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]

If the standard is subject to change, it is not objective.
If whether a certain act is right or wrong is determined by variables, it is possible that rape could be justified given a certain time, place, conditions, etc.

I agree it's not about personal feelings, it's about what standard one can go by. but first...

But the God one can arrive at by deduction in a cosmological sense (the Unmoved Mover, the eternal non-caused First cause) is an eternal one, one who must necessarily have always existed before time or space existed.

If eternal, then omnipotent.
It might suffice to say the greatest being in the universe, but if such a being existed and was eternal, then given an infinite amount of time (in reality outside of time) couldn't that being reach the infinite?
That's not my position, I believe such a being to have always been infinite, but it cannot be denied that even if that being was not it could become infinite. (Okay so maybe I'm just thinking out loud - and I jumped to the conclusion that this Cause is a personal being rather than a force)

If precedent and creator of all space and time, this Cause, if He is a being, can view the whole of space and time as we could glance at a timeline on a page, even the smallest detail.
eternity (time) eternity

If such a Cause exists, and it is a personal being, then such an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect/just, then such is the God described by monotheism (Theism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam - but now we're moving out of the realm of God's existence and into the probability and possibility of that God revealing His will objectively (in writing, not personally) to man). The God one reads about in Psalm 139 is the same God advocated by the Philosophers in many respects: Socrates and Aristotle, Anthony Flew, David Conway, and now Leah Libresco.

[dusk]

If such a Cause exists, and it is a personal being, then such an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect/just, then such is the God described by monotheism (Theism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam - but now we're moving out of the realm of God's existence and into the probability and possibility of that God revealing His will objectively (in writing, not personally) to man). The God one reads about in Psalm 139 is the same God advocated by the Philosophers in many respects: Socrates and Aristotle, Anthony Flew, David Conway, and now Leah Libresco.

You defined the theological concept of god which is vastly different from that held by most "common" believers. Besides the jump to "a being" there is also the "personal being" jump and the "non-deist" that you forgot. After all even if there is a god who is to say he gives a shit about humans, maybe he likes squirrels, or built this world for the machines of Matrix which are still to come. We could be just the intermediary to the next step of seriously intelligent beings.

Regardless now some philosophers share a view. We got a couple of them on multiple issues and still loads to go around. What are you getting at? If multiple people agree on one definition that is enough. Well there are multiple people on multiple positions. What now?

[jimvansage]

If nothing else, I've demonstrated that is is reasonable to believe that such a Cause and/or Being exists based on what we can observe in nature.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

[McCulloch]

But the God one can arrive at by deduction in a cosmological sense (the Unmoved Mover, the eternal non-caused First cause) is an eternal one, one who must necessarily have always existed before time or space existed.

How can one speak meaningfully of things existing before time?

If eternal, then omnipotent.

What do you mean by eternal? If by eternal you mean for an infinite length of time, then time itself in your view is infinite. If time is infinite then there cannot be a being that existed before time. If, however, you agree with those cosmologists who see time space as finite, then eternal can only mean having existed for all time, which is a finite duration. How did you conclude that eternal implies omnipotent?

It might suffice to say the greatest being in the universe, but if such a being existed and was eternal, then given an infinite amount of time (in reality outside of time) couldn't that being reach the infinite?

I don't understand what it means to exist outside of time.

[Mithrae]

It might suffice to say the greatest being in the universe, but if such a being existed and was eternal, then given an infinite amount of time (in reality outside of time) couldn't that being reach the infinite?

I don't understand what it means to exist outside of time.

Even within the space-time which we experience, the phenomenon of time dilation can make it meaningful to speak of person A's time in contrast with person B's time. You didn't answer my earlier comment on this subject, either by showing that events cannot occur except within our space-time; nor by disputing the possibility of alternate space-times as implied (for example) in the many worlds theory of reality; nor by acknowledging the fact that at least one event must have occurred without the presence of our space-time, else there could have been no big bang.

Can you honestly not understand that the space-time which we experience needn't be the only possible frame/s of reference? What else could be meant by "time (in reality outside of time)"? On face value that possibility does at least seem marginally more plausible than there was no time, and something happened.

[dusk]

If nothing else, I've demonstrated that is is reasonable to believe that such a Cause and/or Being exists based on what we can observe in nature.

No you did not demonstrate that. You only laid out how some people reason it.
Yet as you yourself said there is an unreasoned jump to a being -> to a personal being -> a caring god with human attributes -> the bible.
On any one of these jumps you can go another direction just the same. It isn't any harder to find nice sounding reasons for it.
eternal -> omnipotence not really sustainable either.
properties are all mostly extrapolated from subjective wishes without any serious verification possible.

That is exactly what I mean with just random best guesses that can never be verified.
It is humans that create the god in their own image and those are different so are their gods. They had the warrior gods, the caring gods, the authoritarian god, the forgiving god, liberal gods, the conservative ones.
Some of those humans might get it right by accident but even they couldn't really know. And nobody outside cannot verify.

[McCulloch]

Even within the space-time which we experience, the phenomenon of time dilation can make it meaningful to speak of person A's time in contrast with person B's time. You didn't answer my earlier comment on this subject, either by showing that events cannot occur except within our space-time; nor by disputing the possibility of alternate space-times as implied (for example) in the many worlds theory of reality; nor by acknowledging the fact that at least one event must have occurred without the presence of our space-time, else there could have been no big bang.

