Irrefutable proof that a god exists

[peterofthecorn]

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

[grant]

Wow, I can do exactly the same for Santa!

Bring on the pressies!

[Zankuu]

1. A non-existing god exists.
2. A non-existing god does not exist.

Now #1 contradicts itself. You didn't think this one through.

[ParkingPlaces]

Having a premise that sucks doesn't give you much to work with.

[C]

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

SIGH. Once again..most of us were Christians who WASTED a few decades, hundreds if put together in the silly religion. We came to the position of agnostic atheism, atheism or whatever else through THINKING rationally.

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

What the bullocks? This just doesn't make sense. It's like saying this:

If we can all agree that if a 600 mile wide asteroid that's on its path towards Earth exists, then it exists.
Or
If we can all agree that IF Cthulhu actually exists, then it exists. Do you see the flaw yet?

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

What Zankuu said.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists".

...No, the god doesn't exist. Therefore you're TRYING to prove that it exists, making it not an already existing entity except in the minds of men.

Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

There are moments when I want to repeatedly smash my head against concrete out of sheer embarrassment for others. This is one of them.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

...Your whole argument's premise is based on the thinking that if we say "if" for Object A, then Object A automatically exists. As Aretha Franklin would say: THINK!

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

Seriously, is this what it's come to for theists?

[Aaron123]

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

I couldn't help but hear Mojo Jojo's voice when I read that.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

Perhaps I missed something, but why phrase it as "an existing god"?  Why not just "if god exists..."?

[kcrady]

Really?  Really?!  You actually think you can conjure a god into existence with petty word games?  I guess that makes you more powerful than your god, doesn't it?

No cat has eight tails.

Every cat has one more tail than no cat.

Therefore, every cat has nine tails.

Right?  Right?

Yeah.  I'll be here all day, folks.

[kin hell]

...Your whole argument's premise is based on the thinking that if we say "if" for Object A, then Object A automatically exists. As Aretha Franklin would say: THINK!

Actually I think Aretha would be pleased with the proposition because Pofthecorn definitely needs help, and she could


and

Really?  Really?!  You actually think you can conjure a god into existence with petty word games?  I guess that makes you more powerful than your god, doesn't it?

No cat has eight tails.

Every cat has one more tail than no cat.

Therefore, every cat has nine tails.

Right?  Right?

Yeah.  I'll be here all day, folks.

you only need one for that whipping poster
cat 'o' nine tails.

[Emily]

To take from the wiki article provided in the OP, just replacing a few words :

===

For example, if P is the proposition:

God is supernatural[1] and omnipotent.[2]

then the law of excluded middle holds that the logical disjunction:

Either God is supernatural and omnipotent, or it is not the case that God is supernatural and omnipotent.

is true by virtue of its form alone. That is, the "middle" position, that God is neither supernatural and omnipotent nor not-supernatural and not-omnipotent, is excluded by logic, and therefore either the first possibility (God is supernatural and omnipotent) or its negation (it is not the case that God is supernatural and omnipotent) must be true.

===

Personally, I'd conclude that god is not supernatural and is not omnipotent.

Based on your form it's pretty lame for anyone to say that something that exists doesn't exist, so we must agree with your first preposition that god exists. For some reason it seems like your logic is flawed simply because you use the word "existing" before you even mention the idea of god. There is no choice but to agree with you on this point because everyone knows that something that exists can't not exist. We just have to take you on your word that you know that god exists.

I have four cats.
I don't have four cats.

Question: How many cats do I have? Four or none? Honestly it's neither because I have two, but based on your example of the cats I either have four or not four. 

As mentioned, it just seems like word games.

1.	(supernatural to mean outside our physical realm, and being wherever it is that god hides out)
2.	One of the 'key' qualities that its believers give it

[One Above All]

I actually came to this topic expecting an argument that's hard to refute. I probably should know better by now: If a thread is entitled "Irrefutable proof for a god" or something similar to it, it's gonna be a big letdown.

