Could God prove the existence of God?

[Edric O]

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for a couple of days: How much empirical evidence would be required to prove the existence of God? Could God Himself prove His own existence to us?

Let's start with something lesser than God. Let's say I have an infinitely long wooden pole. Could I prove to you that this pole actually exists? Well, I could show it to you and say "look, this pole is infinitely long" - but you could only ever see part of it, not the entire pole. It would stretch in both directions as far as your eyes can see, but that wouldn't be proof that it is infinitely long. You could reply to me saying "this pole isn't infinite; it's just very long". How could I persuade you otherwise? I could take you on a trip in one direction along the pole and show you that it doesn't end - but you could always say "all I've seen so far is that this pole is at least X kilometres long; I have no reason to believe it goes on forever". The fact is, I could never conclusively prove to you that the pole is infinite. To do so would require traveling along it for an infinite amount of time.

What does this example show? That if you want to prove infinity through empirical evidence, you require an infinite amount of evidence.

Now let's go back to God and let's assume God decides to prove His existence to us. He appears out of thin air in front of the United Nations and proclaims to the leaders of the world, "I am God". Someone from the audience shouts, "No you're not! You're just an angel, or an alien! If you're God, prove it!". So God turns the walls of the United Nations building into water - while keeping them in their solid shape - and creates a floating dinosaur in the air. The same person from the audience shouts "Optical illusion!". God lets the walls of water fall and splash on the ground and brings the dinosaur low enough for people to touch it. The skeptic shouts again "All that requires is teleportation and force fields. A reasonably advanced alien civilization could do it." In response, God parts the Atlantic Ocean and summons up a tall mountain right off the coast of New York. The skeptic stands his ground. "Force fields again, and some geological control. Not unexpected for aliens able to travel between stars." Having had enough of this, God turns the Sun red, breaks it in two different stars, blocks them both out with total solar eclipses - revealing the night sky - and begins moving around the stars of the Milky Way. At a wave of His hand, three supernovas go off simultaneously. "DO YOU BELIEVE ME NOW?", He thunders. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", comes the reply.

Indeed, what has God proven with His demonstration? That He is extremely powerful. But He has not proven that He is all-powerful. Omnipotence - infinite power - requires infinite evidence. To prove that He can do anything, God would have to do everything. The same holds true if God tried to prove His existence through omniscience. He could reveal intimate knowledge of every little detail of the personal lives of every person in the audience, but that would not be enough to prove that He knows everything. Angels and aliens could have great knowledge and great power too.

In brief, since "God" is defined as a being with certain infinite attributes - such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc. - proving His existence would require an infinite amount of evidence. Thus, proving the existence of God to the human mind is and always will be impossible, even if God exists and even if He wanted us to prove His existence. Given this, it makes no sense whatsoever to ask for evidence for the existence of God. When someone says "prove to me that God exists", he is asking the impossible - much like saying "I want to see an infinitely long wooden pole".

[Caid Ivik]

Hm, here could be a problem of viewpoint. Whom should God prove something? If it is sentient, cartesian selfreflection is an answer. God is an absolute subject. The example with that pole is more a mathematical than philosophical example, as in this case you have both proving subject (observer) and its object being proven (the wooden pole). You are proving only an attribute of it, the existence is proven to yourself by your ability to observe it. Subjectively, of course, but who needs an objectivity here?  ;)  Problem is, that the creation is based on emanation of infinity into borders of space, so outside mathematical sphere it is really impossible. Perhaps that's reason of negative theology, which tries to discover what isn't an attribute of God - but that's out of empirical sphere.

[Edric O]

I'm talking about God proving His existence to human beings, of course.

[Caid Ivik]

Very interesting would be a buddhist explanation: our own existence proves it as our soul is divine and individuality, or more accurately, an ego, is just in illusion; then the question would stay what proves existence of humans to God...

[Acriku]

I definitely see your point, Edric. And I agree. That's pretty much why in response to people's question: "What would it take for you to believe that God existed?" I would have to say "I don't think anything can prove to me he exists." Because it could be a very powerful alien, or even a supernatural being aside from the one who created us.

[Dude_Doc]

I'm afraid that we are going in exactly that direction. But it also depends on what you can percieve as real and "unnatural". It also depends on how far power (as in Edric's example, turning the walls into water) goes - is it possible to create three supernovas within a second? Or a small, contained black hole where we could throw all our trash and toxic?

And let's say this situation happened tomorrow. Would we believe that this was God? Even if they are aliens and had the power to create and manipulate everything ever concieved by humans - our feelings, or faith?

I also think, as I have argumented before, that humans need a constant "reminder" of faith. If this situation happened tomorrow, then in 1000 years it would have been turned into a myth, then to fantasy and simple stories. People who were born after the event would have no experience of that event, and as I said, everything is possible in the movies, so why not? They'd have to take other people's word, their trust, that this event really happened. Interestingly enough - this is similar to the stories of the Bible.

