Top Proofs For The Existence Of God

A serious philosophical analysis of all the major proofs and arguments made for the existence of God. We explore classic proofs like the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and many more.

I thought it would be fun for us to go through every argument for the existence of God that mankind has made up and point out where they go wrong. These will be classical philosophical and theological arguments, and frankly many of them are not very convincing—not very good. I want to dissect and analyze all that with you today.

In so doing, it’s not really about proving God to you—of course, that would be silly. It’s about looking at epistemology, how to do effective metaphysics (if there is such a thing), and exploring the many traps that come with trying to wrap your mind around God. This is where humans make all sorts of foolish mistakes that I’ll be pointing out.

Now, of course, I must warn you that this topic requires a high degree of open-mindedness and “epistemic intelligence,” which is rare. Keep that in mind. This is serious, advanced philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, and theology. This is going to present a trap for you if you’re a scientific materialist, or you’re an atheist, or you’re a skeptic. Be careful with the debunking mindset.

What we’re doing here is not presenting simplistic answers or any kind of ideology or belief system. I’m not a Christian; I’m not a believer; I don’t have faith. I’m not religious. However, I do have to let the cat out of the bag because, as I was structuring this talk, I was thinking about how to present this in a very even-handed manner—because there are going to be theists watching, atheists watching, all sorts of people in between, skeptics, etc. How do I present the topic in a fair way to everybody? We don’t want to bias or privilege one side over the other.

I realized I can’t really do that because, of course, I’m coming from a pretty unique position. If you’re new to this work, or this channel, and you’re not familiar with me or my background, then here’s the problem: I do have a direct consciousness of God. I can’t pretend otherwise. So I’m coming at this whole topic from a very unique angle.

You can find plenty of material on YouTube discussing whether God exists from scientific people, theological people, Christians, skeptics, philosophers, academics, but the problem is that they don’t really know what they’re talking about. That’s because they don’t have a direct consciousness of God. And it doesn’t matter whether they believe or don’t believe—what matters is what they’re actually conscious of.

The whole point of this topic, and why it’s interesting, is that we’re going to be evaluating these proofs from a position of already having the final answer. I have the final answer. I know what God is. That makes evaluating the proofs very easy. From your point of view, especially if you’re new to all this, you have no idea if I truly have the final answer or if I’m full of it. So what do you do? Well, of course, skepticism is good—always be skeptical—although you have to be careful about how you apply skepticism because it’s possible to deceive yourself with your own skepticism.

Just be aware of that. But really, how you evaluate the quality of the analysis is by looking at the epistemology. Look at the actual quality of the analysis. Don’t focus on me trying to convince you of God. That’s not what this is. What’s different about my coverage of this topic, as compared to other philosophers, academics, theists, Christians, atheists, and scientists, is that I’m not going to speculate. There won’t be belief systems, faith, dogma, ideology, or even a fixed paradigm—like materialism or some scientific framework. There won’t be rationalization. Most of what you get from other people, if they don’t have direct consciousness of God, is just speculation or rationalization.

Of course, if you’re an atheist or a skeptic or a scholar of philosophy, this might sound unfair, like I’m “assuming the conclusion.” But I’m not assuming it; I’ve come to the conclusion from direct consciousness. Here is where you need to open your mind to the possibility that it is possible to know, that it’s not all just relative perspective or opinion, and that it is indeed possible to say something meaningful and accurate about the nature of God. It’s just very rare that people actually do it because most people don’t know what they’re talking about.

The purpose of this and the series to come is to answer the question of why proofs and evidence for God are so epistemically problematic. That’s the real question, not just “does God exist.” It’s: “Why is it so hard to understand what God is, or come to know that God exists?” Because you’d think that if God exists, it should be easy. Right? It’s such a big thing—why isn’t it obvious? Also, if God exists, how did God come into existence? That’s the real question, right? “How do we answer that?” And why is that so difficult to answer?

