Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[jimvansage]

[/quote]
Dark matter has been shown that it must exist if our mathematical modeling of the universe is accurate. We call it dark matter because its existence and properties can only be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe. If our mathematical models are correct, then dark matter exists. If our mathematical models are incorrect, then dark matter may not exist. Even though we cannot yet directly observe it, it is part of the universe, because it is, in principle, observable.[/quote]

I contend that it likewise can be shown that God must exist if our understanding and observations of the universe are accurate. Though God is not empirically and directly observable by the human sense or any technological aide to those sense, what we can observe and know can reveal facts about things that we cannot observe and cannot know (unless we use reason to determine the existence of what we cannot observe and perhaps the nature of it). A proper definition of either dark matter or God is unnecessary if the qualities of such a thing can be defined from the known universe (16% if dark matter constitutes 84%) and both dark matter and God are not observable.

I feel prepared to set forth some arguments:

If there is one contingent object in existence, and every contingent object owes its origin to a superior and antecedent cause, then there must be one infinite, non-contingent cause (for our purposes, an eternal unmoved mover, a force which cannot strictly be determined to be a personal being or impersonal, but such must exist regardless of definition).

If there is any one thing that can be deemed objectionable morally wrong in all cases, then there must be an objective moral standard (Corollary: one standard necessitates one God, not simply powers above man and the universe).

If there is a design in the universe/nature, there must be an Grand Designer.

Cosmological, Moral, and Teleological arguments for the existence of God.

[Mithrae]

If there is any one thing that can be deemed objectionable morally wrong in all cases, then there must be an objective moral standard (Corollary: one standard necessitates one God, not simply powers above man and the universe).

If there is a design in the universe/nature, there must be an Grand Designer.

How would you show that there is something which is objectively morally wrong?
How would you show that there is design in the universe?

[jimvansage]

How would you show that there isn't?

[LiamOS]

How would you show that there isn't?

You would first establish what they mean and what the universe would look like, should they exist.

[jimvansage]

Let's stick with morality - we know what morality is, we know what right and wrong are.

To be objectively right or wrong, an action must possess a quality (either right or wrong) regardless of individual opinion or experience.

I detest the idea that rape is wrong only because of majority rule, or common agreement, or even a social contract. There must exist an objective standard above the provincial and the transient.

btw Leah Libresco recently converted to Theism from atheism because the lack of answers atheistic science and philosophy could offer for morality (and she doesn't seem old enough to be senile like they accused Anthony Flew of being)

FYI http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.a ... ticle=1638

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

You could argue that some things are so inimical that you could say they hold true for an entire species (such as for humans), but that doesnt make it objective. When the universe first formed, billions of years before humans existed, was rape is inherently wrong! floating about as an objective moral value? No, it was emergent with human society.

Mind you, personal feeling and incredulity is no basis for labelling things right or wrong. Indeed, ducks procreate by rape: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... n.research Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards.

[McCulloch]

I feel prepared to set forth some arguments:

If there is one contingent object in existence, and every contingent object owes its origin to a superior and antecedent cause, then there must be one infinite, non-contingent cause (for our purposes, an eternal unmoved mover, a force which cannot strictly be determined to be a personal being or impersonal, but such must exist regardless of definition).

If there is any one thing that can be deemed objectionable morally wrong in all cases, then there must be an objective moral standard (Corollary: one standard necessitates one God, not simply powers above man and the universe).

If there is a design in the universe/nature, there must be an Grand Designer.

Cosmological, Moral, and Teleological arguments for the existence of God.

The Cosmological argument depends on the existence of chains of causality, each one reaching back in time. To prevent the contemplation of an infinite regress, there must be some non-contingent cause at the beginning of this chain. This could be the beginning of the universe itself, the deist concept of God or the Christian God.

Objective moral truths need not to have been dictated by a personal God. They could simply be the product of the attributes of the universe, as are the laws of physics or mathematics.

The universe appears not to have been deliberately designed.

[McCulloch]

I note also that your definition of the universe requires either that God (or anything prior to the Big Bang) cannot even in principle be shown to exist, or that God or anything before the Big Bang are part of the universe.

Speaking of prior to the Big Bang is as meaningful as speaking of colder than absolute zero or south of the South Pole.

Broadly understanding what is meant by a term is necessary; having a definition that is entirely unambiguous is often unnecessary and, as in the case of words like 'universe' or 'reality,' even tautology might sometimes be inavoidable. I'll await your comments regarding a definition for universe, my humble counter-example to your suggestion that such precise criteria in definitions are necessary as a first step, but quite simply I'm not seeing why you made that suggestion in the first place. If God were defined as 'love' - though I imagine very few theists would do so - it'd be a pretty ineffectual and benign deity after all.

The more I try to think about God, the less I understand what theists mean by that word. The universe could be described as all of space and time as well as all of the energy and matter contained therein.

[Mithrae]

I note also that your definition of the universe requires either that God (or anything prior to the Big Bang) cannot even in principle be shown to exist, or that God or anything before the Big Bang are part of the universe.

Speaking of prior to the Big Bang is as meaningful as speaking of colder than absolute zero or south of the South Pole.

If you can show that events cannot occur except in the space-time which we experience, certainly. But I reckon you'd have a hard time showing that to be the case, and I gather that many physicists and philosophers would disagree with you since a many worlds theory of reality would imply events beyond our space-time. Indeed it's necessary that at least one event occurred without the presence of our space-time, else there could have been no big bang. But since you appear to have set aside that definition, the point is moot.

Broadly understanding what is meant by a term is necessary; having a definition that is entirely unambiguous is often unnecessary and, as in the case of words like 'universe' or 'reality,' even tautology might sometimes be inavoidable. I'll await your comments regarding a definition for universe, my humble counter-example to your suggestion that such precise criteria in definitions are necessary as a first step, but quite simply I'm not seeing why you made that suggestion in the first place. If God were defined as 'love' - though I imagine very few theists would do so - it'd be a pretty ineffectual and benign deity after all.

The more I try to think about God, the less I understand what theists mean by that word. The universe could be described as all of space and time as well as all of the energy and matter contained therein.

That's a less ambiguous definition, though still tautological: All atoms exist is a tautology, because any which don't exist can't be included amongst 'all atoms.' Likewise with all of space and time as well as all of the energy and matter contained therein exists. And since you're assigning attributes to this universe, such as the 'laws of physics,' you must think that it exists. Yet you haven't explained without tautology what you mean by it!

As for God, Jim has already implied a definition about as good as we've got for dark matter, in that his understanding is inferred from observation: God is the designer of the universe, the first cause and the basis of morality. One might disagree with the validity of his arguments or the truth of his premises, but saying that you don't understand what is meant is neither a counter-argument, nor support for your initial suggestion that definitions must be unambiguous and non-tautological before we can consider a thing's existence.

[dusk]

I detest the idea that rape is wrong only because of majority rule, or common agreement, or even a social contract. There must exist an objective standard above the provincial and the transient.

It is more a should out of preference but assuming there is one, how do you determine that standard now? How do you access it. There is the golden rule which quite obviously has some socially beneficial effects (if one regards peace, fun & safety as valuable). Every idiot can see that nobody needs a theism to get that far.
Beyond that however it becomes a game of best guesses. Which rule book to choose? The resulting effect is exactly the same thing as majority rule, common agreement, social contract, indoctrination, ...
You may detest the that but theism doesn't change a thing about it.