Proof of the existence of God

The ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by (Saint) Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). It was considered to be logical proof of the existence of God. Anselm′s argument for the existence of God is as follows:

1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.

2. God may exist in the understanding.

3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.

4. Therefore, God exists in reality.

This "proof" stood until Emmanuel Kant refuted it in his Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. Kant disputed the very concept of an absolutely necessary being (i.e. God) and pointed out the logical inconsistency of using existence as a proof for existence. (Points 3 and 4 above.) It is the same old circular reasoning and tautology that people rely on today to prop up their flimsy theories.

Now I'm a real sucker for proofs of the existence of God. If you have one send it to me. I love them. But all proofs so far have been.... ah... disproven. Typically if you ask someone for proof of the existence of God they will say "just look out the window... where do you think all that came from?" Ironically, though not any proof, this stands as a pretty good argument for the existence of God... or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... and that's the problem with this proof. Most people will give you the conditional proof (which is Descartes invention) of the 4 states of being.

1) You believe in God and God exists.

2) You believe in God and God doesn't exist.

3) You don't believe in God and God exists.

4) You don't believe in God and God doesn't exist.

In cases 2 and 4 it doesn't matter what you believe. In the case of 3 you are in trouble. Therefore to maximize your chances you should believe in God and if in case 1 you will be rewarded. Though I have doubts that a God will welcome you into heaven just because you checked the odds chart.

Other philosophers like Kierkegaard talk of the leap of faith that you must make and Buber talks about the necessity of a personal relationship with God in his I-thou (Ich und du) work. But aside from the ontological argument, these are not proofs.

Cruising through my local public library the other day I came across a book by Dean L. Overman called "A Case for the Existence of God" where he maintains that Kant (and David Hume) were wrong. Overman states on page 33:

In recent thought philosophers have noted that David Hume misunderstood the term necessary to mean a "logical necessity" as opposed to a "conditional necessity"; A "conditional necessity is the result of valid deductions from premises and conditions. Hume's objection does not stand when applied to a conditional necessary being who is without beginning or end and is independent of anything else.

Then on page 36 he states:

Kant followed Hume's error so that his objection to the cosmological argument does not stand.

A couple of problems here. First Kant did not follow Hume. Hume was an empiricist and denied the possibility of knowledge through reason. Kant was arguing from pure reasoning. Second Overman talks about Kant's erroneous refutation of the cosmological argument. Kant does not address the cosmological argument, rather he addresses the ontological argument which is a different thing altogether. Overman insists that Kant thought the cosmological argument was based on the ontological argument. I have yet to find where Kant talks about the cosmological argument. At this point I tossed Overman's book across the bedroom, cursed him roundly and told my wife I was going to sleep. She said "thank God" under her breath... which is the best argument for the existence of God that I have heard to date.

The next day I was thinking about Overman's book and I picked it back up and glanced through the table of contents. And skimmed a couple of chapters before deciding what this guy was up to. Like the Republican's and Rush Limbaugh (my current favorite villains) he is inventing new terminology to support his position. Example: Sarah Palin is said to have criticize Obama's health care plan on the basis that it contains a "death board" making eugenic type decisions for the medical care of the elderly and terminally ill. Or Limbaugh saying that Obama's appointee to set the salaries of CEOs of corporation that took bail out money are analogous to Robert Ley of the Nazi German Labor Front (DAF) and thus implied that the current administration is a bunch of Nazis. Apparently calling people Commies is out of vogue and they had to revert to calling them Nazis and fascists.

Although I can't "prove" that.