4? It would be absurd to assert these things.


I truly hope and pray that you come to see that making the effort of trying find an abstract entity in nature is futile, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to seeing this thread's proof of God ends here. If you have reconsidered and affirm that these laws are not made of matter, proceed to step 7.

Step 7
The Nature of Laws, part II
You have affirmed that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 4+5=9 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?

The laws previously stated are universal --

Spoiler

We are almost there, Proceed to Step 8.

The laws previously stated are individual --

Spoiler

You deny that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are universal yet you base your life on their universality. Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this thread's proof that God exists ends here. I pray that you understand that thinking this way is inconsistent and irrational, and you return to seek the truth.
If you've reconsidered and affirm that these laws are universal, proceed to Step 8.

Step 8
The Nature of Laws, part III
You affirm that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they change or if they are unchanging.

The previously stated laws are changing --

Spoiler

his belief is extremely inconsistent. If we refer to previous steps, we would see that if you were to make a prediction about something in nature, then you would be using the laws of science. Unfortunately, that is rendered pointless if these laws are changing.

You will not wake up wondering if loving your children is right, or if drinking the same water you drank yesterday is going to kill you today.
If you truly believe this irrational way of thinking, your road to this thread's proof of God ends here. If you have reconsidered, proceed to Step 9.

Step 9
Read this first

Spoiler

If you have gotten to this step, then you have had to affirm that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for engaging in rational thinking. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.


The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of "seeking" God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

(Romans 1:18-21 ESV)

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, not-varying laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are completely necessary to prove ANYTHING. You may now read the next spoiler.

Read only after reading the above spoiler.

Spoiler

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The case that I am making is that you have to borrow from the Christian worldview and a God who makes immaterial, universal, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with "transcendentals" or "necessary starting points", and the proof is called a "transcendental proof". Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him (Think back to the example I gave in the introduction). The Christian worldview alone can logically support rationality.

The Christian worldview accounts for universal, immaterial, and unchanging laws in the way that they reflect the very nature of God.

John 4:24 accounts for immaterial entities.
Malachi 3:6 accounts for God's unchanging nature.
Psalm 90:2 and Psalm 139:7-10 accounts for God's universality. he laws of logic, mathematics, science, and morality, reflect the thinking and character of God and what He has created in order to accomplish His purposes.
Jeremiah 33:25 speaks for how God has fixed into place the laws of heaven and earth. These universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are the basis for all knowledge and are rooted in God's word.

Of course everyone uses universal, immaterial, unchanging laws, but many do so denying their only possible source. Christianity proclaims the source which can be summarized with Christ's declaration that apart from Him, you can do nothing. And Colossians 1:16 shows us that through Christ everything, including these laws, was created.

So what do you believe?

I believe God exists --

Spoiler

Great! You're not done here though. James tells us that even the demons believe in God, and tremble. You must believe the Gospel in order to be saved from your sins, to be redeemed as part of God's church, and to be a true Christian.

I do not believe God exists --

Spoiler

enying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be the same as arguing against the existence of air, while you breath it. You use these universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered on this thread.

Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?'

Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? Or Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Please examine why you're running from God. I pray your eyes are opened!

Still don't believe in god. But good effort in the thread.

Poop said:

Still don't believe in god. But good effort in the thread.

Click to expand...

He copy and pasted a lot of it. Look at the bottom. I said to use quotes the other day, not to give credit to the writer in small font at the bottom.

If you withheld the proof that your god exists, the god debate would cease to exist; you would be receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for your discovery -- headlines everywhere would be titled "MICHEAL PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE;" it would be the most astounding and biggest discovery that mankind has every witnessed; you would become the most famous person in history for your manifestation; you would be proclaimed a saint. The simple fact that this is not happening is enough to debunk your entire argument. Better luck next time.

These steps and arguments prove nothing.

Cann!bal said:

He copy and pasted a lot of it. Look at the bottom. I said to use quotes the other day, not to give credit to the writer in small font at the bottom.

