A full Proof for God's existence

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anas Waleed's picture
A full Proof for God's existence

I am here to drop one of the most convincing arguments out there by Avicenna..
[Edited]
Original Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_the_Truthful#Argument
[/Edited]

Who is smart enough to refute it?

This argument does NOT assume the impossibility of infinite regression...
This argument does NOT beg the question...

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

David Killens's picture
Mod, please remove this post

Mod, please remove this post because of plagiarism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_the_Truthful

avicenna you broke one of the forum rules you agreed to abide by.

Anas Waleed's picture
I disagree, Wikipedia is

I disagree, Wikipedia is written by people throughout the world, I even contributed to this article, I didn't "Plagiarize" ... Wikipedia Plagerized from Avicenna I guess too ... I added the link to the article in the post...

David Killens's picture
It is considered an honest

It is considered an honest act to mention any edits, in any post that was edited.

Please return to the OP and mention that it was edited, and that the URL was added. You are not off to a good start avicenna by plagiarizing, failing to mention an edit change, and coloring your character with the taint of dishonesty. Additionally, please use spell check.

And speaking in the third person reeks of rotten fish.

Anas Waleed's picture
Oh you have misconceptions

Oh you have misconceptions here, Avicenna is a Persian polymath I am not speaking in third person... I will add the edits though.

NewSkeptic's picture
I thought it should be

I thought it should be removed for avicenna discussing avicenna in the third person.

CyberLN's picture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org
LogicFTW's picture
@avicenna

@avicenna
We regulars on this board have seen this argument, (in many slight variations, or this exact one,) before. No one here suddenly broke down and went: "oh my, you are right! I believe in a god now!" Sorry to burst your bubble. My self and others also were able to point numerous large flaws with this idea.

Even if we were to accept this obfuscated roundabout idea of "an outside cause" first mover etc (just one philosophical idea of many, in this arena,) all of which are just as valid or invalid as the next, because: none of these philosophical ideas can be truly understood by us finite humans let alone real proof/evidence that organizes all the rest of humans day to day lives that actually matter.

The argument really falls apart and fails when connecting this idea to a god idea. (Which makes sense, most all major god ideas are insane when examined coldly, unbiased, logically, reasonably, factually.)

First it still fails to connect to any particular god idea, many many religions say their god is "immaterial, intellective, powerful, generous, of pure good" despite if such a god were to exist, mountains of evidence that the opposite is true. It also does not connect in any way except human created "description." It in no way explains or proves why we need to "worship" the god, spend time in our waking lives considering this god idea, or try to show in any way one particular god idea out of many many other god ideas. It gets real ugly when on explaining why you willingly should donate money, your time and even your very life to this god idea. Or why we should try to make other people around us follow this god idea even though billions of people, (the huge majority of all people that ever lived) never even got the chance to know of this god existence.

"Sounds like the god found in Quran" is a horrible reason, especially considering all the various god ideas plagiarize each other and god ideas that came before them. Additionally I could make the exact same argument for the rainbow shitting unicorn god idea I just made up.

I could write pages and pages of what is wrong with this argument, but I will stop here, the above should be more than enough.

Anas Waleed's picture
"none of these philosophical

"none of these philosophical ideas can be truly understood by us finite humans"
This is only a way of avoiding this argument, you have to prove your statement.

"First it still fails to connect to any particular god idea"
Why do you suppose that this argument is for any particular god idea? This argument is only concerned with proving Necessary existence features... It does not prove that islam or any other religion is true... The argument does not presuppose God's features, The necessary being just happens to fit with some religion's idea for God including islam.

"It in no way explains or proves why we need to "worship" the god, spend time in our waking lives considering this god idea, or try to show in any way one particular god idea out of many many other god ideas."

Of course it doesnt, it is not meant to do that...

Dave Matson's picture
avicenna,

avicenna,

As I pointed out, your "necessary being" is very likely empty space with its quantum fluctuations. The argument is rooted in medieval concepts of time and causation. Logically, you can't get to conditions in the real world on the basis of pure reason. Hence, no such proof is sound.

Anas Waleed's picture
"The argument is rooted in

"The argument is rooted in medieval concepts of time and causation. Logically, you can't get to conditions in the real world on the basis of pure reason. Hence, no such proof is sound."
Plain Statements with no real proof are useless...please be precise in your counter arguments and don't generalize.. explain your statements and provide evidence.. that's how arguments are constructed.

"As I pointed out, your "necessary being" is very likely empty space with its quantum fluctuations. '
It cant be empty space cuz space is causally linked with time ... thus it is neither ..