That’s what we’re after: an answer to the question of why it’s so difficult to figure out the nature of God. So let’s get going. To start, we need to define what we mean by “God,” because different people mean different things. I mean the very classic philosophical definition: a Supreme Being, the Creator of reality/world/universe (I use those words synonymously), the Source (capital S), infinite, unlimited, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, intelligent, loving, benevolent, eternal (has existed forever), beyond time, transcends time and space, more fundamental than time and space, immaterial, formless, transcendent and also immanent, absolute truth itself, perfection, unity, oneness, infinite mind. That’s what I mean by God.

This is a very good definition, but it’s tricky. Even if you somehow realize God or prove God, you also have to understand all of those different aspects and properties of God. There are many. At times they can appear contradictory. How do you explain why God has all those attributes—if God even exists? Not obvious.

I do not mean a bearded man in the clouds. That’s a childish notion of God, so drop that idea. You’ve got to be careful if you’re an atheist or skeptic, that you’re not arguing against a straw-man version of God. If you’re arguing against the “bearded man in the clouds,” you win that argument—no question. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a much higher-level notion of God—less religious, more philosophical.

I also don’t mean the Christian God, Christ, or a “humanlike” personal being. I don’t mean a material creature like aliens sitting outside the universe in a simulation. I also don’t mean a mythological symbol, story, or metaphor. People like Jordan Peterson or Jonathan Pageau will talk about God as a sort of “ultimate symbol” or “mythopoetic idea” in a hierarchy of symbols. That’s not what I mean. I’m being very literal about the nature of existence here.

For those of you who are more skeptic, rational, or scientific, think of God more like “existence” or “reality” itself. Imagine if “God” was synonymous with “reality.” Of course, you might ask, “If God is reality, then we already know reality is right here, so why call it God, and why give it these weird qualities like infinity, omnipotence, love, intelligence?” Right—so how do we reconcile that? That’s the trick. If you really want a serious, straw-man-free version of what people mean by “God,” get away from childish Christian notions and get into “God as reality itself.” Then we can talk about what that means in depth.

Notes on Good Philosophy

Since we’re doing serious philosophy here, let me give you some principles for thinking about it properly. Good philosophy means mounting a good-faith consideration of every perspective, even perspectives you personally dislike or disagree with. That’s the difference between good philosophy and just rationalizing your personal pet belief system. You need to consider alternative viewpoints fairly. You also need to distinguish between “steel manning” and “straw manning.” We’re going to try to steel man arguments, not just pick them apart cheaply.

When I say “proofs” of God, I don’t necessarily mean airtight proofs that will make everyone drop to the ground and start praying. The word “proof” is loaded. There’s an entire post coming soon in which I’ll deconstruct what “proof” actually is. For now, think of these as “arguments” rather than bulletproof mathematical demonstrations.

Even if there were some logically airtight proof of God, that wouldn’t necessarily persuade everyone, because persuasion is a psychological and sociological matter, involving ego. So you can’t judge these proofs by whether they convince you personally. That’s not how human minds work. People often need more than logic; sometimes it’s emotional, or about suffering, or about their worldview attachments.

Also consider that skepticism, while it can be a powerful tool, can be abused. Many times, people jump at the chance to pick an argument apart. But advanced philosophy might require you to pause your skepticism, at least temporarily, so you can consider a new paradigm fully before you judge. Another important point: many proofs work only in retrospect. This is true not just for God but in general. In science, we see that new discoveries may arise from leaps of intuition or accidents, and only then do we come back and try to logically explain them. Logic often functions retroactively.

Keep all this in mind as we go through these arguments. Understand that each argument may have multiple layers. Often, a superficial reading might reveal something silly, but deeper layers might have real merit. Let’s begin.

The Cosmological Argument

Let’s start with the “cosmological argument.” It often goes like this:

Everything that exists has a cause. Look around; everything in our normal experience has a cause.
The universe exists. Therefore, it too must have a cause.
There cannot be an infinite chain of causes.
The cause of the universe can’t come from inside the universe. It must come from outside; otherwise, we’d say the universe caused itself, which seems logically impossible.
The cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, very powerful, and absolutely simple. If it had parts, then those parts would need a cause, creating another infinite regress.
Therefore, that “simple, powerful, timeless, spaceless cause” is God.

