I have proven that God exists!?

Question

I have proven that God exists through these 4 logical proofs.

1. There is a Universal Truth

Because if there isn't, then the statement "There is no Universal Truth" would be a Universal Truth in itself, and it would contradict that there isn't a Universal Truth.

Therefore there is Universal Truth

2. There is Universal Beauty.

Because if there isn't, then the statement "There is no Universal beauty" would be a universally beautiful statement in itself(its a beautiful statement because this statement would be a TRUTHFUL and PERFECT statement- which would be beautiful, as a PERFECT statement is always beautiful), therefore contradicting the idea that there isn't Universal Beauty.

Therefore there is Universal Beauty.

4. There is universal Perfection

Because if there wasn't, then the statement "There is no universal perfection" would be a universally perfect statement in itself, therefore contradicting the statement that there is no Universal Perfection.

Therefore Universal Perfection exists.

3. There is a God

Because if there weren't a God, then the statement "There is no God" would be a God-like statement(it is a God-like statement because this statement would be the truth and perfect statement - and a truth and perfect statement is Godlike), therefore contradicting the statement that there is no God.

Therefore, there is a God.



Therefore I have proved that God exists. AND NO, THESE PROOFS DON'T WORK WITH ANYTHING ELSE except maybe a few abstract nouns and adjectives

It doesn't work with anything else because :

FOR EXAMPLE:

Vampires exist

If they don't exist, then the very statement that "Vampires are not real" is vampire like, which contradicts the statement that Vampires don't exist.

Therefore, Vampires are real.

THIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE THE STATEMENT "VAMPIRES ARE NOT REAL IS VAMPIRE LIKE" IS FALSE. IT IS FALSE BECAUSE HOW IS THAT STATEMENT VAMPIRE LIKE? VAMPIRES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH STATEMENTS AND ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT WITH STATEMENTS.


However, a statement can be considered beautiful, godlike, perfect, and true. BUT DEFINITELY NOT VAMPIRE LIKE!

Answer 1

Y'all ****** are posting in a troll thread.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6389/yallniggazpostininatrol.jpg

Answer 2

Formally, I actually fail to see the validity of the argument. I could easily accept that certain things are true, certain things are beautiful, and certain things are perfect, but still deny that there's a single being that must embody each one simultaneously.



Factually:

1. There is a Universal Truth



Because if there isn't, then the statement "There is no Universal Truth" would be a Universal Truth in itself, and it would contradict that there isn't a Universal Truth.



Therefore there is Universal Truth



False. There are some things that are universally true. For example, "Triangles have 3 sides" is universally true. Universally true just means that something is true under all possible circumstances. There is no circumstance, for example, in which a triangle could have more or less than 3 sides. However, the statement that "The interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is not univerally true; it's contingently true, the contingent being that the triangle is inscribed on a plane. On a spherical object, inscribed triangles will have greater interior angles.



So, your statment is limited. This makes sense when you read on.



"2. There is Universal Beauty.



Because if there isn't, then the statement "There is no Universal beauty" would be a universally beautiful statement in itself(its a beautiful statement because this statement would be a TRUTHFUL and PERFECT statement- which would be beautiful, as a PERFECT statement is always beautiful), therefore contradicting the idea that there isn't Universal Beauty.



Therefore there is Universal Beauty."



You have to define what "beauty" is in this context. If it's just a perfect, truthful statement, that's fine...but you'll have clarify that later. See below.



"4. There is universal Perfection



Because if there wasn't, then the statement "There is no universal perfection" would be a universally perfect statement in itself, therefore contradicting the statement that there is no Universal Perfection.



Therefore Universal Perfection exists."



If "universal perfection" is just a based in the fact that some things are necessarily true, this is just a reitieration of the first two premises, and is thus unnecessary. For example, is it "universally perfect" that a triangle has 3 sides? It would seem so, based on your description...but that's an odd way of using the word "perfect."



