Is there any logical proof that God exists?

Answer 1

Anthropic Principle:

Actually I believe that there is more than faith involved and the logical existence of God can be determined (as described by The Bible) you can perceive him by the the things around us. he created you and me, so we ourselves are proof. Another answer:

Here is my logical proof

God is Perfect.

Not to exist is Not Perfect

Therefore, God exists.

(Note: Hence, be careful when you say something is Perfect. Being Perfect has many implications!)

Catholic Perspective:

It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that God can be known through natural reason: "God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things." (de fide) That God can be known through causality is not dogmatically defined but is judged proximate to the Faith (fidei proxima). The philosophical history that eventually led to this declaration is interesting.

Probably quoted the most from the early Church doctors is the ontological proof of St. Anselm. He reasoned thus (familiarity with the philosophical concepts of universals and particulars will aid in understand his argument a bit better):

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

This argument ultimately is unsatisfactory as it confuses the idea with the reality, act with potency.

St. Thomas Aquinas next set forth the five proofs of the existence of God. These proofs are fairly well known:

• Motion
• Causation
• Contingency
• Degrees of Perfection
• Design

Christian metaphysics, however, esteems vertical causality as the best natural proof of God's existence. Unlike the horizontal series presented in the five ways that stretch back historically until time and space become redundant, vertical causality is proved in the present moment. That is, the fact of existence, of now, is proof of "God". This is declared since no object is the source of its own present existence, nor is any object responsible for its maintenance in time and space. Metaphysically, every moment is different, no object is the same as it was an instant before. This is because existence in time is particular to every specific moment. The way you were .01 seconds ago is not the way you exist now, for to exist now is a different thing then any other point of your existence.

Since existence is not proper to any object, it must be a participation. Existence itself, that thing whose purpose is to exist, allows other things to partake of Existence here and now, in any given moment. The five proofs help define the nature of this Existence (intelligence, etc.) however, the fact that anything exists now is only because of a participation in Existence itself.

Another answer: Think about it. We are in a perfect spot in the universe. A millimeter closer to the sun we burn, a millimeter away we freeze. I think that's proof right there.

Besides, If there is a 99% chance god doesn't exist, what do we lose? We lived a good life. And if the other 1% said God existed, well, that's just awesome.

________________________________________________________________

Another answer:

Long time ago, a man went to a wise saint to ask 2 questions:

Man: O revered sir! Please answer my two questions...

Sage: Sure, child. What is it you want?

Man: My first question, does GOD exist?

Sage: Before that, answer me: DO YOU EXIST?

Man: Yes, can't you see me present besides you?

Sage: So GOD exists...

Man: Prove...

Sage: Give me a day, bring your child with you tomorrow.

Next day the child comes with his father. Sage asks the father to leave them alone for some time.

Sage says to child: Irritate your father as much as you can...

Child: Okay!

Sage asks the man to come next day.

The man arrives at sage's place next day much irritated and probably having a headache. Which meant that the child has done his part.

Sage asks: Come son, why are you so irritated. You should be happy! I have found your proof.

Man: What is it?

Sage: But before that tell me do you have headache or not?

Man: Yes I have.

Sage: Then I will show that after you show me where is exactly your head aching... smiles...

Man seems to maneuver his hands and at last seems to give up...

Man: Thank you!

Sage: hare Krishna Another view: I personally do not think there is any evidence that the Christian god exists. When, you think about it, how do you even know that the bible is real. Someone could have just made it up, and pretended that they were told by a higher power. Also, there is no physical proof of a god ever existing. There are no artifacts, no footprints, and no photographs. Can you see, feel, hear, smell, or taste it? No. But some people grow up in religious families, and go along with it to the point of belief. Crazy people claim to hear the voice of god, which may as well be an illusion.

In a logical point of view, how could there be only one? Even if I thought there were such things, it seems unreasonable that one single heavenly power would be able to manage and control the entire universe. To solve this obvious problem, there must be at least a few different gods, each controlling separate things, diving the power in order to divinely intervene in an efficient manner. But, if you have several gods, it just seems logical that there would usually be at least one piece of evidence, whereas there is none. This rules out the option of multiple gods.

In total, there must not be any god.

But how were people created? What makes the sun rise and set? Why doesn't the world just end?

These questions can all be answered by science. Although I see Scientology as a type of research, and not religion, it makes sense. Our very own earth is what provides us with the oxygen we breathe, and the climate that lets us inhabit a planet in this seemingly barren galaxy.

Answer 2

It is not possible to provide any logical proof that God exists. That is a matter of faith only.

If logical proof is to be found for the existence of God, it must be found in the Bible. The Bible does report ancient Hebrew people actually seeing God. If those reports could be verified, they would be prima facie evidence of the existence of God. However, the reports were written centuries after the supposed events and could be considered to be coloured by legend and conviction. Objectively, reports at such a distance in time are no more reliable than a twenty-first century belief that only King Arthur of medieval times could pull the sword from a rock. Moreover, biblical accounts of the prophets' personal acquaintances with God are so contradictory as to defy logical explanation. It remains a matter of faith, and faith alone, that the biblical accounts are correct.

Over the centuries, theologians have come up with a number of arguments in which they sought to prove that God exists, including the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the ontological argument. The mere fact that so many attempted proofs exist means that the creators of each argument saw the shortcomings in the other arguments. Wiliam H. Halverson (A Concise Introduction to Philosophy) says that the teleological argument is popularly regarded as the most persuasive of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, yet it is by far the weakest.

Blaise Pascal recognised the impossibility of proving God exists, so he devised 'Pascal's Wager'. He said that belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. This is not proof that God exists, but acknowledgement that he may not exist. Indeed, the argument can be reversed in some cases and used to argue for non-belief.

Answer 3

There are tens of arguments for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few.
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism.)From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against Evolution

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.

3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient societyever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.

4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.

5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.

6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.

d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?

- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

Now, the other side of the Question: why might people notbelieve in God?

1) Peer influence. In high school, for example, the one or two religious believers in a class may be subject to ridicule.

2) Convenience; desires. No one wants "bothersome" rules, or limitations to their personal pleasure. We see how lack of self-discipline has led to epidemic obesity, drunkenness, divorce rates, violence etc.

3) Lack of proper information. People have inaccurate notions about God, religion and belief. They've picked up tidbits, jokes, and "sound-bites," and on such solid authority they dismiss the entire topic.

4) Unfortunate experiences. Many have had personal hardships, or a harsh religious upbringing or education, and as a consequence may retain an unhappy feeling towards belief, without realizing that emotions and proofs are two different things.

5) Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are a significant number of highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.

6) Intellectual laziness. Many people have simply never delved into the subject, to see if God's existence can be convincingly demonstrated.

7) Stereotyping. People call us "religious nuts," "Bible-thumpers," etc.; so the average layperson may get a negative feeling toward all belief, not realizing that he/she should first look into the existence of God in principle, before necessarily looking into religion.

- The above essay is intended for the general public and is in addition to evidence specific to Judaism, its history and its texts.