Ego stroking:
An existing god exists.
I exist.
Therefore I am god.

My logic is undeniable. *Repeat ad infinitum*

[riley2112]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

[Add Homonym]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

We're can't lookz at yoo. The internetz is in the way.

[Emily]

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

Hmm, that if says a lot. I think many who will and have post(ed) in this thread will not agree with you that a god exists, so your logic falls flat right off the bat. Many of us could step into our frame  of mind that we had when we were christians and shout "Yeah, way to go Peter! Show those atheists using logic that god exists!" but you're speaking to people who just don't agree with you that a god exists, and we all know that if something exists then it does exist. Whether we want it too or not[1], if it exists, then well.... it exists. Case closed. Nothing we can do about it unless we buy or create a proton pack.

You logic will be well accepted in your circle of friends or acquaintances who all share the same belief as you do, but here where many of us don't believe your god is real, it just wont be accepted. And (since I cannot edit my previous post, which is why I am making a new post), you don't really have any right to think or speak for us[2]. Your...

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

{snip}

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

logic fails because you're creating the fallacy of (might not be a fallacy - Perhaps just being rude) of speaking for us, thinking that we will agree that if it exists, then it does. And, well... many of us just don't think it does exist. There is no IF. So you've proven nothing.

1.	and personally speaking I don't want it too
2.	And sorry for making a new post but one thing I absolutely hate is when people feel the need to speak for others. Some people should just shut the fuck up and let those who are capable of speaking for themselves do so.

[Iamrational]

It is Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

You stated a premise that I, nor most on this forum accept. You said existing in your opening statement. There isn't an existing god to begin with. It is a circular argument. Like everyone else has been saying, you can insert any other silly term in there and it still doesn't make it valid if the person doesn't accept your premise.

You first have to prove the existing god part before you can say existing god, unless of course you meant Odin. Oh never mind, go ahead. I thought you were trying to prove the Jesus god thingy. You were just proving Odin. Continue on soldier.

[Add Homonym]

Pssst. Which God is he talking about?

[Emily]

Pssst. Which God is he talking about?

Probably some cool god who always picks up the tab at the club after a night of (my favorite D's) drinking and dancing and dining. Everything's on him, folks!

I doubt he's talking about a mainstream god who has proven to existence that it doesn't exist based on his nonexistence with existence.

[kaziglu bey]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

Once you realize that most arguments for the existence of God are this weak (or worse!) then you will really understand us.

I hope you realize that we don't "look at (you) the way (we) do" out of scorn, or hate, or prejudice. It's mostly pity. And a little bit of a laugh too. Don't you honestly feel sorry for someone who is able to convince themselves of ANYTHING based on the type of "logic" displayed here? Again, that's how we feel when we read almost any post by a theist. In my experience here so far, from what I have read in theists posts, the only one I have noticed who is intellectually honest and provokes serious, insightful thought is OldChurchGuy. Being able to simply admit to what one doesn't know, and that one doesn't know how to find the answer, is infinitely more honest and respectful than saying "I KNOW God exists! But I don't have any meaningful way of demonstrating that, or replicating it in others, or any evidence to support it, or any evidence to counter all of the contradictions, lies, errors, and cruelties in the Bible.  Still, I KNOW!". Neither convincing nor honest. Being able to discern the difference between faith and knowledge, and being able to admit to the existence of such a difference, is admirable.

However, what peterofthecorn did here should cause him to be extremely embarrassed, if he has any personal integrity. Either that or it is meant to be a troll post. It's really hard to believe someone could actually use logic that badly and be sincere about it, especially when OTHER BELIEVERS can see that it's BS.

[kaziglu bey]

-snip-

You know what peterofthecorn? I am friends with my former Logic/Critical Thinking professor on Facebook. How about I email him your post, or invite him here, to address the quality of your logic? I'm sure it would be enlightening. He may decline because, based upon the frivolity of your assertions, it would probably be a complete waste of his time, but I suppose that itself would be indicative of the value of your "logic".