Dave Matson's picture
avicenna,

avicenna,

That the medieval concept of time and causation (important to this type of argument) is irrelevant is hardly a point in contention among modern physicists. I suggest you read Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture." Not only will it fill you in on a lot of things but it is also a great read. Curiosity is the only excuse you need to read it!

As for the problem of trying to "reason" God into existence, my earlier post (which you may not have yet read) referenced some earlier posts of mine that go into considerable detail.

Empty space-time, with quantum fluctuations, appears to be the basement floor for reality. Same argument! Your "necessary being" would then be space-time, which is neither intelligent nor very good at answering prayers. You haven't proven that a philosopher's "absolute nothing" has any meaning for our reality. It's a gigantic assumption, nothing more! There is no particular reason to think that our reality had to start from a state of absolute nothing, a concept probably as meaningful as a square circle.

Anas Waleed's picture
" referenced some earlier

" referenced some earlier posts of mine that go into considerable detail."
I will try to find it
" Your "necessary being" would then be space-time"
Nope, Space is a dimension, time is a dimension, but they are causally linked.. So they cant be both the necessary existent.. because the necessary existent is One with no constituents ...

LogicFTW's picture
Why do you suppose that this

Why do you suppose that this argument is for any particular god idea?

It had a whole section trying to connect it to god! It even mentioned the Quran!

Sheldon's picture
Why do we need arguments? Can

Why do we need arguments? Can't this deity show us that it exists? Which deity is it btw? Could you properly define it for us. Why isn't this "compelling" argument in the bible or the Koran? Why is this deity so indifferent to it's "created" pets that it falls on humans to offer arguments on its behalf? This argument doesn't sound like it is offering anything new anyway, it sounds like it's trying to define a deity into existence.

"attributes of the necessary existent in multiple texts in order to justify its identification with God. He shows that the necessary existent must also be immaterial, intellective, powerful, generous, of pure good ,"

Hmm, well then why does the world we see contain ubiquitous suffering?

Anonymous's picture
Soft kitty,

Soft kitty,

Warm kitty,

Little ball of fur.

Happy kitty,

Sleepy kitty,

Purr Purr Purr

Anas Waleed's picture
Sorry, I dont see how your

Sorry, I dont see how your questions are supposed to be counterarguments?

"Can't this deity show us that it exists?"
God does show that he exists, you have a brain to think and see by yourself...

"Why isn't this "compelling" argument in the bible or the Koran? "
It is hinted by the Koran in several verses..
Actually several arguments are present in the Koran including Ontological and Teleological.

"Hmm, well then why does the world we see contain ubiquitous suffering?"
Why do you consider suffering bad though? what is you grounding? Cuz God is the only grounding for objective morality.

arakish's picture
avicenna: "objective morality

avicenna: "objective morality"

OK I am pissed. This is all it takes.

There is no such thing as objective morality. It is all subjective. And if you try pawning off that bullshit about Allah giving us objective morality, then you are a < ...censored... >.

Even if you say those morals come from Allah, they are NOT objective. Instead, they are edicts and decrees of a totalitarian tyrant bent upon and enforcing enslavement, servitude, vassalage, imprisonment, enthrallment, bondage, subjugation, choose your word.

avicenna: "God does show that he exists, you have a brain to think and see by yourself..."

Hey, give me some of those drugs your on dude.

Avicenna, go home and keep smoking that hookah weed...

rmfr

Anas Waleed's picture
"It is all subjective."

"It is all subjective."
Sorry then your opinion about morality is subjective... no need for me to argue.

arakish's picture
Then prove there is such a

Then prove there is such a thing as objective morality. Bring it on. There have been plenty who have tried and got spanked.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"God does show that he exists

"God does show that he exists"

Not to me it hasn't, and if it''s provided compelling evidence to anyone else they've certainly not shared it with me.

"you have a brain to think and see by yourself..."

Such as it is yes, and nothing about the reality it perceives evidences a deity or anything supernatural.

"It is hinted by the Koran in several verses.."

So your deity is dropping hints, this sounds like the usual tenuous wishful thinking Muslims indulge about the Koran to me. Hints are for puzzles and crosswords, not omnipotent omniscient deities that have created everything for the sole purpose I will know it exists and worship it.

"several arguments are present in the Koran including Ontological and Teleological."

They're woeful. What is it you find compelling about these?

"Why do you consider suffering bad though?"

I never said it was "bad", the context I used was clear in my post. Any claim a benevolent or perfectly merciful and all powerful being exists is directly contradicted by suffering.

"Cuz God is the only grounding for objective morality."

How do you know this? Simply obeying divine diktat isn't morality.

