0

Here it is, the long-awaited proof for the existence of God (for your consideration).

I have taken the liberty of defining discretely what God is, without which there is no question to be answered (easily).

Omnipresence is typically a requirement for Godhood. This is far greater an assumption than the axioms defined here.

The corollaries describes the basic criteria for an individual to be considered to be GOD.

Supposing the axiomatic assumptions:

Axiom A. There are infinite non-existent entities.

See ([1] [does-theism-have-the-burden-of-proof][1]) for details on the given, which is Axiom A (simplified).
This does not negate God's existence, only assumes nonexistence.

Axiom B. God has choice, even without existing.

Axiom C. If God could, God would choose to exist.

Axiom D. God can will God's self into (eternal) existence.

Eternal means: There is (at least some space, possibly infinite) but no Time. Or, Time (and a subspace) is created within Eternal Existence.
In the first case, everything happens at once, but (possibly infinite) Time is within that space.
In the latter case, Time does not exist, so everything happens at once.
Either way, one may exist outside of Time.

The assumption that God can do these things is based on the definition of God as a supreme being with perfect power and perfect good. (2 Merriam-Webster). Here, this is not even assumed, just the power to exist and to choose, as well as the goodness to want to exist.

We have the following logical considerations:

Corollary 1. God does not-exist. (Follows from Axiom A) This does not negate God's existence, only assumes nonexistence.

Corollary 2: God chooses to exist, even if God does not exist. (Follows from Corollary 1 and Axioms B & C)

Corollary 3: God does will self into (eternal) existence (Follows from Corollary 2 & Axiom D)

Corollary 4: If God exists eternally, God always exists (Follows from Axiom D)

If one exists eternally, one existed at the beginning of Time.
If one exists eternally, one does not expire (has always existed from birth, exists and will always exist).
There need not, ever, be any evidence of one's existence for the above (may call this a spiritual existence).

Conclusion α: God does exist. (Follows from Corollaries 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Theism does have the burden of proof.

The exact mathematical logic for which the axioms are formally defined and corollaries and conclusion follow, can be trivially described by a discrete mathematician.

Perfect power and perfect goodness and perfect wisdom follow from these corollaries, having done the most critical things for all, without which none of the others could exist. You could say that these perfect qualities are resultant from the axioms, not the other way around. This may in fact be the primary hang-up (pardon me, O God for the horrible pun) in proving the existence of God. Also shown are God's supremacy (perfect power), as well as being the ultimate reality (who makes Time exist, or makes exist the Being that makes Time exist). In either case we are obviously in Time, meaning (this is from the definition) that Time is not the ultimate reality.

This is a proposed proof of the existence of God. Is it acceptable?

Related to:

1 does-theism-have-the-burden-of-proof

2 Merriam-Webster definition of God

3 P.O.G. Logical Flow Chart POG Logical Flow Chart

Jordan Cote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
    Referring to axiom B, how can a nonexistent entity have choice? I’d go as far as to say that that is a contradiction making the rest of your argument not worth going through – thinkingman Sep 03 '23 at 00:13
  • I'm not even going to require Omnipotence as a presumption, which would make this conclusion trivial. Here goes. Since we have Axiom A, which you are not debating, let's start from there. We do not have infinite beings existing. Therefore they choose whether to come into existence or not. Or, God chooses for them. Either way, God has choice without existing. Perhaps it would be better to label it a Corollary, in this light. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 01:38
  • What exactly is the logical contradiction? Why can't a non-existent entity have choice? they still are entities. They are just not existing - presumably because of their intrinsic defining choices. A choice is to exist or not. What else? infinite beings exist but some choose to annihilate themselves? That's a stranger assumption. But that's the enumerated potentials. @thinkingman – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 01:46
  • I also want to add an axiom from Paul Watzlawick: an entity cant not communicate. for example, their absence does communicate something from this entity. this implies that choices are made of all entities. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:23
  • Part of what it means for something not to exist is that it has no causal power. You are assuming that something that does not exist has causal power. That is a contradiction. – David Gudeman Sep 03 '23 at 02:25
  • i barely talk about causality at all. that's not an assumption here. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:32
  • https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:32
  • causality definition, it usually presupposes time – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:35
  • I think the proof is valid, but what's the intent behind it? Why not just suppose God exists as an Axiom? – Michael Carey Sep 03 '23 at 02:41
  • well, michael, in mathematics proofs are composed of these components because we are meticulous about catching every possibility. you can certainly compose a proof that says simply god exists therefore god exists, but that would be a logical fallacy called tautology which i believe has been avoided here since these are basic assumptions about God. i dont start with omnipresence i show it. I understand that the axioms are the weakest part of the proof thats why i am thankful for discussion tools here on SE for the feedback. you can always make a better proof but only few need that complexity. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:47
  • @JordanCote In mathematics thing's aren't proved for the sake of proving things, the intent behind proving a theorem under a Axiom Scheme, is to either apply it to the world or to prove other interesting theorems, or to motivate new proof methods which generalize to other axiom schemes, or to develope a new framework, or just for the beauty of the construction. That's why I asked, what is the intent here? I think understanding the motivation behind the proposed Axioms, will help lead to better discussion around them. – Michael Carey Sep 03 '23 at 03:26

1 Answers1

2

A is either a contradiction (that exists which not-exists) or unnecessary.

B is a contradiction (there exists X which not-exists)

Ignoring the contradictions, B, C, D state the conclusion as the premise, making this a case of begging the question: they lead logically to the conclusion, but they do so because the premises and the conclusion are identical, reducing to suppose X, therefore X.

Running an identical argument for the negation of the first argument is a good test for nonsense arguments.

B&D: A nonexistent being exists whose characteristics are that it does nothing except for to choose to exist, to provide an irrefutable disproof of the above proof, and to have the choice of existing, even without existing.

C: If such a being could, it would choose to exist.

Therefore the above proof is irrefutably disproven.

g s
  • 2,868
  • 1
  • 4
  • 16
  • its a proof. if you're looking for the word tautology, this is not one of those. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:26
  • "and provide an irrefutable disproof of the above proof has the choice of existing" ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE GOD???? – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:27
  • you're not understanding what an axiom is. an axiom stands by itself and does not rely on anything else. this is logic 101. – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:29
  • Feel free to downvote if you think the answer is not useful. I'm not here to argue with you, just to serve the main purpose of SE, to provide benefit for the many people who will view this page long after you have dismissed me as a fool for not seeing your wisdom. – g s Sep 03 '23 at 02:37
  • actually listen to this. both these proofs can be true. a proof is only as good as it is convincing. so both proofs can exist and the existence of a counter-proof does not actually disprove the other in and of itself. it depends which is more convincing. that is from Aggelos Kiayias my PhD advisor in cryptography (specifically knowledge proofs). – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:39
  • why are you here demoralizing me after calling it nonsense!! – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:39
  • and one comment being self proclaimed as irrefutable! that's not only rude – Jordan Cote Sep 03 '23 at 02:40