Can you honestly not understand that the space-time which we experience needn't be the only possible frame/s of reference? What else could be meant by "time (in reality outside of time)"? On face value that possibility does at least seem marginally more plausible than there was no time, and something happened.

No I don't limit my understanding to our own time frame. However, events must occur, if they are to occur, within some time-like dimension. A personal God that is entirely outside of all time cannot even be conceived.

If the Big Bang, the beginning of our time dimension, is an event that had to occur on some other yet unknown and perhaps unknowable space time, then where did that space time come from? Is there an infinite regression issue, or must we arrive at a teleological Father of the Multiverse?

[Mithrae]

Even within the space-time which we experience, the phenomenon of time dilation can make it meaningful to speak of person A's time in contrast with person B's time. You didn't answer my earlier comment on this subject, either by showing that events cannot occur except within our space-time; nor by disputing the possibility of alternate space-times as implied (for example) in the many worlds theory of reality; nor by acknowledging the fact that at least one event must have occurred without the presence of our space-time, else there could have been no big bang.

Can you honestly not understand that the space-time which we experience needn't be the only possible frame/s of reference? What else could be meant by "time (in reality outside of time)"? On face value that possibility does at least seem marginally more plausible than there was no time, and something happened.

No I don't limit my understanding to our own time frame. However, events must occur, if they are to occur, within some time-like dimension. A personal God that is entirely outside of all time cannot even be conceived.

I agree, but as I pointed out Jim himself made reference to "time (in reality outside of time)." That's only contradictory or incomprehensible if you choose to make it so - sure you can claim to 'win' an argument by the other person's lack of perfection in clear thinking and expression, but it's a pretty hollow victory wouldn't you say? Often it's more informative to challenge your own views by filling in others' missing pieces.

If the Big Bang, the beginning of our time dimension, is an event that had to occur on some other yet unknown and perhaps unknowable space time, then where did that space time come from? Is there an infinite regression issue, or must we arrive at a teleological Father of the Multiverse?

I don't know. Having recently looked into William Lane Craig's work a little, I'm somewhat persuaded by the view that an actual infinite is nonsensical (and thus, perhaps, impossible). The cosmological argument is good primarily to get us thinking about these things - I really don't see how it proves anything. But once we're thinking in that vein, it seems that ultimately there must have been something/s which just was. Either many things kick started the world we know, or one single thing with many properties did, or a single thing with just a few properties did. The properties of choice and by implication thought seem the simplest just is scenario to my mind - certainly simpler than various elementary particles, several fundamental forces, and a space-time continuum for them to be in. Coincidentally, whereas we have no way of showing that any particles are truly elementary or any forces truly fundamental, we have near-constant and unmediated access to choice and thought.

So both parsimony and inference from experience seem to favour choice/thought as a more reasonable supposition regarding the basis for our universe. Or put differently, the cosmological argument in a refined form might only prove (as far as logic can prove anything) a first cause, but parsimony and inference from experience strongly suggest that the cause was something thinking/choosing rather than an array of 'laws' which produced the vast and complex cosmos we know.

[LiamOS]

Jim, it's worth noting that you didn't answer my question; how would a world with objective morality differ from one without?

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.

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not liking the truth makes it no less true.

If nothing else, I've demonstrated that is is reasonable to believe that such a Cause and/or Being exists based on what we can observe in nature.

This inductive reasoning is rendered moot by particle physics; it is no longer a given that the universe behaves causal, so to extrapolate is not possible.

[jimvansage]

If nothing else, I've demonstrated that is is reasonable to believe that such a Cause and/or Being exists based on what we can observe in nature.

No you did not demonstrate that. You only laid out how some people reason it. [If every effect has an antecedent and superior cause, then there must be an Uncaused Cause - That's how "some people" reason because there's no evidence that we should reason otherwise as far as I know]

Yet as you yourself said there is an unreasoned jump to a being...On any one of these jumps you can go another direction just the same.
eternal -> omnipotence not really sustainable either [but possible]
properties are all mostly extrapolated from subjective wishes without any serious verification possible.

I know that there are qualities about this Cause that are up for debate which can never be verified in the same way that we can reason that such a Cause must exist. The nature of the Cause thus far (infinite, perfectly in morality, eternal b/c of cosmology, intelligent b/c of obvious design or "fine tuning") but even defining these things is vague unless we move into the realm of general/special revelation from that Cause to man. The cause is already generally revealed through Creation (because the universe is observed to be this way, there must be a cause; because man has within him a moral compass, there must be a moral standard), but any details about this necessarily existing but un-observable cause, any other knowledge we can have about it must have been manifested or revealed in some significant way by that Cause - individually or objectively; potentially in some form of writing that would appeal to the intellect.
I never said I was proving the existence of the Christian God - to do that I would have to evaluate what can be known about that Cause, if it fits the description given to it in an alleged "holy" document (the Bible for instance) and determine whether that document is merely the product of humans or bears evidence of things beyond man's knowledge at the time. That, of course, is another thread.