Here it is, the long-awaited proof for the existence of God (for your consideration).

I have taken the liberty of defining discretely what God is, without which there is no question to be answered (easily).

Omnipresence is typically a requirement for Godhood. This is far greater an assumption than the axioms defined here.

The corollaries describes the basic criteria for an individual to be considered to be GOD.

Supposing the axiomatic assumptions:

Axiom A. There are infinite non-existent entities.

See ([1] [does-theism-have-the-burden-of-proof][1]) for details on the given, which is Axiom A (simplified).
This does not negate God's existence, only assumes nonexistence.

Axiom B. God has choice, even without existing.

Axiom C. If God could, God would choose to exist.

Axiom D. God can will God's self into (eternal) existence.

Eternal means: There is (at least some space, possibly infinite) but no Time. Or, Time (and a subspace) is created within Eternal Existence.
In the first case, everything happens at once, but (possibly infinite) Time is within that space.
In the latter case, Time does not exist, so everything happens at once.
Either way, one may exist outside of Time.

The assumption that God can do these things is based on the definition of God as a supreme being with perfect power and perfect good. (2 Merriam-Webster). Here, this is not even assumed, just the power to exist and to choose, as well as the goodness to want to exist.

We have the following logical considerations:

Corollary 1. God does not-exist. (Follows from Axiom A) This does not negate God's existence, only assumes nonexistence.

Corollary 2: God chooses to exist, even if God does not exist. (Follows from Corollary 1 and Axioms B & C)

Corollary 3: God does will self into (eternal) existence (Follows from Corollary 2 & Axiom D)

Corollary 4: If God exists eternally, God always exists (Follows from Axiom D)

If one exists eternally, one existed at the beginning of Time.
If one exists eternally, one does not expire (has always existed from birth, exists and will always exist).
There need not, ever, be any evidence of one's existence for the above (may call this a spiritual existence).

Conclusion α: God does exist. (Follows from Corollaries 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Theism does have the burden of proof.

The exact mathematical logic for which the axioms are formally defined and corollaries and conclusion follow, can be trivially described by a discrete mathematician.

Perfect power and perfect goodness and perfect wisdom follow from these corollaries, having done the most critical things for all, without which none of the others could exist. You could say that these perfect qualities are resultant from the axioms, not the other way around. This may in fact be the primary hang-up (pardon me, O God for the horrible pun) in proving the existence of God. Also shown are God's supremacy (perfect power), as well as being the ultimate reality (who makes Time exist, or makes exist the Being that makes Time exist). In either case we are obviously in Time, meaning (this is from the definition) that Time is not the ultimate reality.

This is a proposed proof of the existence of God. Is it acceptable?

Related to:

1 does-theism-have-the-burden-of-proof

2 Merriam-Webster definition of God

3 P.O.G. Logical Flow Chart POG Logical Flow Chart


6 Answers 6


A is either a contradiction (that exists which not-exists) or unnecessary.

B is a contradiction (there exists X which not-exists)

Ignoring the contradictions, B, C, D state the conclusion as the premise, making this a case of begging the question: they lead logically to the conclusion, but they do so because the premises and the conclusion are identical, reducing to suppose X, therefore X.

Running an identical argument for the negation of the first argument is a good test for nonsense arguments.

B&D: A nonexistent being exists whose characteristics are that it does nothing except for to choose to exist, to provide an irrefutable disproof of the above proof, and to have the choice of existing, even without existing.

C: If such a being could, it would choose to exist.

Therefore the above proof is irrefutably disproven.

  • its a proof. if you're looking for the word tautology, this is not one of those. Sep 3 at 2:26
  • "and provide an irrefutable disproof of the above proof has the choice of existing" ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE GOD???? Sep 3 at 2:27
  • you're not understanding what an axiom is. an axiom stands by itself and does not rely on anything else. this is logic 101. Sep 3 at 2:29
  • Feel free to downvote if you think the answer is not useful. I'm not here to argue with you, just to serve the main purpose of SE, to provide benefit for the many people who will view this page long after you have dismissed me as a fool for not seeing your wisdom.
    – g s
    Sep 3 at 2:37
  • actually listen to this. both these proofs can be true. a proof is only as good as it is convincing. so both proofs can exist and the existence of a counter-proof does not actually disprove the other in and of itself. it depends which is more convincing. that is from Aggelos Kiayias my PhD advisor in cryptography (specifically knowledge proofs). Sep 3 at 2:39

A logical argument can only be as valid as its axioms, and at least three of yours seem questionable. Why not start with 'Axiom A: God exists' and leave it at that?

  • it's not at all the same! this is a proof that helps answer the question where did god come from... where did anybody come from. please READ the entire proof before lambasting it. please. Sep 3 at 18:28

This is much too complicated. Here is a single axiom that “proves” god exists:

Axiom 1: God exists.

