You can not prove (or disprove) the existence of God through philosophy, logic, argumentation or debate.
Figures lie, and liars figure – and words, and those who wield them, are not much better.
I once had a mathematics professor who had some spare time after one lesson. He erased two blackboards. At the top of one, he wrote x = 1. He then wrote a simple binomial equation beneath it. Below that, he began to add factors – multiplying, dividing, squaring, till the seventh equation was fairly complex.
At the top of the next board, he began to solve and simplify – each equation becoming less complex, until the seventh line solved, to show that x = 2. 😕 I thought that I followed the sequence, and my buddy, the numbers nerd later assured me that I did – we all did. The teacher had just proved something that was observably false.
The Arguments For The Existence Of God
The Cosmological Argument: An argument for the existence of God based on the observation that, since every known thing in the universe has a cause, which can only be God.
The Moral Argument: An argument for the existence of God which reasons that there must be a God who is the source of man’s sense of right and wrong.
The Ontological Argument: An argument for the existence of God that begins with the idea of God as the greatest of beings that can be imagined. As such, the characteristic of existence must belong to such a being, since it is greater to exist than not to exist.
Teleological Argument: An argument for the existence of God which reasons that, since the universe exhibits evidence of order and design, there must be an intelligent and purposeful God who created it to function in this way.
The Cosmological Argument – every known thing in the universe
Mealy-mouthed, and weasel-words, which only prove a narrow mind, and a pile of assumptions and pre-suppositions.
It is possible that there are things within the Universe which have no cause. Just because they have not been observed does not prove them impossible or nonexistent, or limit the choice to ‘only God.’ It seems likely that the Universe itself has no cause. It floated about, apparently forever, in the timeless, spaceless Meta-verse that God is supposed to “exist” in. But the Universe is palpable, observable, malleable, and measurable, while God cannot be proved to exist beyond the hopes and faith of religious believers.
The Moral Argument:
Reason: to think or argue in a logical manner.
to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
to think through logically,
There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of ‘reasoning,’ ‘thinking,’ ‘logic,’ or ‘facts’ in this unproven claim. It denies Atheists’ claims that they are Good Without God, and ignores the observed fact that most Atheists are ‘good’ and moral, while many God-botherers fill prisons and divorce courts.
The Ontological Argument:
Like many Christian arguments, this one starts at the desired conclusion, and works backwards to somehow justify it. There is no suggestion, no evidence, much less Proof, that there is a “greatest being,” and even if there is, there is no indication that it is the Christian God. As the argument even says, it’s all based on imagination.
Apophenia is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. The term was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia. He defined it as “unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness”. He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations. Such meanings are entirely self-referential, solipsistic, and paranoid (Emphasis mine)—”being observed, spoken about, the object of eavesdropping, followed by strangers”. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia involving the perception of images or sounds in random stimuli..
It is considered poor form and bad manners to say that religious people are crazy, but it seems that portions of their delusional, unsupported beliefs, must fall within the parameters of the clinical definition.