"3. There is a God



Because if there weren't a God, then the statement "There is no God" would be a God-like statement(it is a God-like statement because this statement would be the truth and perfect statement - and a truth and perfect statement is Godlike), therefore contradicting the statement that there is no God.



Therefore, there is a God."



Whoa...slow down there. What is a god? How are you defining the term? If you're saying that something exists if it's true, you're wrong.



Consider this example:

"All triangle have 3 sides." That's true.

"Some triangles have 3 sides" is also true. If a generalized statement is true, then it's always that case that a specific statement of the same elements is also true. In classical logic, the relationship between the two statements is called subalternation.



"All unicorns have one horn" is true, but that doesn't suppose that there are unicorns.

"Some unicorns have one horn" is not true *because* there are no unicorns.

Boole came along with examples like the unicorn to show that specific statements have an existential presupposition, thus overturning the entire idea of subalternation (and, in the process, overturned several other classical logical relationships...only contradiction remains once you factor this in).



So, you can't go from the idea that something is real just because you defined a few general principles as real by defining them into existence. It doesn't work like that. Just because something is true by definition (such as unicorns having horns) doesn't mean it has a referent.

Answer 3

The universal truth isn't about Chrisitnaity. Universal truth is about all the facts and truths in science, history, etc.



There isn't a universal perfection. Never was. All of us live in a imperfection world.



What Universal beauty have do with God? It can be connect with nature.



You need to take philosophy class because you are not making any sense.

Answer 4

i'm in basic terms a man or woman with constrained perceptions, in simple terms like every physique else. I believe God does exist, yet no longer in any anthropomorphic sense that could have the potential to be shown or measured scientifically. This being the main probable clarification for the an prolonged time previous debate, I end that i won't supply any satisfying answer that could convince you the two way.

Answer 5

first you dont know how to count. 3 comes after 2 not after 4.

you used circular logic for 1 2 4 and 3 and your argument in 3 about a god-like statement is flawed. you fail.

Answer 6

Too much like Anselm for my liking. The argument relies on the rules of language, and I'll grant you that it's clever (if you actually came up with it) but listen to this...



We developed language to explain our reality...but in the process we also create it. This was demonstrated in an experiment by the linguist Saphir-Whorf, in an attempt to prove the same linguist's hypothesis. Your argument is only mildly sensical because you have manipulated the language because you WANT it to make sense.



There's an awful lot of assumption in there too. Truth is a subjective concept, as are beauty and perfection.



Dawkin's called Anselm's ontological argument infantile. And I will do the same to yours.

Answer 7

There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Because if there weren't a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the statement "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" would be a Flying Spaghetti Monster-like statement(it is a Flying Spaghetti Monster-like statement because this statement would be the truth and perfect statement - and a truth and perfect statement is Flying Spaghetti Monster-like), therefore contradicting the statement that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Therefore, there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Answer 8

If i said nothing is just as real as something,you may want to disagree.

However without space nothing could be .Where would you place the something.

At the same time nothing is scientifically undefinable.

So do we say nothing is not real? You may disagree but it is said

the human mind is 99.95% space. It is much like the universe,much more space than substance.

It seems to me space is needed just as much if not more than substance.

No one has proved God & no one has disproved God,except those who show us the intangible nature of God,and the cynic will say that is not God but the gymnastics of the human mind.

Why can't we just admit the human mind is clever but limited to our desire,imagination & measurement of things empirical.

Answer 9

*facepalm*

That's philosophy, and flawed at that.



Take: "there is no universal truth."



This is a varied statement. Truth means different things to different people, and a 'universal truth' is hard enough to define.



Clean and pure are only "godlike" by some religions.



And... wait, ****. I've just been trolled, ain't i?

Answer 10

Confusing. Nice

Answer 11

1. can't prove either of those. Play on words is not an argument

2.Subjective

3. Just because something is God-like doesn't make it God. I can create things, but that doesn't make me God. Creating things is God-like. Anyway, you're doing the same thing - play on words.