1) First show objective evidence that a deity exists.
2) Then show objective evidence you know what it thinks is moral. (theists of the same religions and different religions have been murdering each other forever about this)
3) then show objective evidence that what it wants is in fact moral.

If you can assess it's claims as moral or not then you don't need a deity to know what is moral, if you can't then you have no basis for objective morality.

Until you can do all of those your claim for objective morality is just subjective opinion.

Anas Waleed's picture
"Such as it is yes, and

"Such as it is yes, and nothing about the reality it perceives evidences a deity or anything supernatural."
That's probably due to your limited research..

"So your deity is dropping hints, this sounds like the usual tenuous wishful thinking Muslims indulge about the Koran to me. Hints are for puzzles and crosswords, not omnipotent omniscient deities that have created everything for the sole purpose I will know it exists and worship it."
Hints are for people with brains to think... Lazy people want everything without making minimum effort.

"They're woeful. What is it you find compelling about these?"
Compelling? they are logical..

" Any claim a benevolent or perfectly merciful and all powerful being exists is directly contradicted by suffering."
Why? I dont understand how you necessitate a contradiction.. Bad contradicts good, so you must assume suffering is bad..

"1) First show objective evidence that a deity exists."
Done, though you have to be careful ... do some real research to know which religion to follow..
"2) Then show objective evidence you know what it thinks is moral."
"3) then show objective evidence that what it wants is in fact moral."
God is Good thus it follows that all his orders are morally Good.
No need for evidence.. it is simple logic.

Sheldon's picture
"That's probably due to your

"That's probably due to your limited research.."

Your arrogant vanity didn't take long to be asserted. Insulting me may make you feel better temporarily, but it is not a compelling argument for belief in vapid archaic superstitions.

"Hints are for people with brains to think... Lazy people want everything without making minimum effort."
Ah. I see you're moving swiftly into the petty ad hominem part of your spiel, so you're done pretending you have evidence, and done with any pretence of addressing what was posted, fair enough, the gloves are off, no whining from you later then champ.

"Compelling? they are logical.."

I asked what you found compelling about them, not why, what about them in your opinion is compelling, is it a secret? Nothing can be asserted as rationally true if it contains any logical fallacies, as those arguments do.

"Why? I don't understand how you necessitate a contradiction.. Bad contradicts good, so you must assume suffering is bad.."

benevolent
adjective
well meaning and kindly.

Ithink it is a manifest contradiction that a well meaning and kindly being with limitless power has created a world with untold suffering.

""1) First show objective evidence that a deity exists."
Done, though you have to be careful ... do some real research to know which religion to follow.."

You've offered no objective evidence, and religions are all the same in the sense they can demonstrate no objective evidence for a deity. As for research it's your claim, so you evidence here where you have made the claim, or Hitchens's razor applies.

""2) Then show objective evidence you know what it thinks is moral.""
"God is Good"

You seem to think another unevidenced claim will suffice here, again this is hilarious alongside your accusation of intellectual laziness. How do you know "god is good"?

"God is Good, thus it follows that all his orders are morally Good."

Again explain, how do you know this? You seem to think adding more unevidenced claims justifies earlier ones.

"No need for evidence.. it is simple logic."

How quickly you theists got from your grandiose claims for proof, to no evidence being necessary. Your assertion is simple, I'll give you that much, but nothing about the claim is rational. Either humans are capable of assessing what is moral or they are not, you are trying to claim both simultaneously. That humans can't know what is objectively moral, as objective morals can only come from a deity, but that YOU know what it wants is moral. You offered no objective evidence of how you know what it wants of course, indeed dismiss the request as unnecessary, how convenient, what was it you said about being intellectually lazy?

Anas Waleed's picture
" Insulting me may make you

" Insulting me may make you feel better temporarily"
Hmm I didn't insult you though, I just said that you probably didnt make enough research. I put forward a philosophical proof, I don't see where did you try to provide a philosophical counterargument? if you cant, then stop pretending that you used your brain and reached that there is no God.

"Nothing can be asserted as rationally true if it contains any logical fallacies, as those arguments do."
Show them please..

"well meaning and kindly."
Here you are just playing with vocabulary to avoid my question,
Well --> Good
Kindly--->Good-natured

"You've offered no objective evidence,"
What? The entire proof is objective evidence

" religions are all the same in the sense they can demonstrate no objective evidence for a deity."
Koran provides a challenge, simply try to come up with one chapter like that in the Koran, The smallest chapter is 3 verses only. if you can't then know it is from God. This is the Linguistic miracle of the Koran.
more than 1400 years have passed, no one yet was able to challenge the Koran.
Try your luck.