But I think the real question in this matter is how we can get a definite answer. Is it by trust, good faith, or feeling? And what if these could be mainpulated?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Excellent Post/Point Edrico.

[Acriku]

Excellent Post/Point Edrico.  You really put things in perspective.  Also, it shows that being a skeptic or "critical" can never bring you to the truth.

And blind faith can? Actually, you're wrong. If not for skepticism, we wouldn't know the Sun did not revolve around the Earth, like everything else. Finding the truth requires skepticism. Otherwise, your parents could have told you that a big flying spaghetti monster created the world and you would have believed it. Without skepticism, that is.

  It makes sense then when the Bible says that we must come unto God as "children"  in order to believe in him.  Meaning with open minds that are able to take a leap of faith without demanding concrete evidence that is impossible to provide.

This is why children believe in Santa Claus. They don't need concrete evidence to believe anything their parents told them was true. What makes God different? Hmm... In my country, my people have saying, it mean "Santa Claus for kids, God for adults." Just a thought.

Again i say great post... because you just singlehandly defined the reason why faith is a necessary real "thing" and not just some hokey wishful thinking.  At some point you just have to say "ok God i am going to believe in you" ....and that is that.

At some point you also have to say "Ok Flying Spaghetti Monster i am going to believe in you" - now does that sound like a rational person?

yes i have also brought up this point many many times... which is why i disagree with people who say texts that are old are unreliable.

I would agree with you, if that was all that they said was the reason for unreliability. But you probably ignored that post of mine  ::)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Acriku .. nice strawman army.

[Andrew]

So about this whole can God prove the existence of God...

How is jesus supposed to convince everyone he is Jesus when he returns to earth? (He's supposed to right? My christianity is a bit rusty.)

[DukeLeto]

If God cannot prove his own existence, then he is not omnipotent, since there is something he cannot do.

[GUNWOUNDS]

If God cannot prove his own existence, then he is not omnipotent, since there is something he cannot do.

Not so fast... you must have the right perspective when looking at something of this magnitude.

[Edric O]

If God cannot prove his own existence, then he is not omnipotent, since there is something he cannot do.

Can God draw a square circle? No. Does that mean He is not omnipotent? No, because a square circle is a logical contradiction; it is impossible a priori.

I could draw a huge - potentially infinite - list of "things that God cannot do". They would be contradictions in terms, things that are impossible simply because they don't make any sense.

There is a difference between things that are physically impossible and things that are logically impossible. An omnipotent being can do things that are physically impossible (i.e. contradict the laws of physics), such as creating matter out of nothing. But an omnipotent being cannot do things that are logically impossible (i.e. contradict themselves), such as drawing a square circle.

So where's the logical contradiction in God proving His own existence? Remember I talked about God proving His own existence to human minds. That means presenting an infinite amount of evidence to a finite mind. Logically impossible.

[Acriku]

Besides all of the comical complaints you had with my post (which we can discuss further on a different thread, or via personal IM), you had one thing worth replying to. You mentioned that the whole point of Edric's post is that you cannot rule out a deity with skepticism. I've read his post again, and that does not seem to be the "whole point of Edric's whole friggin post." It might be en extrapolated corrolary at best. But it is flawed. You can use skepticism to rule out a deity. Hell, you do that with every single god in all of the religions you do not follow. I do that as well. I just extend that skepticism to your god as well as all the others. Ooo quote time!! Gather around:

[Caid Ivik]

naming two gods in one world is against logic, there cannot be two infinites at once...

[stefanhendriks]

i think there can, i said earlier. Things are about balance. If there is infintity, then there is also its opposite... Totally nothing.

But what is infinity anyway? Can anyone show / prove me something 'earth like' that is infinite? Some say "time", but thats a debate as well...

So, if you can show me something that is infinite, and that is provable with human science, i will then try to start beleiving in higher powers who and its infinity..

I believe infinity is just a human made up term.

[Caid Ivik]

Absolute infinity includes nothingness, as Eckhard said. Such infinity implies a singularity, so it is impossible to find any actual opposite. Anyway, this latin term was taken from mathematics to metaphysics only because we had nothing better to describe greek apeiron or jewish ain soph, which are more suitable (borderlessness). Then we wouldn't have such homonymic problem.

[nemafakei]

Edric, attempt to push the pole and measure the distance it moves. If 0, the pole has infinite mass and hence length.

Seriously, though, it's perfectly acceptable that god is not falsifiable or provable by observation. When you get down to it, nothing is. My desklamp (and all consequences of its existence) might be a figment of an overactive imagination as far as I'm concerned.