If you withheld the proof that your god exists, the god debate would cease to exist; you would be receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for your discovery -- headlines everywhere would be titled "MICHEAL PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE;" it would be the most astounding and biggest discovery that mankind has every witnessed; you would become the most famous person in history for your manifestation; you would be proclaimed a saint. The simple fact that this is not happening is enough to debunk your entire argument. Better luck next time.

These steps and arguments prove nothing.

Click to expand...

Credits are credits, no matter what. How did you go about answering the questions?

Michael said:

Credits are credits, no matter what. How did you go about answering the questions?

Click to expand...

As aforementioned, I arose to the conclusion that these steps and arguments prove nothing.

Cann!bal said:

As aforementioned, I arose to the conclusion that these steps and arguments prove nothing.

Click to expand...

Then prove to me why? I do not see why you're not concluding your statements with debatable 'facts'.

Michael said:

Then prove to me why? I do not see why you're not concluding your statements with debatable 'facts'.

Click to expand...

Once again, as aforementioned "If you withheld the proof that your god exists, the god debate would cease to exist; you would be receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for your discovery -- headlines everywhere would be titled "MICHEAL PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE;" it would be the most astounding and biggest discovery that mankind has every witnessed; you would become the most famous person in history for your manifestation; you would be proclaimed a saint. The simple fact that this is not happening is enough to debunk your entire argument. Better luck next time."

Cann!bal said:

Once again, as aforementioned "If you withheld the proof that your god exists, the god debate would cease to exist; you would be receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for your discovery -- headlines everywhere would be titled "MICHEAL PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE;" it would be the most astounding and biggest discovery that mankind has every witnessed; you would become the most famous person in history for your manifestation; you would be proclaimed a saint. The simple fact that this is not happening is enough to debunk your entire argument. Better luck next time."

Click to expand...

I was just about to say this, couldn't have said it better myself. But truth is I still believe in some sort of god. Love you mike

I personally believe in God but I don't see how these steps would help convince a person to.
Don't include me in this argument, I'm just simply saying

Well, these are man-made laws. I had to stop after step 3 because of this. Mathematics is just as fabricated as time, both are systems created by someone somewhere to put everyone on the same page about something. Plus, perception weighs in here whether you would like to admit it or not. I barely got passed step one. It isnt absolutely true that I dont know if I believe in absolute truth or not. If something truely is absolutely true, then it cannot change over time, can it? The question iteself is a matter of opinion, thats why you have 3 choices. At any given time my answer could be different, so how could I have an absolutely true answer that changes? There's a gap there, its a bit of a contradiction. The concept of absolute truth to me is very pushy, too clean cut, and is annoying. It doesnt allow people much room to breath, and again if its a matter of technical opinion, I dont know if there is any one topic that every single person that has ever existed can agree upon, which would by definition fill what Absolute Truth is, am I correct? For the most part the same questions wouldnt apply, and even if they did, everyone would have to be able to prove their answer individually while being held to the same standard of using Absolute Truth to prove Absolute Truth. It is literally a regress argument.

Anyway, this is your attempt to prove that god exists from a philosophical standpoint, and that is very key to note. All you have is words here. Nothing more, which to me doesnt amount to much considering you're claiming and advocating the existance of a deity. Discretion and skepticism are key here. If someone tells you the paint is wet, you will touch it before agreeing with them. Lets say that hypothetically, your life depended on it. You are not fucking around with philosphy to prove that it is or isnt wet, you're going to find out the only real sure way. And that is to make physical, conscious contact with it. We all use this logic everyday for everything. If someone of medical expertise tells you that you have a brain tumor and that you will need to undergo multiple surgeries. Arent you going to want to see the results of the MRI first? To have them explain everything in as much understandable detail as possible? Furthermore, are you going rely on god, or the surgeon to fix this? We all know the answers to these questions and its time that people start being honest. Divine intervention does not exist. If it does, its not from any god that anyone on this Earth worships. And that statement is flirting with absolute truth itself. Nobody wants to admit it though.