"How do you know "god is good""
Let me put my thinking process here:
1- Logically A necessary being exists (check the proof)
2- This necessary being have features identical to the concept of God offered by various religions
3- We have no other concept or explanation to this necessary being other than God (inference by best explanation)
4- necessary being is God
(if you want to argue against this, you have to provide a new concept)
5- Religions are associated with the concept of God
6- Only one religion can be true or none
7- After comparing all religions we will probably find ourselves with Islam being the only one logically consistent.
(This is where real research happens, comparative religion studies etc..)
8- Islam claims that Koran is the word of God and the Koran provides a linguistic miracle to support its divinity
9- Koran says that God is good.
10- God is good
Now every step in this process requires a lot of research and thinking, and you can be skeptic about certain things.. but overall it depends on rationality .

"Either humans are capable of assessing what is moral or they are not"
I am avoiding your trap by suggesting a third option :D

David Killens's picture
@ avicenna

@ avicenna

"1- Logically A necessary being exists"

No. For this universe and all we know, a necessary being is not necessary for it to be in being.

I do not accept your first premise, and thus the entire argument unravels apart at the very beginning.

Sheldon's picture
Hmm I didn't insult you

"Hmm I didn't insult you though, I just said that you probably didnt make enough research."

Not true, you assumed i hadn't done enough research, and you insulted me implying I was lazy. Don't feel bad Theists have been insulting my intelligence both directly and indirectly since I was a child.

"Hints are for people with brains to think... Lazy people want everything without making minimum effort."

And now you're back to insulting me:

" I don't see where did you try to provide a philosophical counterargument? if you cant, then stop pretending that you used your brain and reached that there is no God."

Nothing in your arguments indicates you've used your brain here, only that you have plagiarised a woeful argument you find compelling because you think it supports your a priori beliefs. If you'd bothered to read my responses you'd know i already offered a rebuttal.

"Show them please.."

I already did, you were busy insulting me for not using my brain.

"Here you are just playing with vocabulary to avoid my question,"

Nonsense, it is axiomatic a "Kindly--->Good-natured" being with limitless choice doesn't create a world with ubiquitous suffering. They're logical negations of each other. I thought you'd have at least used the usual tortured rationalisations about free will here as well. I've given you plenty of rope.

"more than 1400 years have passed, no one yet was able to challenge the Koran."

There is nothing in the Koran that amounts to objective evidence for a deity or anything supernatural, but by all means state the best evidence in the Koran that a deity exists, but bear in mind no book can rationally validate its own claims.

""How do you know "god is good"

"9- Koran says that God is good.
10- God is good"

Brilliant, but that's a claim, it doesn't explain how YOU know what objective morality is. You claimed your deity provided objective morality, if you know what objective morality is then we don't need divine diktat, if you don't then you've turned yourself in a moral automaton.

""Either humans are capable of assessing what is moral or they are not"
I am avoiding your trap by suggesting a third option :D"

It's not a trap it's a logical extrapolation of your claim, but yes you have avoided answering it.

If your deity committed genocide does that make genocide objectively moral? How would you know either way? My morality is premised on the idea that it should maximise human well being, and reduce or avoid unnecessary suffering. to a lesser extent this would include all conscious animals. I need no deity for that.

Note that though my morals are based on a subjective premise, I can make objective moral claims once I accept that premise. You are basing your on a subjective belief in a deity and then merely cherry picking ancient text. Obeying rules blindly is not morality even "good nazis" mastered that much. If you claim to think about the rules and subjectively interpret them then your morality is subjective by definition.

Religious morality is subjective, it can be nothing else.

Anas Waleed's picture
"I already did, you were busy

"I already did, you were busy insulting me for not using my brain."
Sorry for calling you lazy, I guess Lazy people won't write that much..
But I read through all your posts and all I find are questions that are supposed to show a contradiction in our idea for God.
I respect your opinion but the philosophical argument I put forward is purely based on logic.. you have to show that the logic used is wrong by putting forward a counterargument...

you seem to think that by asking questions that may look contradicting, you defeated my argument... which is quite ridiculous, and when I try to show that your questions are in themselves contradicting you start playing with vocabs to rephrase them.. which is tiring for me to keep track of..

At least you admitted that your morality is subjective,
"My morality is premised on the idea that it should maximise human well being, and reduce or avoid unnecessary suffering."

Good for you, then you want to show me that we have contradiction by implying your subjective principles onto me? I don't buy your idea, so I am not obligated to argue against it, it is after all subjective.

Sheldon's picture
You have offered nothing

You have offered nothing sorry, you have liked someone else's argument and claimed it is logical and claimed it is compelling. I found it neither. Since you have not said why you find it compelling I am under no obligation to offer any counter argument.

