Proving God Existence

[FallentoReason]

It isn't very clear to me how his nature is altogether different from his commands. Is it not true that he commanded something to be moral because of his nature? If so, then the Euthyphro Dilemma rears its ugly head into the picture. Basically, what I think the problem is here is that "what" God actually is doesn't matter. It is the transmission -- the command to humanity -- that is in question. How God came to the conclusion that that particular thing was moral is irrelevant; whether an arbitrary choice or from his nature, doesn't matter. What matters is that when that moral code gets transmitted to us as a command, we have to ask ourselves the Euthyphro Dilemma. Unless you believe in the Deistic god like myself... then morality is a non-issue.

First, I don't think that transmission has anything to do with the Euthyphro (although it should lead to the question). However, if its the transmission means that you don't like, I can take a stab at it.

Christianity doesn't really work on a system where God has issued all commands that we are to do (unless your amish). I can drive a car and not be culpable for sin. If I drive recklessly, it's not even a sin (its fun to drive recklessly sometimes, such as going mudding or something). However, if I am driving recklessly and I kill someone, now I have sinned. This is never commanded. Murder is against the law, but I haven't actually murdered, I committed manslaughter. There aren't any cars in the bible, so I must be fine? The only verse that comes close talks about bulls.

Exodus 21:29
But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

So obviously, God doesn't care about manslaughter as long as it's not with an ox. Right? Nope. I still say that the manslaughter is sinful, but it hasn't been commanded. This is because the transmission isn't always in the form of a command. The only religious analogy I can give would be with the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:26-29
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Since we eat Christ's body and blood, we absorb into God, not in the sense of Nirvana or something, but that we because "Godly" by derivative of God. When we "do the Good", metaphysically we aren't just helping the needy, but we are growing closer to God. This transmission issue I think God sees as well. It's not just a going-though-the-motions type of deal, but it is supposed to correspond with own own desires.

Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

I don't know if this will help, especially because I've never seen that objection within the debate of the Euthyphro dilemma. First time for everything right? Anyway, since this is the first time, criticize it plenty. I need to see if it actually means anything or if it's just my mind's ramblings.

Thanks for your efforts to answer, but WOW... I just read my post and I don't agree anymore with how I was tackling the problem.

Whenever we talk about instrinsic properties of God, like his "nature" and his "objective moral standard", then that immediately causes problems. I don't want to repeat myself though, because it seems like we're already discussing that in the thread "God & Objective Morals".

[Muslim Scholar]

If you can't explain how god does anything you can't tell me that he can't be a creature and be a god, you can't tell god what he can't do.

You are mixing between science and logic
You need to take all of theses examples back to its roots
If the problem is unknown science then it may happen (for example a flying horse or stick into snake, etc.)
But if the problem is a logical contradiction/paradox then it cannot happen (even by God himself) because it is based on your definition of terms

For example turning stick into a snake is unknown
but being a stick and a snake at the same time is impossible (because we defined the terms "Snake" and "Stick" and they are mutually exclusive)

But I think the root of the problem is that you're using logic to prove the illogical.

No, I'm using logic to prove the impossibility of the Illogical.

So you don't know that he can't effect light either, its a total contradiction.

It goes back to our definition of Image (i.e. a light reflection of an object)
As God is not an object then an (according to our definition) image of him is impossible.

[davidMC1982]

And all you will have managed to achieve is defining your god into existence. Logical proofs (especially bad ones) do not count as evidence.

Moreover, we don't have to do any of this (anti-)intellectual masturbation for anything that is demonstrably true. Coincidence?

[Muslim Scholar]

And all you will have managed to achieve is defining your god into existence. Logical proofs (especially bad ones) do not count as evidence.

You obviously don't know anything about logic or evidence

A logical proof is the strongest evidence ever.
It is stronger than science, statistics or anything else.

[pocaracas]

Yes... Provided it's based on solid ground...
Logic based on wishful thinking is useless.

[The Grand Nudger]

And all you will have managed to achieve is defining your god into existence. Logical proofs (especially bad ones) do not count as evidence.

You obviously don't know anything about logic or evidence

A logical proof is the strongest evidence ever.
It is stronger than science, statistics or anything else.

-provided that the premise and assertions are sound, which is the trouble that you've run into, and are incapable of overcoming. No argument becomes both valid and sound by it;s mere recitation - though I appreciate that you have a chanting fetish and it might seem this way to you.

[paulpablo]

If you can't explain how god does anything you can't tell me that he can't be a creature and be a god, you can't tell god what he can't do.

You are mixing between science and logic
You need to take all of theses examples back to its roots
If the problem is unknown science then it may happen (for example a flying horse or stick into snake, etc.)
But if the problem is a logical contradiction/paradox then it cannot happen (even by God himself) because it is based on your definition of terms

For example turning stick into a snake is unknown
but being a stick and a snake at the same time is impossible (because we defined the terms "Snake" and "Stick" and they are mutually exclusive)

But I think the root of the problem is that you're using logic to prove the illogical.

No, I'm using logic to prove the impossibility of the Illogical.

So you don't know that he can't effect light either, its a total contradiction.

It goes back to our definition of Image (i.e. a light reflection of an object)
As God is not an object then an (according to our definition) image of him is impossible.

Right if light cannot be reflected off him because he is not an object and it impossible then it's also impossible for him to effect anything else which is an object.

Also image may not have anything to do with light, you can have a mental image of something that involves no light, but if you want to use it in terms of our direct senses then the same would apply to hearing, or talking.

