Metaphysical proof of God

If a phenomenon called “Big Bang” occurred, forces came together in a mathematical proportion capable of generating it, then that proportion was valid since before the production of Cosmo. All phenomena in nature express valid mathematical proportions before the phenomena manifest themselves. The totalities of these mathematical proportions that govern the Cosmos exist eternally, long before the existence of the Cosmos, including the proportions that allow an animal with a brain to be able to think and be aware. Taking the totality of these proportions and relations, one arrives at the Divine Logos.

The Divine Logos exists before the Universe. This is a scientific fact that no one can answer; to say that the proportions were not valid in the sphere of possibilities, and that they only became valid in reality, is an error, because what is real is, by definition, possible.

The total scheme of realizable possibilities is the Divine Logos: Omnipotent Omniscient and Omnipresent because we cannot observe the Divine Logos outside of it, because we live in it. God could not create the Universe and stay out of it for even a millisecond: the Cosmos is a property of God. If God transcends the Universe (what transcends, by definition, encompasses), then God is not one thing and the Universe is another (apostle St. Paul said: “in him we live, in him we move and are” — Acts 17:28 -30).

God is the absolute “owner” of logic. And, not everything can be proven scientifically. [For example, if you receive a check, it is not possible to scientifically prove that it has funds. Before withdrawing it, the payer’s card could be cloned and used. Explain, scientifically, which numbers will be drawn in the next EuroMillions and tell me! This is the same as asking for scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God — silly, that concept], science hardly serves to explain the properties of the Divine Logos that govern “our Cosmos”, let alone “pre-Cosmos”!

We are not viewers who observe what is going on from the outside, so we cannot explain what is out there from the inside! Pasteur said: “A little science keeps us away from God. A lot, brings us closer”. But then, it is necessary to unite science and philosophy.

When you look at a stone, it is giving you information such as presence and structure (properties). If you say that this object is not intelligent, and that there is only the inert presence of a body without intelligence, then explain: How is it possible to study the structure of the stone? On a rock there is a series of recorded information, which even mineralogists may be unaware of. The Universe is intelligent, the Universe is Divine.

To imagine God as a “big being” that generates other children is extremely childish. Having heard or read in the Bible: “Let the earth be made” does not mean that “someone” was in possession of a magic wand, but it does mean the regrouping of a portion of the Divine Logos. It is precisely for this reason that many, when they see people with serious illnesses or great injustices, affirm: “God does not exist”. These people do not notice that we are the “unconsciously” part of the Divine Logos, and that, otherwise, we would be just puppets. The part unconsciously does not mean the part that is not loved, but because it is loved, it becomes unconsciously.

If you can say “I” with some awareness of the cause, it is because it exists within the Universe.

It is not possible to prove whether God created the universe or not, but it is possible to prove that, if it was not Him, it was nobody else — much less the universe itself. The proof is simple: the universe only became possible thanks to the mathematical proportions that shaped it. If so, and all science proves that it was, then these proportions were valid since before the creation of the universe. But, for some proportions to be valid, it was necessary that all were valid, that the ENTIRE mathematical reason was valid eternally, above and independently of the universe itself. But how could it be valid if it did not contain in itself the principle of its own intelligibility? The Reason that shapes and explains everything explains itself and depends on nothing. This is the Divine Logos.

Seems like a wild unevidenced claim. Do you have evidence for your opening assertions?


Again evidence for this wild extension of Philo’s “logos”.
Do you have any idea what a “scientific fact is”? It appears you do not.

And then:

The rest of this presuppositionalist strangled garbage can fester until you evidence these claims from your first two paragraphs and that contradiction in the fourth.

You don’t know your philosophy either.


I suspect not because this one seems to have the quaint notion that god(s) may be argued into or out of existence.

All he has provided are unfounded claims. Not good enough for me. As far as I’m aware, all claims made about god(s) are unfalsifiable. I demand empirical evidence and am unable to accept anything less.

Once again: Logic is an unreliable tool for arriving at truths. As a general principle a logical inference is true if and only if the premise can be shown to be true. There are exceptions, but not in metaphysics as far as I can tell.


What was that proportion? If you do not know then you are speculating.

What is this proportion? Is it the same as the proportion that “generated” the big bang? If it is different, what is the difference and why?

Please define “Divine Logos”. And since you state they are a result of proportions, then they are numbers. What numbers are associated with these “Divine Logos”?

Please prove this assertion.

With regret I must inform you that I place zero credence on the bible since it is flawed in every way imaginable. For me, the bible carries less weight than a roll of toilet paper. If you desire for this statement to be accepted, you must prove that the bible is true and accurate. Warning, you can not.

You have moved the goalposts. Now you are discussing possible financial frauds. Or is the link because fraud is involved in your god?

No. A stone has properties that we unravel by studying it.

What are those proportions? If you can not supply a number and explain why they are what they are, then your entire argument is a complete fail.


Fascinating that so many committed theists have gone from arguing their beliefs in the accuracy of the gospels and the existence of an historical god that walked the earth to woo merchants who seem to be ignorant of the fact that you cannot argue or “logic” a particular choice of god into existence.

We are in complete agreement on this point Boomer.

I feel we have another “try hard” Christian (unaccredited) College Freshman on our hands or a graduate of the Woo faculty at the University of Youtube and Reddit.

What’s the betting it will end in a flounce off stage left with accusations of mental incapacity on atheist’s part to understand his brilliant arguments?

A true and marginally relevant anecdote.

When I was about 25 I shared a house with a bloke my age. He was a recently graduated clinical psychologist. He had a party. A room full of people just like him. it was fascinating. I was with two of 'em in a small group of four. One of them proceeded to analyse the dynamics of our little group.