But axioms don’t prove anything. The only thing you can prove is not “God exists” but “if these axioms are true then God exists”. Your axiom A can be considered to be true, because a three headed dog, a four headed dog, a five headed dog and so on all don’t exist. For the other axioms, I see not the slightest bit of reason why they would be true.

  • an axiom is "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true." in this case it is nothing but the codification of the meaning of the word God (God's qualities). Sep 3 at 21:57

The idea that God is so amazing that It created the world while not existing shows up as sort of a joke in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on ontological arguments:

enter image description here

However, the idea that God is both existent and nonexistent, or beyond these, or something else as such, is not unknown as a serious position, e.g. in Eriugena we find that "[there] is an attempt to show that nature is a dialectical coming together of being and non-being. Creation is normally understood as coming into being from non-being. God as creator is then a kind of transcendent non-being above the being of creation." Carl Kordig is cited as reasoning:

[We can] establish the possibility that God exists by appealing to the so-called ‘ought implies can’ principle. If we ought to rescue a drowning child we can rescue that child. Conversely, if we cannot for some reason rescue a drowning child, then it is not the case that we ought to rescue that child. Kordig says that God ought to exist because he is a perfect being. And given that God ought to exist we can infer with the ‘ought implies can’ principle that he can exist as well. Hence, it is possible that God exists.

Now, as for your own argument, the axiom that God has the will to choose to exist, even if It doesn't exist, is where the disconnect with public reason occurs. The puzzle of, "The present King of France is bald," for example, is the sense that "is not bald" can't be true of a nonexistent thing anymore than "is bald" can be; so, "The nonexistent God does have a will," would be denied just as much as, "The nonexistent God does not have a will" (on the other hand, one wonders what happens to, "The nonexistent God doesn't have the property of nonexistence," also, then!). At best, you might have shown that God exists and that there is no God: that God exists qua existence-as-a-property but doesn't exist qua existence-as-quantification. Whether this existence is significant or not, is not yet in view.

  • 1
    I think this is the most helpful to OP
    – J Kusin
    Sep 5 at 17:37
  • English uses the same words and sentence structure for characteristic designators and empirical claims. If it's confusing to keep track of which meaning is being used (or if somebody is using the overloaded word to make spurious arguments), just eliminate be, do, and have from your philosophical vocabulary and move on with life. When you mean there exists an instantiation of concept X, say so. When you mean designate the concept X with characteristics Y, say so.
    – g s
    Sep 6 at 3:56

Your argument has the same structure as

If 1 = 0, then by adding 19 to both sides, we can conclude that 20 = 19.

That entire statement is true. But that entire statement is not a proof that 20 does in fact equal 19.

  • all logical proofs are like that. if you are saying you require empirical proof of the axioms? then this is half of the entire proof. Sep 3 at 23:09
  • No, proofs are not like that. My passage isn’t a proof at all. Not a proof of anything. It is simply a true statement. And it also happens to be a statement of which the premise is false. Sep 3 at 23:12
  • Now, to prove a claim like For all x such that P(x), Q(x), it suffices to provide a valid argument of the form, “Let x be such that P (x). Then S (x) and … blah blah … Therefore, Q (x). But the proposition that you claim to have proven has no conditions, no P (x) as it were. It is simply a Q (x): “God exists.” And one can’t use axioms in a proof without their actually being conditions. Sep 3 at 23:20
  • 1
    @JordanCote your axioms seem contradictory to me "Axiom B. God has choice, even without existing. Axiom C. If God could, God would choose to exist." if a deity is axiomatically constrained to make a particular choice then it has no choice. That is rather what "choice" means. So for me your conclusion doesn't hold because I don't accept your premises (I don't think they can really be called axioms they certainly are not self-evidently true - see above). Sep 5 at 17:12

Axioms (with inference rules) invite entering into a game: "if you accept X axioms and some inference rules, you must also accept Y".

The standard mathematical axioms lead to a game that is indispensable to science.

You need to do more to have others enter into this game. Even if it's valid (not getting into how to define exists here), that's not enough. So the best advice is strengthening all the other stuff to get people to enter into your game on top of validity (which is yet to be established, but lets grant it even).

Mathematics gets away with infinity in their axioms because they can talk about it with without apparent contradiction or equivocation. It's presence in yours doesn't make me want to join in as is. Nor do the other proofs for God make me want to choose yours specifically. There are no other mathematics for science at this time for example.

I'm not saying you need to have a proof up to the level of standard mathematics, but there's just not much grabbing others to join into it, and even stuff pushing away.

Maybe you can get rid of nebulous infinity in your axioms, and/or characterize your proof as only requiring choice by God or something, differentiating it from other proofs for God. Those might be enticing.

Again, it may be valid. But that's hardly enough.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .