Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(1 votes)

RatingRated by

You must login to vote

An attempted proof of the existence of God
By Sean Nelson

A note to the reader: Knowing of the many ancient and usually simplistic attempts to logically prove the existence of god, I wanted to see if I could construct a more sophisticated proof of God.

Most modern cynicism regarding the existence of god is attributable simply to the discovery that the universe operates in a physical, and not a spiritual sense. In other words, we live in a natural universe that obeys natural laws.

However, even if one assumes that we exist in a materialistic universe, one can still logically prove the existence of God. For logical purposes, I'll simply define god as a being above the physical world.

Keep in mind, if you can refute any one of my suppositions, then my argument is not a proof. But if you can't refute a single supposition, then this writing is a proof of god at least as far as your knowledge goes.

My first supposition is that the material universe consists of space and time.

My second supposition is that humans perceive the world in terms of space and time.

My third supposition is that space and time are by their very nature infinite unless you assume the creation of the universe. If you assume the creation of the universe, you assume a creator of the universe and this is god. So logically, god is proven whether you accept the truth of this supposition or not.

My fourth supposition is that infinity is a contradiction of space and time. I could write pages proving this supposition to be true but I'll offer this point to demonstrate how true it is. The human mind is entirely designed to perceive the world in space and time. And yet we cannot even imagine the idea of infinity. If infinity were simply a part of space and time, minds that understand space and time would understand infinity.

My conclusion is that space and time are both infinite and finite. This is a clear contradiction. The material world is like a mathematical equation that doesn't add up.

Now remember my logical definition of God as a being above the physical world. The natural world is a contradiction by its own rules. And yet we continue to perceive a natural world. This means that something supernatural is intervening in the natural world. This supernatural force couldn't intervene in the natural world unless it had control of the natural world. It follows that a being that controls the natural world is above the natural world.

So we've logically proved that a being that's above the natural world exists. A being that's above the natural world is god. So we've logically proved the existence of god.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, it's impossible to logically prove more than the existence of god. His nature and his identity are a matter of faith and not of logic. As a matter of faith, I accept God to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Related Items


The following comments are for "an attempted proof of God"
by Seanspacey

to Seanspacey
It is also pretty much impossible to prove some things other than God. Simple axioms(mathematical or not) for example.

But I have one question for you, what do you mean the material universe consists of space and time? Do you mean only space and time? A point of interest, Have you ever heard about the "baby universe" theory, mother universe turns out to its own grandma, think eternity? Regardless of the fact that it is only a theory, I think quantum science will almost prove the existence of God one day. Kind of sad really.

Great conclusion by the way.

( Posted by: Furius [Member] On: April 29, 2002 )

re: an attempted proof
I am not actually going to rate this as I think this was a bit of an underwhelming effort to try and find a 'proof of god', although I find the attempt admirable and some of your points worthy of interest.

"If you assume the creation of the universe, you assume a creator of the universe and this is god."

Here you have already forced the reader into a somewhat one sided look at the creation of the universe, using somewhat vague generalizations of logic and science.

If you want to look for some science on the creation of the universe, you should read "Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space", plus do some study on black hole research that is currently happening right now. It may be that someday some scientist in a lab here or out there somewhere may become the next 'God' for the universe that replaces this one.

Anyway, this was an interesting and daring piece, I must say. I don't think I can remember the last time I read an individual attempt at something so encompassing. Hence, I won't try to refute any of the points as I wouldn't feel right trying to prove your faith right or wrong - your faith is yours.

And the great thing about faith is that no matter how hard one might try to refute it, it's never going to happen because faith is not about being proven right or wrong, it's about believing without proof or in the face of opposing proof. Which leads back to why I won't rate this piece, because the way the piece itself is written is set up to doom the reader to failure in any attempt.

However, if you are looking for someone to attempt to refute this, I know someone I might be able to talk into taking a look at this and writing something about it.

( Posted by: Zebralicious [Member] On: April 29, 2002 )

thanks for all your comments
Hey everybody. I just did this for fun; I'm not trying to change anybody's opinion. I should mention that as a tool, I thik science is very valuable, but as far as a way of finding out real knowledge, I find science and math to be nearly useless. This is because science and math are, by their very nature, abstractions. Once you abstract, you can never translate the abstraction back into knowledge. Once you abstract, you can never go back. Furius, as for your question, I said that the universe consists of space and time because it does. I know that some scientists say space and time aren't real but they say the words in order, implying time and these scientists are 3-d, proving space. Our existence simply doesn't exist without assuming space and time. To sum it up, I value philosophy much higher than science or math. And most of my fiction is about philosophy.

( Posted by: Seanspacey [Member] On: April 29, 2002 )

We are...
We are all figments of our own imagination. Our senses don't exist outside of our own body. You and I feel things differently. We may not even really exist, per se, on a literal basis. As a matter of course, I don't believe in any dictating force. However, there is one thing that's irrefutable: love.