It occurred to me then as it does now. That when people find themselves in an unfamiliar setting, they fall back on what they know. In the case of undergraduate philosophy students, it tends to be what they think they know. The results can be quite entertaining as with this latest little chew toy.


Entire thing’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Fuck me, it is plagiarized word salad. :exploding_head:


At first I speculated that proportion has some obscure meaning in some weird branch of philosophy that was somehow very different than what it means in math. Then I noticed the OP was using the adjective “mathematical” with the word “proportion”. :woman_shrugging:t6:

1 Like

Yup, and that is why I am going down the “prove the math” route. Not that I expect a cogent reply.

The big bang did not occur “in nature” as we observe it, that’s axiomatic.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim?

No, one does not. I’d also like to see something beyond bare assertion for this assumptive leap to your conclusion.

Wow, a scientific fact that no one can answer? This is a risible lie hardly worthy of response, why do theists think they can make up demonstrable lies like this?

I gave up at that point as my senses were being bombarded with incoherent gibberish, peppered with unevidenced assumptions, and begging the question fallacies.

Though this egregiously stupid claim leaped out at me. Logic is a human creation, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. What possible use would an omniscient being have for such a method? Tacking it into your unevidenced assumptions as a rhetorical soundbite here of course, doesn’t make them rational.

Another particularly stupid claim, since if this were true you couldn’t possibly know it without yourself being omniscient.

Cheque ffs, and of course it’s fucking possible to demonstrate objective evidence that a cheque is supported by sufficient funds before you cash it, that’s beyond moronic.

No it isn’t even remotely similar let alone the same, and your facile comparison is very edifying. Not least because no one has asked for scientific evidence, the claim for an extant deity is yours, as is the “burden of proof”.

Wow, you seem determined to compound the stupidity of previous irrational assumptions with each new claim.

Let’s cut to the chase here.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


It’s a depressingly familiar piece of theists rhetoric, I’m fucking damned if I’ll call it a rationale.

The whole thing is one giant argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, devoid of any supporting objective evidence, or even cogent rational argument. The author doesn’t know what proof means, or a what a scientific fact is, he doesn’t understand what logic is, yet includes the word as a rhetorical soundbite.

All to use a constant God of the gaps polemic. Science can’t explain everything, so god is in the gaps it can’t explain. We don’t have a contrary explanation for the big bang theory, therefore goddidit, etc etc etc

What a steaming pile of horse shit. Facile analogies, peppered with logical fallacies, and the nauseous hubris of entitling this verbiage with the misnomer of “proof” rather speaks for itself.

And of course no attempt to demonstrate any objective evidence for any particular deity yet again.

Dear oh dear, do they give apologists a frontal lobotomy before they’re sent here to regurgitate this nonsense?

What really boils my piss here, is there are already dozens of threads tackling the first cause polemic this idiot has butchered here again.

Why the fuck don’t they just link William Lane Craig’s fucking personal blog and have done with it.

If anyone gets god from that garbage they should seek professional medical help from a mental health professional. I despair I really do…


My two cents.

Logos … isn’t that associated with word?

Why the fuck doesn’t he call it the Divine Numbers???

Lol :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


Copy and paste creates an appearance of intelligence?

What a crock of shit! You don’t know what caused the big bang, if it was “caused” at all. You spent an entire paragraph saying absolutely NOTHING. I am stupider for having read the dipshit thing.

Demonstrate the truth of this claim with evidence or just go the fuck away on the back of the same angel that dropped you off.

That which is realizable is also verifiable. (become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.) What “fact” do you have to support your claim?

Before you can assert a God is the owner of logic, you must demonstrate that a God exists. Good luck with that. People have been trying for 2000 year and are still no closer to achieving the task.

In fact, nothing can be proven scientifically. Perhaps you meant mathematically. Science does not deal in proofs. Science builds models. Did you happen to misspeak or are you just ignorant? Science provides us with the best possible evidence that we have on any given topic. When new evidence is provided, science changes. If you are looking for proof, try religion.

You obviously know nothing about banking. Not only can I contact the bank by phone but I can put a hold on the exact amount the check is made out for prior to cashing it. The bank will tell me over the phone if the funds are available.

Science does not give a shit about evidence for the existence of a God. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

[quote=“nessahanalita, post:1, topic:1454”]
This is the same as asking for scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God
[/quote] You are the one asserting that a God exists, you are the one with the burden of proof. No one gives a shit what kind of proof you have. If it can stand against critical inquiry, we will all be believers in the morning. We may not worship the asshole you worship but we will know he exists. So what sort of “proof” do you think you have. I’m betting you have nothing that will proove God. You have some shitty evidence and that is it.

Science does not have to explain Devine logos. Fuck devinl logos. Demonstrate it exists. We are not even interested in it until you can demonstrate it is real.

Oh fuck… this wall of bullshit is getting old… I have better things to do than wallow in this moronic post of ignorance.

Hmmm :thinking: Cog got me thinking. He’s right and you could also take your cheque to the payor’s bank and cash it there…

A more accurate example for faith-based assertions…

You will win this lottery I believe in. Look! This brochure says so!!!
Just invest all your money, and you’re guaranteed (sort of because it’s not a sure thing, depending) to win!!!

No evidence of this lottery existing. No evidence of any winners. Just evidence of a lot of broke people.

No thanks. My life is my most valuable asset and how I spend my time.

A transparent veneer at best…


I could actually feel brain cells dying as I read it.

Seriously go outside and read his verbiage aloud in the open air, and I bet that birds will start to fall unconscious from the sky…

1 Like

Until and if the OP reappears, I shall amuse myself with logos.

ministry of silly walks

1 Like