I need not waste more time re-iterating the same mountains of proof I have repeatedly presented to people of faith that completely decimates every argument they have given me. At this point its cognitive dissonance. I hope that in my lifetime we are free of the burden religion has bestowed upon humanity for so long, and the arguments are over, and the brain washing has ceased. I dont know if that will ever happened to be honest. Thats all I have to say for now, but I'll leave you with this picture. Hopefully you will see how this is tied to divine intervention:

[/URL][/img]


Its one or the other; prayer does not exist because divine intervention exists, or prayer does not exist because divine intervention does not exist. I can prove its the second one, because I can prove that divine intervention of (your god) does not exist. But either way, prayer is useless. And if prayer is useless, then on the human end of the relationship, divine intervention doesnt exist. And if you are of faith, I would cling to that theory, of divine intervention not existing. Because if you want to argue it does, you will be held responsible for explaining all of the things that happen in this world, by the hand of your god(s). And if you cannot do so then you cannot make the claim. Regardless of your answers to my questions, you will be forced to change your understanding and interpretation of how god works. Unless of course you already agree with me, or can prove me wrong.

Of what faith do you consider yourself? If you dont label yourself any religion, explain what you're relationship and understanding of god is. It would help me to know who I am dealing with here.

Step 6 is invalid in my opinion. The number "4" is physical. It's in your brain. A chemical in your brain and your neurons creates your "number 4".

Cann!bal said:

As aforementioned, I arose to the conclusion that these steps and arguments prove nothing.

Click to expand...

Because the truth is absolute and concrete, assuming of no God existing is like saying you dont have a mother who made you.

Executioner said:

Because the trust is absolute and concrete, assuming of no God existing is like saying you dont have a mother who made you.

Click to expand...

The trust between what precisely?

That's fallacious. Assuming of no god, simply assumes there's no god. Nothing more, nothing less. The assumption implies we had a different singularity, not that we therefore had no beginning.

Cann!bal said:

The trust between what precisely?

That's fallacious. Assuming of no god, simply assumes there's no god. Nothing more, nothing less. The assumption implies we had a different singularity, not that we therefore had no beginning.

Click to expand...

Typo, supposd to be "truth" And now your statement is also fallacious into believing that there is no God existing which is clearly not true because our universe existed into something.

Executioner said:

Typo, supposd to be "truth" And now your statement is also fallacious into believing that there is no God existing which is clearly not true because our universe existed into something.

Click to expand...

A fair summary of the logic you just showcased is "God is blatant for the universe began to exist."

The fact that the Universe began to exist does not mean therefore blatantly a god created it. The logic simply states our Universe began to exist. It is not to be taken a step further by invalid logic.

Executioner said:

I want to ask you, who made everything possible?​

Click to expand...

Well, ignoring all my manifestations isn't very healthy for the debate.

Nothing with a conscious. I suppose concepts such as the Big Bang.

Cann!bal said:

Well, ignoring all my manifestations isn't very healthy for the debate.

Nothing with a conscious. I suppose concepts such as the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

I am aware of your manifestations and I would like to ask, how the Big Bang theory made itself without a source. That single string that could have made all the sub atomic particles, where did that single string came from and how was it composed, how did the energy erupted or evolved into something? How was temperature made that made the object erupted a split second that scattered planets in our universe?

Executioner said:

I am aware of your manifestations and I would like to ask, how the Big Bang theory made itself without a source. That single string that could have made all the sub atomic particles, where did that single string came from and how was it composed, how did the energy erupted or evolved into something? How was temperature made that made the object erupted a split second that scattered planets in our universe?

Click to expand...

Where did God come from then? It's more logical to think something like the big bang theory then a person saying "i want to make a universe today"

It amazes me in this day and age that a logical person (I am assuming that you are logical based on the making of this thread) believes in God. The simple question to anyone who believes in God and that he created this world and everything in it is who created God? There you have no answer in order for even God to exist there would have to be evolution (I personally do not believe in God but for someone to argue that he is real he has to think of who created him). I'm sorry but I do not nor will I ever believe in God. In this day and age people are beginning to realize how stupid religion is and what a waste of time it is. Religion is literally the cause of evil. Wars, Money, and Rape all go back to religion. How could you believe in something where the people who are trying to spread these beliefs are pocketing your money and raping the youth?