Argument FAIL

Answer 12

Rofl. Nice try, but when I see someone walk on water, or turn water into wine. Possibly send the 10 plagues or kill my oldest son, then I'll believe in God. But until then, no dice. :P

Answer 13

These are vast generalizations.

Because if they weren't vast generalizations you could fail to define things and still they would pop into existence when you had any old half baked idea. Try again.

Answer 14

this isnt scientific proof, this is your own little hypothesis and opinion,



if your "god" is real, then tell me this, why does it make more sense to religions folk that man came from dirt(as said in the bible) and woman came from the rib of a man,



while the actually evidence found that we have similar molecular structure to monkeys doesnt make sense to you religious people?

Answer 15

Haha you have a thing against vampires :P Don't worry I hate twilight too :)

Answer 16

I did this with bacon and it works. I think.



It might be because hunger and religion cause the same lapses in judgment, though.

Answer 17

Great!

I didn't read it all though, ended at the universal beauty part, but its great!

Answer 18

You can create whatever logical boxes you want. However that won't change reality.

Answer 19

Yay logic and knot tying.

Answer 20

You cannot be serious...this is the most abuse of logic I have ever seen. Thank you for the laughs.

Answer 21

Google "circular logic". That's what you're displaying here. Major logical fallacy.

Answer 22

Cool!

Answer 23

cool story bro

Answer 24

cool story bro

Answer 25

Madness is a gift which you have received. Use it well.

Answer 26

. . . An Ontological Argument.

Answer 27

Still no luck. Try again.

Answer 28

I really hope this is a joke. Because no one can be this stupid

Answer 29

Uhm, you didn't prove anything.

Answer 30

Oh, you sure told me.

Answer 31

I can't tell if your some idiot Christian or a troll.

Answer 32

whatttt?? i dont get it

Answer 33

yes, you did it.. finally

Answer 34

no your just stupid and probably christian

Answer 35

IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!!

…………………………………..,-”””¯””-,

……………………………....,~”……….\

………………………..…,~”……..……...\

……………………..…,-“…………….......|

... ... ... …….….….,-“…………………....|

……………………/.............................…

………….………/……………………......|

…………….…../………………………...|

………………./…………………..,„_„...|

………………/…………………,-,-~-,-~’,

……………../……………….,-“ ( . . o)_º)

……………./………………./ . . .“-~“ . . ¯¯¯¯¯””~-,

……………|………………..| . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-~“~,

……………|…………….....| . . . . . . . . . . . . . /:::::::\

……………|…………….....| . . . . . . . . . . . . . |::::::::l

……………|………………..\ . . . ._ . . . . . . . . “-,„„„-”

…………....|………………..”-, . .(..”~,------------~”

… ………….|._………………..”~,..”~-‘---,………………,-…

………….,~” . ¯”~,……………….¯”~~-”,-\………….,-“-,”~, . .”-,

……….,-“….,~”,-~”\…..-‘.,„„„………………”-,……… . . “-, ”-, .

………..\,,-“,~”……/…..,-“ . .”-,…………..’-,.”-,……..) . . . .”-,,-

………….’-,……..(,--,.,-“ . . . . |…………….”-,”-,,(“-~”-,””~~~”

…………….¯”””¯,-“, .), . . . . ,-“……………….”-,\,.”..,-“

………………….’-, .”.,“-,_„„~”……………………”.”-,”

…………………..”~”-,.\,…,--~~~-,………………,~’,

…………………………¯”~/ . . . . . .)……………,”-~’,

…………………….....…./ . . . . . . |--„„„„„„--,~””¯ . . .)_

………………………….,-“ . . . . . .,-“………/ . . . . . . , .)

…………………………( . . . . . ,. . , “)……”-, . . . . .) ,’-“

…………………………..”~-,„_ . .)_,|-“……….¯”””””"'



PEANUT BUTTER JELLY

PEANUT BUTTER JELLY

PEANUT BUTTER JELLY WITH A BASEBALL BAT!