# Does this proof of God I made work? [closed]

I worked up this proof of God, and I want to know if the proof works. Here is the proof:

Something which is unlimited is limited by not having limits. If limits were to be imposed on something which is unlimited, then it would be limited, and thus it would be unlimited. Therefore, it would seem that something which is unlimited couldn't exist. However the concept of the unlimited does exist, and this creates a paradox.

Here is where I see the concept of the unlimited can still exist. The concept of the unlimited can exist if that which is unlimited has free will. This is because to have free will is to have no limits. Let's go back to why something can't be unlimited, and instead of saying why, let's present us as choices.

Choice A is being unlimited with the limit of having no limits

Choice B is Choice A's alternative by imposing a limit on the unlimited.

If the unlimited were to have free will, it would have to choose between the two choices, and instead of choosing Choice A or B, it would choose both, overriding the two and making it so that the unlimited thing with free will is still unlimited.

Now if something were to be unlimited with total free will, then that thing would have to be a Person, and that Person would be God.

Now, a counterargument could be that the unlimited only exists in the abstract, but I have a rebuttal . My rebuttal is that all limits are a product of causality, which can only exist within space and time. As we know, space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and so what was before the Big Bang was the unlimited, and the unlimited was God. Some people will say that before the Big Bang was nothing, but nothing cannot come from something.

That was my proof. Are there any axioms that I took as true but were actually false? Was my reasoning correct?

• Well, this proof works if and only if the prover wants to believe in God and believes that rational arguments suffice to prove empirical matters. You might find a more sympathetic audience at christianity.stackexchange.com .
– J D
Feb 23 at 16:31
• @JD I'm surprised we are still playing the "proof of god" game in this century. I know Plantinga claims to have a proof, but it's a really old, medieval game that is not interesting anymore. Medieval theologians probably didn't have very clear ideas about empiricism, and logic probably seemed like a sure-fire way to acquire knowledge since Aristotle, but in this day and age, it's hard to find those purported "proofs" worthwhile, IMHO. Feb 23 at 16:46
• From the fact that the concept of unlimted exists it does not follow that an unlimited entity exist. Compare with unicorns Feb 23 at 16:52
• Having said that, the statement that the unlimited is limited by a non-limit is meaningless. Feb 23 at 17:03
• The fake argument about limit reminds me of the argument that "all numbers are interesting", which goes that if you make a list of interesting and dull numbers, the smallest dull number becomes interesting for having that property and can be moved to the other list. Feb 23 at 19:24

It does not work in its present form. There are many unresolved or unexplained issues. Here are just a few.

1. "Something which is unlimited is limited" - This is one of the following: (a) a logical contradiction, (b) a paradox, (c) a category error, or (d) a meaningful statement. Until you unpack which of these it is, the very beginning of your proof has no foundation. You must define limited and unlimited and say whether they derive from the same definition or different ones.

2. "the concept of the unlimited does exist, and this creates a paradox" - No it doesn't. There are many concepts, for example the drawing by Escher of the impossible 3d triangle. The concept exists but the triangle doesn't.

3. "to have free will is to have no limits" - Incorrect. If I am condemned to death and can choose between hanging and shooting, my choices are limited but I can choose freely.

4. "all limits are a product of causality" - Why?

5. "As we know, space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang" - We don't know. Even the existence of the Big Bang is not decided for certain and we don't "know" what was before.

6. "space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang" - If that is true, then what do you mean by "before" which depends on the existence of time for its definition.

7. "Some people will say that before the Big Bang was nothing" - What some people say is hearsay, not proof.

8. "but nothing cannot come from something" - Did you mean "something cannot come from nothing? Either way you need to prove this.

• About "Something cannot come from nothing". If you observe that the voltage in a circuit at a particular instant is 0 you might be suprised to see it isn't 0 a brief moment later (an alternating current circuit). Similarly you might observe the voltage in a circuit which is changing, and deduce that it was 0 at a previous moment in time. If anything is limited, it is our ability to understand the nature of reality, not nature itself. Feb 23 at 20:40