The real question is what assumptions we make. We can set a very high threshhold and refute Newton 'till the cows come home - but that doesn't get us anywhere. We can set a low threshhold and accept any sort of hearsay, from crying statues, miracle healing and - but we will inevitably end up with differing accounts (the most basic example being different religions), and often we'll have no way of telling between them.

Caid, το απειρον is a concept quite differenct from inifinity. Incidentally, if God is infinite, are we a part of god or not? And if we are not, what's to say that two different infinities cannot exist. It's mathematically possible to have as many infinities as you want on a number line - the series 2,4,6,8... and 1,3,5,7... are as infinite as 1,2,3,4 (and indeed -infinity to + infinity) - there is a bijection which you can construct to map them.

[erjin999]

Faith. The exisatance of Aliens would prove to me the existance of God. Which is why I believe in god without aliens.

[nampigai]

I've been thinking - in christianity women a sinfull from the day they leave the womb - it was Eve who ate the apple in the garden of eded. However if she hadn't done so, we'd be running naked around like mindless fools. Instead she (or the snake) gave us the possibility to think for ourselves.

so did god want us to think for ourselves?

also I want to add the following

is the god in the old testament the same one as in the new?

[Edric O]

You [Gunwounds] mentioned that the whole point of Edric's post is that you cannot rule out a deity with skepticism.

The main point of my post was that any argument along the lines of "There is no proof for the existence of God, therefore God does not exist" is invalid, because proving the existence of God is impossible regardless of whether God exists or not.

Edric, attempt to push the pole and measure the distance it moves. If 0, the pole has infinite mass and hence length.

I was assuming the pole has no mass (or indeed any other attribute besides length; if you want to be truly rigorous, consider it an infinite straight line instead of a pole - in practice, an object with infinite mass would exert an infinite gravitational pull and destroy the universe anyway).

Seriously, though, it's perfectly acceptable that god is not falsifiable or provable by observation. When you get down to it, nothing is. My desklamp (and all consequences of its existence) might be a figment of an overactive imagination as far as I'm concerned.

I was starting from the basic premise that reality, as we see it, is indeed real. Given that, proving the existence of your desklamp is possible, but proving the existence of God is not.

[Caid Ivik]

Caid, το απειρον is a concept quite differenct from inifinity. Incidentally, if God is infinite, are we a part of god or not? And if we are not, what's to say that two different infinities cannot exist. It's mathematically possible to have as many infinities as you want on a number line - the series 2,4,6,8... and 1,3,5,7... are as infinite as 1,2,3,4 (and indeed -infinity to + infinity) - there is a bijection which you can construct to map them.

That was actually my point: mathematical infinity is not a best way to describe απειρον - which also isn't the best word to describe ain soph, borderless judeochristian God. Borderless God has no parts, so from presocratic terms we would have to reach for at least Platon to have a good word for it.

[VigilVirus]

Well, if God was truly omnipotent, he would be able to make every single entity believe that he has already proved he was omnipotent. In that end, God would be able to define what a "proof" is, wouldn't he?

[Wolf]

Furthermore, I doubt that an omnipotent, providential God would desire to prove to humanity that He exists. For, if God were able to prove His existence (as Edric has shown is actually impossible, for the human imagination is infinitely capable of demanding greater burdens of proof), he would strip humanity of the ability to choose whether or not he wishes to worship God. Indirectly, even though "belief" isn't exactly something that is chosen, all rational people would be forced to at least acknowledge God, whether they wanted to or not -- because proof of God's existence would be the rational, objective truth. Therefore, God, if He truly loved humanity, would have no desire as to strip them of their most basic ability to decide for themselves what to do, and what to believe in. Belief in God, as it stands now, is something with a conclusion so unclear, so indecisively proven -- on either side -- that we sometimes equate it to choice. We almost think we have the ability to choose, when belief is something that isn't exactly chosen, it's a rational acknowledgment. I think God would rather keep it that way, so human beings truly have the same capacity for evil as it does good.

(It's been a long time, everyone, hope you all are doing well and it's nice to post once in a while :))

[Anathema]

Well, demanding evidence of God's existence is pretty much contrary to christian doctrine anyway. Even more so because if the book of Revelation is true (not all Christians believe in all books of the Bible mind you, even Luther called Revelation a forgery. He also questioned the authenticity of verses wich didn't fit his view of salvation through faith alone) God will not manifest again until the apocalypse.

The story of a god who has in the past sanctioned genocide against non believers (kill the city's inhabitants, slay all their cattle, and all that), then turns out being a peaceful god who loves everybody despite their flaws and tells us to love our enemies, doesn't compel me very much.

Like Namp's question hinted at, the OT and NT seem to be describing two totally different gods. The OT god being a lot more like the Allah wich fundamentalist muslims believe in, then the god worshipped by most christians.