The Black Vault

Is there a single logical proof for God's existence that isn't just a silly attempt to play word games?

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. Therefore, God exists.

3 does not follow 1 and 2.

Logically, this is more accurate:

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. Therefore, if the greatest imaginable being exists, God exists

No attempt is made to prove that the greatest imaginable being exists outside of the mind. A concept is just a concept, not reality.

None of these proofs ever differentiate between a concept and an actual existing being, but of course there is a difference. A dog in my head is not the same as a dog in my house. Where is the distinction in this proof?

2 is debatable, too, because a comparison between an existing thing and a non-existing thing is not really possible. One is a thing and one is not. It's like saying which is the better fruit, an apple or a bicycle? A being cannot be non-existent, because to "be" is to exist.

I can't believe these silly word games are still discussed seriously to this day. God either exists, or he doesn't, and it is obviously logically possible for a being, however great or not great, to not exist therefore it is possible God does not exist, logically, therefore no logical proof of his existence is possible.

Well all proofs are word games, so that point is kind of redundant.

Here's my proof:
1. God is the totality of all that exists
2. Ergo, God exists.

Kinda true, but the kinda word games I mean are where you subtly change the meaning of a word, so basically veiled logical fallacies and such.

humphreys wrote:A dog in my head is not the same as a dog in my house. Where is the distinction in this proof?

That sounds like a word game too! You can't proove the dog was in your head other than tell us it was, so logically I can say it didn't happened, OR I can have faith what you tell me is true, and not demand impossible proof. Neither can I see the Dog or God in your house, if you do not allow me in, but what reason would I have to not believe it?

humphreys wrote:No attempt is made to prove that the greatest imaginable being exists outside of the mind. A concept is just a concept, not reality.

Prove its just a concept?

I'm not attempting to prove it's just a concept, I'm just refuting the logical proof of God's existence cited in this thread. Nothing you just said addresses my refutation.

Words games if I ever herd them Humphreys. Logical proof is a very deep subject, and has different meaning in different times and in different cultures. There are many concepts of logic from one culture to another. It also entails many different concepts of deduction methods and different kinds of reasoning. Read the wikipedia definition about logic. Your logic seems to just be putting up a block wall and skeptism to any and all ideas, and nothing will satisfy what ever proof you imagine. It would be easier to just say what proof you are expecting, than a continual "nope, thats not proof" and calling that simply retuting something. This society does not require proof to believe, nor approval of those who do not, in order to believe.

We could all play devils advocate with your "Dog" example the same way, no matter what argument is presented. This dog in you head or mind is not tangable, an actual real dog in your house is tangable. You want tangable proof for intangable things, and it will never happen.

Instead of refuting everything, just tell us what proof would convince you? Something you have yet to disproove, so it leaves us all in the same boat. Faith or no Faith!

Like the impossible proof you require, you are equally unable to disproove anything, so your balance of logic and Faith is 100% logic to 0% Faith. Question is how logical is it to have 0% Faith, and most would people say not very logical to gamble ones soul, all or nothing. None of us get conclusive proof within this life, but we do get plenty of clues that can be enough proof. It may be a long shot, and it may be completly illogical, but Faith does not require proof.

greeney2 wrote:You want tangable proof for intangable things, and it will never happen.

GOD IS NOT INTANGIBLE

One must merely open their minds as to what God might be and there is ample proof.

Proof is for skeptics. Sometimes, one peak experience is enough to convince someone of a higher power. SmokinJoe comes to mind, as do others. Proof is the tool used against the pits of doubt. Faith is another tool for that purpose as well.

I have faith in something. I have faith in my definition and faith that God is not a tempermental child.

greeney2 wrote:Words games if I ever herd them Humphreys. Logical proof is a very deep subject, and has different meaning in different times and in different cultures. There are many concepts of logic from one culture to another. It also entails many different concepts of deduction methods and different kinds of reasoning. Read the wikipedia definition about logic. Your logic seems to just be putting up a block wall and skeptism to any and all ideas, and nothing will satisfy what ever proof you imagine. It would be easier to just say what proof you are expecting, than a continual "nope, thats not proof" and calling that simply retuting something. This society does not require proof to believe, nor approval of those who do not, in order to believe.

We could all play devils advocate with your "Dog" example the same way, no matter what argument is presented. This dog in you head or mind is not tangable, an actual real dog in your house is tangable. You want tangable proof for intangable things, and it will never happen.

Instead of refuting everything, just tell us what proof would convince you? Something you have yet to disproove, so it leaves us all in the same boat. Faith or no Faith!

Like the impossible proof you require, you are equally unable to disproove anything, so your balance of logic and Faith is 100% logic to 0% Faith. Question is how logical is it to have 0% Faith, and most would people say not very logical to gamble ones soul, all or nothing. None of us get conclusive proof within this life, but we do get plenty of clues that can be enough proof. It may be a long shot, and it may be completly illogical, but Faith does not require proof.

Wow, you put an awful lot of work into beating around the point here.

The OP cited a well known proof of God's existence, I pointed out the obvious flaws in it. Simple as that. Everything else here is attempted obfuscation on your part.

Wikipedia definition:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

You could have just said Bullshitting, I'm familiar with that one.

So lets both cut the bullshit, what would convince you God exists?

humphreys wrote:Is there a single logical proof for God's existence that isn't just a silly attempt to play word games?

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. Therefore, God exists.

3 does not follow 1 and 2.

Logically, this is more accurate:

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. Therefore, if the greatest imaginable being exists, God exists

No attempt is made to prove that the greatest imaginable being exists outside of the mind. A concept is just a concept, not reality.

None of these proofs ever differentiate between a concept and an actual existing being, but of course there is a difference. A dog in my head is not the same as a dog in my house. Where is the distinction in this proof?

2 is debatable, too, because a comparison between an existing thing and a non-existing thing is not really possible. One is a thing and one is not. It's like saying which is the better fruit, an apple or a bicycle? A being cannot be non-existent, because to "be" is to exist.

I can't believe these silly word games are still discussed seriously to this day. God either exists, or he doesn't, and it is obviously logically possible for a being, however great or not great, to not exist therefore it is possible God does not exist, logically, therefore no logical proof of his existence is possible.

I have no idea what you're on about, and there are very few, if any, people here that have ever made such a ridiculous argument for the existence of God.

The simple fact of the matter is, a Creator is the easiest, least-complicated answer for the existence of all things. This hogwash about infinite universes is a clever way to get around it but, the thing is there is an endless abundance of written testimony that supports a Creator, while "infinite universes" is just something that occurred to someone recently with no historical or empirical evidence whatsoever.