These last lines are controversial:

Perhaps some people confuse religion with love. Perhaps religion is ill-directed love.

Re: to the piece: A good attempt to straddle the issue, though I don't think that such proof would be possible even in a Britannica-sized volume. Religion is, after all, an amalgamation of all that we are, and an individual interpretation.

( Posted by: ak7raplt [Member] On: April 29, 2002 )

Just the messanger.
Ahm...first off I am going to say this and hope that no one shoots me.

If you prove the existance of God...which god would it be? There are many religions out there new and old, and if "God" was proven to exist which one would it be?


( Posted by: Drastine [Member] On: April 30, 2002 )

to look at things differently...
If I may bring up a few small points that I don't think your arguments cover?

Firstly: There is that the material universe consists of more than just space and time, but consists also of energy - in my opinion more so than space and time itself, since they themselves are made up of energy.

In terms of adding energy to the equation, my science isn't that great, but i do remember one law being that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed. In this, forms of energy range from electricity, to natural force, to kirlian energy about a person... all of these are more than just space and time.

Secondly, I have to echo Dras's query - -Which God-?? You have labled 'it' as a singular entity - and in that you do yourself give 'it' form and figure. There are many faiths that take on the belief of multiple deities, some that hold the belief of one deity with many many different faces and facets, some that don't hold to any belief of the 'divine' itself, but to the presence of energy all around us, shaping us, as we shape it.

In my opinion, belief lends existance - since as yet there has been no way to disprove that something exists, even if only one person believes in it. That person believes, therefore to them, it is 'real'. Real of course being subject to perception, in this case the simple fact that just because one cannot perceive existance of something for oneself, does not show that it does not indeed exist - though neither does it prove it exists at all, such is the nature of perception.

On this -assumption- of what is real and not, in this particular instance being 'belief lends existance' wouldn't that make humanity itself, the very gods'/god they seek to worship? As said gods'/god were/was created in their own image, for them to love and be subject to, to be guided by in ideals. Again this is beyond space and time, going back to energy: energy of thought.

Just a few points that I was wondering about and would seek your opinion on, not believing in god, son, holy spirit myself, and how your statements affected me, as a person, my knowledge and opinions, and indeed my faith.

As a summary of something much larger, this piece is great - I can see it branching out to further explain all that you have mentioned within it. At some point, if you ever do expand it, I'd love to read it. Interesting and thought provoking piece - my thanks for sharing.

Ju =*_*=

( Posted by: De`esse [Member] On: April 30, 2002 )

reply to questions
First of all, I'd like to thank the new people who've commented on this piece.
Drastine-I'm a Christian. But philisophically, I don't think it's possible to prove which god exists or what the nature of God is. And really the human picture of God is pretty pathetic compared with what a real God would have to be. A real God would have to be, by his very nature, above human understanding. De'esse-I'll adress your first question first, since if you disproved my assertion that the universe consists of space and time, you'd disprove my whole theorem. My theorem doesn't say that the universe consists exclusively of space and time. It says that the Universe exists in the context of space and time. In other words, there are objects, spaced out, and the objects change in a sequence, which is time. Our whole reality is impossible outside of space and time so, quantum physics and a lot of other theories aside, I think my idea is pretty sound. Secondly, your theory that belief in something makes it exist comes from Plato's theories, later adopted by Thomas Aquinas. I don't believe in that philosophical idea. I want to emphasize that the God I'm trying to prove isn't some petty old man up in the clouds. I'm talking about something else. I'm talking about the realization that our consciousness is not tied to the physical world, logically. It's easy to say there's a God and we have souls and we won't die with our physical bodies. It's much harder to provide evidence for it, which I feel I did in this piece. By the way, I don't claim that this piece is the end all be all of philosophy. And I certainly don't claim that it settles the question of whether there's a God or not.

( Posted by: Seanspacey [Member] On: April 30, 2002 )

granted ^_^
granted on all you say - although i do quite heavily disagree with you placing it all in context of space and time - because they ultimately come from energy, and it is the changes in said energy that affect the changes in space and time, and perception. Thanks for giving me an origin point for that theory - i've never had any idea where it originally came from and i'm not -quite- egotistical enough to claim it my own :P~ However... how can you tell me that something 'person 2' over there says exists, does or doesn't really exist? In that sense - your theorem of space and time, and your image and perception of 'god' IS real and, based on perception again IS correct...for you... and then there's every other person, and every other perception, all very different, all very real and all very correct because ultimately its what we each believe, that is the most real to us... at that point while tolerance for other belief is higher these days, it's by no means widely practised... hence the ongoing dissension (sp?) over 'god/dess/'s' none of which can be proved beyond saying, its as possible, as it is impossible. Ju =*_*= who apologises for babbling again... today may be wednesday, but it feels like monday :/

( Posted by: De`esse [Member] On: May 1, 2002 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.