Does GOD exist?

Man has always been looking to trace back the roots of all existence; however, since men’s understanding is subject to evolution implies that his ideas are plastic to.

The arguments „for” or ‚against” the existence of GOD probably date back from the reign of the ‘wilder mann’ and have been refined, yet not necessarily improved, by philosophers, theologians, scientist and charlatans ever since. Although in essence there’re only two outcomes to the question possible: “yes” or “no”, the motives and means by which these conclusions are derived are varied and their resulting products produce all kind of flavors.
Leaving this aside it’s also important to mention that answering the question ‘does GOD exist’ solely with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ can only be sufficient if GOD is mythical, or when GOD is factual but has no enduring relation with Nature.

Nevertheless, when GOD is factual and has an enduring relation with Nature then ramifications necessarily follow from it, and explains why the question “does GOD exist”, and if so, “Does GOD has any enduring relation with Nature” becomes the most fundamental questions anyone may ask. Those claiming otherwise are certainly not using their commonsense for what it was intended to do.

Answering the first part of the question i.e. “does GOD exist” demands that we first define what we mean with GOD.

How to define GOD?

The problem we face is that human’s concept of GOD varies largely and disagrees strongly in their powers, name(s), attributes, occupations, affiliations, etc., and so, it seems that no consensus can be found to start our investigation with. Obviously, this, according to our view is not true, since we only have to focus in the first place on GOD’S factuality and not so much on His nature, because at this stage of our investigation it doesn’t matter what additional qualities and attributes such Being(s) may have.
To keep it simple we can combine different concepts that are very helpful in trying to define what we mean with GOD.

Many philosophical arguments against and for the existence of GOD are out there but I’ll focus here only on the most promising philosophical argument for the existence of GOD that has a scientific touch to it and start from the absolute beginning, or first cause. This argument is called the cosmological argument and is most easily understood in its Kalam version that can be formulated as follow:

  • All what begins to exist has a cause.
  • The universe began to exist.
  • Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Evidently, the cause that brought the universe into existence is here understood to be GOD, and so, we could say that GOD is what brings into being that what didn’t exist.

The weakness of the cosmological argument lays in the fact that it doesn’t define what existence is, hence obscures in a sense the definition of GOD; it also say nothing about GOD’S relation with Nature, however, the latter isn’t of importance for now.
Defining existence is altogether another thing and requires some scientific investigation.

Leaving this aside there is another helpful philosophical thought we can use for our definition of GOD and is based on the idea that GOD is the greatest possible being one can conceive of. Evidently, greatest possible being becomes a very watery concept when greatest relates to everything what the imagination can come-up with; hence, to make it more attainable for scientific investigation we’ll define GOD as the highest or greatest deducible factual being that can be derived on the bases of observable facts and good commonsense related reasoning,that’s to say: there is no other factual deducible being out there that exceeds GOD in His abilities.
Furthermore, it’s important to realize that if when we assume that things came into being that these things are not from themselves, yet, they act as such, and so, we can define GOD temporally as:

“GOD is the highest, or greatest, factual and deducible being that can be derived through observable facts and good commonsense related reasoning, and brings into being that what is contingent by means of that what is not, and allows it to operate according to certain predefined goals that, although inherent in that what came into being, does not originate from themselves”

What remains us of doing is trying to define existence by deducing the fundamental observable feature of all existence, so that we can define the Minimum Universal Traceable Conditions for the Acceptance of GOD (shortly: MUTCAG) and based on it can give weight to the factuality or none factuality of GOD.

generic argument Godinci

In the near future we’ll outline you based on observable facts what existence is so that we have finally a testable definition of GOD that allows us to investigate it on common grounds.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish