Proving the Existence of God
July 5, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Since the Enlightenment, there have been various attempts to prove the existence of God and it seems that these efforts fall short of their stated goal.
If we presume God is wholly spirit or incorporeal, then our task is made more difficult. Any appeals to the natural order, whether the supposed ordering of creation or inferences from astrophysics, can not provide proof of God, nor evidence for a Creator. We must acknowledge that God, who is wholly spiritual, can not be extrapolated from the mundane creation; any more than Leprechauns can be extrapolated from the finding of a gold filled vessel. Any attempts to do so must result in the eventual realization that God no longer intervenes or involves himself in Creation and this reasoning leads to Deism. If we affirm God created the universe, but not longer partakes of Creation, then we can reasonably question if God was involved with the creation. Based upon the preceding arguments, one must affirm that either God does not exist, atheism, or that God never had any involvement in material affairs, Gnosticism.
By substituting the words “Creator” or “Designer” for God, some people attempt to demonstrate Intelligent Design or Intelligent Creation. We concede that the beauty of spiral galaxies and sun flowers can show a template of creation based on Phi, but this can only provide evidence, not proof, of a Creator. This Creator may or may not be God. If we allow and affirm a Creator, then we can not determine if a wholly good being or another agent was the Creator. We can imagine a future scenario where evangelical Christians, pagans and Satanists are combining their efforts for the idea of Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools. While the evangelical Christians will point to the first account of creation in Genesis, there will be others with equally compelling reasoning to demonstrate that Phi can only create one geometric pattern, and this pattern is not the Cross. One could point out that a rational universe would be designed with a simple ratio, such as 1 to 3, to indicate the Trinity, while an irrational ratio seems flawed, at best, and not thoroughly thought out, at worst. We would find ourselves promoting a “shoddy” universe by a “haphazard” Creator; in that scenario, it would be reasonable to dismiss the idea of a Creator and resign ourselves to atheism. By appealing to Intelligent Design, a more compelling argument can be made that the universe is inherently flawed and this failure cannot be reasonably attributed to the consumption of a fruit.
Although efforts to prove God from Nature initially seem pious, there can only be two ultimate and opposite conclusions. Appeals to Nature can only lead to atheism, God does not interact with nature because he does not exist or God does not involve himself with Creation, because he is wholly spiritual and is incapable of affecting matter, Gnosticism. In the final analysis God can not be proved, one must have faith or conviction in the absence of any evidence.
If we presume God is wholly spirit or incorporeal, then our task is made more difficult. Any appeals to the natural order, whether the supposed ordering of creation or inferences from astrophysics, can not provide proof of God, nor evidence for a Creator. We must acknowledge that God, who is wholly spiritual, can not be extrapolated from the mundane creation; any more than Leprechauns can be extrapolated from the finding of a gold filled vessel. Any attempts to do so must result in the eventual realization that God no longer intervenes or involves himself in Creation and this reasoning leads to Deism. If we affirm God created the universe, but not longer partakes of Creation, then we can reasonably question if God was involved with the creation. Based upon the preceding arguments, one must affirm that either God does not exist, atheism, or that God never had any involvement in material affairs, Gnosticism.
By substituting the words “Creator” or “Designer” for God, some people attempt to demonstrate Intelligent Design or Intelligent Creation. We concede that the beauty of spiral galaxies and sun flowers can show a template of creation based on Phi, but this can only provide evidence, not proof, of a Creator. This Creator may or may not be God. If we allow and affirm a Creator, then we can not determine if a wholly good being or another agent was the Creator. We can imagine a future scenario where evangelical Christians, pagans and Satanists are combining their efforts for the idea of Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools. While the evangelical Christians will point to the first account of creation in Genesis, there will be others with equally compelling reasoning to demonstrate that Phi can only create one geometric pattern, and this pattern is not the Cross. One could point out that a rational universe would be designed with a simple ratio, such as 1 to 3, to indicate the Trinity, while an irrational ratio seems flawed, at best, and not thoroughly thought out, at worst. We would find ourselves promoting a “shoddy” universe by a “haphazard” Creator; in that scenario, it would be reasonable to dismiss the idea of a Creator and resign ourselves to atheism. By appealing to Intelligent Design, a more compelling argument can be made that the universe is inherently flawed and this failure cannot be reasonably attributed to the consumption of a fruit.
Although efforts to prove God from Nature initially seem pious, there can only be two ultimate and opposite conclusions. Appeals to Nature can only lead to atheism, God does not interact with nature because he does not exist or God does not involve himself with Creation, because he is wholly spiritual and is incapable of affecting matter, Gnosticism. In the final analysis God can not be proved, one must have faith or conviction in the absence of any evidence.