He also cannot oscillate air molecules to create a sound and therefore cannot talk to people either, or communicate in any other way.

and Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

You talk about our definition of an image. Light being reflected off an object. Which as I've mentioned doesn't account for the fact you can have a mental image of something that involves no light but as I've said if you want to talk about direct senses then think about this.
The quran says allah is all hearing, according to our definition of hearing that is impossible if he cannot reflect light he also would not be able to detect the oscillation of air molecules against his ear drums or any part of his body, because he doesn't have a body.
Using your own logic I've just proven god doesn't exist.

But anyway just let me get your argument straight.

God cannot reflect light that would be impossible.

God can make a virgin pregnant it isn't impossible we just don't know how yet.

God cannot have a son that would be impossible.

god can turn a stick into a snake, create floods and make a horse fly we just don't know how yet.

Well my counter argument is god can have a son and reflect light, you just don't understand how. I don't believe that by the way, but according to your logic it's a good argument. I could just say god provides you with a mental image, and he can be in two places at once and be two things at the same time. According to you he does this anyway because he is outside of space and time and immaterial yet he comes to earth to cause floods, meaning he interacts with things in this world while at the same time as being outside of the universe, so why can't he live on earth as a creature?

Can you not see how you are allowing for what is written in the quran by saying it may happen (virgins becoming pregnant, god hearing things, people hearing god, god making floods)
but for anything going against your religion you are simply saying it isn't permissible (god reflecting light, god having a son)

[davidMC1982]

And all you will have managed to achieve is defining your god into existence. Logical proofs (especially bad ones) do not count as evidence.

You obviously don't know anything about logic or evidence

A logical proof is the strongest evidence ever.
It is stronger than science, statistics or anything else.

A logical proof is not even evidence, let alone "the strongest evidence ever". Evidence is evidence and there's no use claiming otherwise. A logical proof is only as sound as its premises, which are only as sound as the evidence supporting them.

[Ryantology]

I'm tired of you citing this over and over again as if it was worth half a fuck.

Part I
The conclusion is that
The universe had a finite number of states and had a start or beginning, Time itself had a start as well.

This makes the unfounded assumption that the universe's beginning, as we understand it, is the true beginning and not the result of a collapsed universe or some other process. It also makes the assumption that one universe is all which exists. Before the Planck era of our universe, we know virtually nothing and make only educated guesses. With all the work you put into this, I'll call Part I an educated guess, though it is a woefully sloppy scholar who thinks one can determine the origins and nature of the universe with such simple and assumption-loaded numerology. But, the most damning indictment of this part, that which renders the other two parts irrelevant all by itself, is that you betray both your ignorance and your agenda to produce a pre-determined outcome when you suggest that you have analyzed all options. You have chosen, arbitrarily, one interpretation of the results you have invented and determined that it leads to the god you were raised to worship. This is already a disgraceful exercise.

Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)
According to Axiom 1; the universe states are dynamic not constant
As the universe is part of the existence (or all of it) then Existence is dynamic as well (i.e. can be represented by a function)
E(t)=U(t)+G

In addition as proved time itself had a start which means that that the universe state U(0) was not a function at all it was either nothing or a constant; taking Limit as t-->0 U=C or U= 0
As U(0) was constant then G must exist and be dynamic as well G≠0 Ʌ G=G(p)
The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G
A complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)
It should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p)
G must exist and did created/changed the universe at its beginning
We can call this parameter the actions of a creator (G)

This is an intellectually empty set of equations once you assume that G must exist. You do not demonstrate the fact as you state it, you merely state that it must necessarily be true, though the only reason it must be true is because your agenda will not be satisfied without it. You do not explain or justify this conclusion, you merely state it as if it was axiomatic. You must first physically demonstrate the reality of your god before you can enter G into this equation. You have basically invented, out of whole cloth, your own equation. Any idiot who graduated Algebra can do it, and skew it to whatever means they desire by riddling it with unverifiable assertions as you have done. So far, this is a complete waste of your time for typing it and mine for reading it. Will Part III save it?
 

Part III
Trying to figure some necessary/definitive attributes for G
1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
3. G has actions (p)
4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.
7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

Sadly, not. This is where our 'scholar', demonstrating why he does not deserve the handle he has given himself, has decided to shed all illusions of honest logic and invents both a god and his attributes and calls it the god of Islam. Not only is it a deliberately dishonest coda to a fatally-flawed poor excuse for a logical argument, it can be entirely obviated with the greatest of ease. All I have to do is invent a God which has all the same attributes, maybe whip up a quick Holy Book in its name, and that God is immediately and in no manner whatsoever less plausible than Allah (or any other deity humans have worshiped). As I have decided that I am God and the creator of all things, by using precisely the same method (without the need for meaningless and arbitrary numerology, even) as Muslim Scholar, I have decisively rendered his final conclusion false, and I have done so with more brevity and elegance. Of course, since I am God, the creator of all things, all I have to do is say it is false, and it is false. Is that not how it works? Muslim Scholar has saved me the trouble by making it false all by himself, for which I will reward him in the afterlife if he rids himself of his false pretender god and worships the one, true Ryantology.

[Simon Moon]

A logical proof is the strongest evidence ever.
It is stronger than science, statistics or anything else.

Logic is a system for analyzing the validity and soundness of an argument.

You have to 'feed' logic premises based on facts. It is possible to feed logic premises that are false and still have a valid logical argument, but not a sound argument.

Example of a valid argument that is unsound:

Premise 1: All blue skinned flornix come from the planet Florno
Premise 2: Nate is a blue skinned flornix.
Conclusion: Nate comes from the planet Florno.

It is also possible to feed logic correct premises, and still end up with an invalid argument.

Example of a sound argument that is invalid:

Premise 1: All crows are black
Premise 2: John is black
Conclusion: John is a crow

ALL your arguments fall into one of these 2 categories. You have not posted a single logical argument that is both valid and sound.