Hitchens's razor applies.

"you seem to think that by asking questions that may look contradicting, you defeated my argument.."

Nope. The contradictions in some of your claims were manifest, and i showed why. You have offered no argument, it's someone else's that you claim is logical and compelling, and again I found it neither. What it is not is objective evidence for a deity, a few posters have tried to make you understand that you can't define something into existence, as all one would have to is change the word god in the argument and it would validate whatever you choose to replace it with. I've seen countless theists from different religions do this.

"and when I try to show that your questions are in themselves contradicting (sic) you start playing with vocabs (sic) to rephrase them.. which is tiring for me to keep track of.."

It's quite funny you accuse me of being lazy, yet offer nothing but a bare denial here, what are you claiming I have said that is a contradictory, and why? I have no idea what vocabs (sic) means sorry, but the rephrasing of arguments is done only for clarity, but by all means quote what you find confusing or contradictory, and I'll explain my position as clearly as I am able.

"At least you admitted that your morality is subjective,"

No it was not an admission, it was a statement of facts, as all human morality is objective, it can't be otherwise. though once we agree on a subjective aim for our morality we can make objective moral claims, as I explained. this is not the case for religions where adherents blindly follow archaic dogma and doctrine. So their "morality" is based on a subjective belief as they can't objectively evidence a deity or what it wants, and since no two believers can agree this is also manifest. This isn't morality but merely obeying rules.

"Good for you, then you want to show me that we have contradiction by implying your subjective principles onto me?"

I don't understand what you're asking there sorry?

"I don't buy your idea, so I am not obligated to argue against it, it is after all subjective."

What idea don't you buy and why don't you buy it. If you don't want to debate then why come here to an atheist leaning debate forum? This is fairly typical where theists enter this debate forum making grandiose claims for evidence or even proof as you have done, then refuse to debate criticism of those claims. Your choice of course, but I'm not the one trying to convince you of anything.. the argument linked is fallacious, and not at all compelling, and it demonstrably doesn't amount to evidence, let alone proof of a deity. So are you done then?

Anas Waleed's picture
"So are you done then?"

"So are you done then?"
Yes I am done,
I don't think we are going to get anywhere because you seem to think that arguments need to be compelling to be true..
---
Compelling
adjective
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
---
I am not here to argue that it is compelling, I argue that it is rational and sound..

Everything you presented thus far is a red herring.
So I am not gonna waste more time answering anything you put forward unless it addresses the argument directly (which I doubt you can).

Sheldon's picture
I have introduced nothing,

duplicate post removed.

Sheldon's picture
I have introduced nothing,

I have introduced nothing, only offered direct criticism of claims that you made, like your unevidenced assertion that religions provide objective morals. You had no answer, and now are disingenuously implying I introduced that line of debate as a Red Herring.

You have offered no argument, just linked someone else's, and you clearly are unaware of it's flaws, almost as if you have read them? Yet you are demanding others do your research for you. If you had bothered to fully read the article you linked, you'd have seen it actually lists criticism on the same page. If you can't be bothered to even offer a synopsis of the argument, and explain why you think it is valid then why should anyone else bother.

Now it appears you want to blame others when they reject your claims. You must do as you are minded to of course, but the argument remains fallacious, and your claims for objective morality false and contradictory, for the reasons I gave, and you have failed to address.

"which I doubt you can"

Well I encourage to practice doubting as much as you can, as the inability for the credulous to master this rudimentary intellectual exercise is a barrier to objectivity, as you have shown here again. However I already said, as have others, that you can't define anything into existence, which is to say you *can define anything into existence with such arguments, thus they are not very compelling. Incidentally an argument is considered compelling if it is convincing, and compels you to agree with it, as you seem a little confused here as well.

Since you appear too lazy to even scroll down the Wikipedia page I'll quote this line for you from your own link...

"Peter Adamson offered several more possible lines of criticism. He pointed out that Avicenna adopts a piecemeal approach to prove the necessary existent, and then derives God's traditional attribute from it one at a time."

In other words he's defining what he thinks is necessary in such a way as to match attributes he assigns his own deity. This strikes me as special pleading and begging the question fallacies. Here is the rest...

"This makes each of the arguments subject to separate assessments. Some might accept the proof for the necessary existent while rejecting the other arguments; such a critic could still reject the existence of God.Another type of criticism might attack the proof of the necessary existent itself. Such a critic might reject Avicenna's conception of contingency, a starting point in the original proof, by saying that the universe could just happen to exist without being necessary or contingent on an external cause."

Some other criticisms for you to consider....

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.