[jaimehlers]

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

Let me turn that question around.  Can you overlook your emotional attachment to the idea of God and consider rationally the concept of their being no God at all?  If you cannot, it is nonsense to expect someone else to do what you cannot.

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

First off, this statement is a logical fallacy.  "If something exists, then it exists."  You're restating the premise as its conclusion, the most basic form of circular logic.  Second, you can't prove something exists through pure logic, because that is a thought exercise.  I can conceive of things existing in my mind, but without actually finding those things in the real world, they remain totally imaginary.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

However, you cannot determine whether John actually has four cats or not unless you go and count them.  You can neither prove nor disprove a logical contention without observation of whatever is being contended about.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

You can't prove that something exists just by saying that it exists.  It is no more complicated than that.

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

Both of these are logical fallacies as currently stated.  You are basically saying, "either a god that exists exists, or a god that exists doesn't exist".  You have carefully set up your logical contention to disallow for the possibility that you might be wrong, and thus have sabotaged your own effort.  Very simply, you cannot determine whether something really exists just by using logic.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

Nope, and there are two problems.  First is the circular logic; as others have said, if you rephrase the premise slightly (to "a god that doesn't exist"), then you end up with the exact same situation, but where you've 'proven' the opposite.  Second, if you take away the circular logic, you end up with the statement "either a god exists or it doesn't exist".  As I showed above, you can't prove whether it exists or doesn't exist simply by using logic.

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

For something to be logically irrefutable, there must be evidence of it actually existing.  For example, this very post is logically irrefutable evidence that a poster named jaimehlers exists - that someone goes by the handle of 'jaimehlers' and writes posts on this forum.  So you have to find evidence that a god exists before you can say that its existence is logically irrefutable.

[Samuelxcs]

"God exists" "God does not exist" It doesn't mater, now where is my flying unicorn?...

[Add Homonym]

Don't get too excited. I think he only trolls once a year, now, like Santa.

[rickymooston]

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle.

This is untrue. There exists statements that are neither true nor false. Typically they have poorly defined terms involved and include self reference. Paradoxes are a family of these.

This sentence is false.

The hangman;s paradox is more subtle.

[Traveler]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

I'm still thinking its a joke.

If not, WTF indeed. 

[Historicity]

Like wow, man!

I like dig the cosmic concept here.

EVERYTHING EXISTS.   THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

Because for a thing to exist it is an existing thing.  If the question is if an existing thing exists if is the fallacy of the Excluded Middle that the null hypothesis that an existing thing does not exist is a reductio ad absurdum.

Did I get that right?

Like wow, man.       Deep.

[albeto]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

The sad thing is, all theological arguments break down to something like this eventually.

It's why god invented booze.  Thank you Dionysus. 

[Historicity]

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do. 

I'm still thinking its a joke.

I looked up his other posts.  It's not a joke.  But it is so funny.

[Historicity]

Pssst. Which God is he talking about?

Yes, that was one of my thoughts.  He never gave a definition of what a god is.  Maybe one of the Goa'uld.  This is my night to watch Stargate reruns.

[Gnu Ordure]

Jaime:

First off, this statement is a logical fallacy.  "If something exists, then it exists."  You're restating the premise as its conclusion, the most basic form of circular logic.

It's not exactly a fallacy; it's more of a truism. If P, Then P. That's true, but it's hardly worth saying, as it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

Peter's problem specifically is the repetition of the concept of existence in his conditional statement, bolded:

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists.

The statement an existing god exists is a tautology, as it is true according to every interpretation of it i.e. it is non-falsifiable. Yet Peter attempts to prove it:

The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists".

No need to prove it, Peter; it's a tautologous true statement, and we all agree with you that an existing god exists.

The proposition you should be trying to prove is A god exists.

You can of course resolve the tautology by removing the word existing, but that also destroys your argument.

[12 Monkeys]

can we apply this theory to prove all gods exist?