That’s the cosmological argument in a nutshell. How convinced are you? Rate it in your mind. Now let’s analyze it:

Step 1 says everything inside the universe seems to have a cause. That’s basically true in everyday experience. Step 2: The universe exists, so it must have a cause. But is that necessarily true? We’re taking an extrapolation from inside the universe to “the thing that gave rise to the universe.” Is it valid to assume that what’s inside the universe must apply outside it? That’s a huge question. Maybe the very concept of causation breaks down at that cosmic boundary.
Step 3: “There can’t be an infinite chain of causes.” Why not? We don’t necessarily know that. Maybe reality is an infinite chain of causes.
Step 4 & 5: “The cause must come from outside the universe and be extremely simple, timeless, and spaceless.” By definition, time and space are aspects of this universe, so that might make sense. But does “simple, outside cause” necessarily mean God? Could there be an alternate explanation?
Also, a theist who wants more than a “void” might be disappointed, because if that cause is just a “void,” how does that translate to infinite intelligence, love, or omnipotence?

Hence, at a surface level, the cosmological argument isn’t super convincing. It’s making big assumptions about how logic and cause-and-effect operate beyond our everyday range or beyond the universe.

The Big Bang Argument

Closely related is the “Big Bang” argument:

Science tells us there was a Big Bang (a creation event).
The Bible says there was a creation event—God created the universe in a single moment.
The Big Bang thus matches the Bible’s account.
Therefore, a timeless, spaceless cause outside the universe (God) must have done it.

How convincing is that? Well, again:

We assume that science has nailed the Big Bang. But maybe new discoveries will modify or overturn the Big Bang theory in the future. If that happens, do we lose God?
We assume the Bible is an accurate authority. Not everyone accepts that.
We assume the Big Bang can’t be followed by some prior cosmic process. Maybe the universe cycles through expansions and contractions. We don’t know.
We assume the only possible cause is God, when in principle it could be something else (aliens, demons, or an endless chain of universes).

So not that convincing either, unless you already believed it.

Something-From-Nothing Argument

A simpler argument goes: “Something can’t come from nothing. Therefore, the universe can’t just arise from nothing, so it must have a super-powerful creator we call God.”

But we don’t actually know that something can’t come from nothing. That might hold true inside the universe, but we’re talking about the entire existence. Maybe it did come from nothing. And if your claim is that “nothing” can’t create “something,” are you sure that “God” isn’t, in fact, “nothing”? What if the “ultimate cause” is pure nothingness itself, which might be the very God you’re looking for?

The Ontological Argument

Here’s another famous one:

We can imagine a perfect, all-powerful, infinite being.
A perfect being that lacks existence is not truly perfect, because it’s missing something (existence).
Therefore, this perfect being must exist, because perfection implies existence.

That might sound questionable. It seems we could imagine all sorts of absurd things, like a “perfect, all-powerful, intergalactic space kangaroo.” The fact that we can imagine it doesn’t make it real. Also, it’s not obvious that “perfection” must include “existence.” Maybe perfection lies in nonexistence.

A more refined version of the ontological argument goes like this:

Imagine the concept of infinity (unlimited being).
True infinity would contain all possible properties; otherwise, it wouldn’t be infinite.
Existence is a possible property.
If infinity lacked existence, it wouldn’t be infinite.
Therefore, God (as infinity) must exist.

It’s more elegant, but still you have to assume existence is a property that Infinity “has.” And it’s not straightforward. If you believe an “infinite set of all properties” is logically incoherent, the argument falls apart.

Descartes’s Causal Argument

René Descartes made a similar argument:

I have an idea of a perfect, infinite being.
This idea must have a cause.
An effect can’t contain more reality than its cause.
My idea of an infinite being has more reality than I do, because I’m finite and imperfect.
Therefore, only an actually infinite and perfect being could cause this idea in me.
Hence, God exists.

At face value, a skeptic can say, “No, I got this idea from the Bible, or a teacher, or my own brain. The brain is the cause, and the idea is just a mental fiction.” Also, we assume that “my idea of infinity” is somehow more “real” than me. That’s not obviously correct.

On the surface, it’s unconvincing. However, someone who’s had profound experiences of “infinity” might look back on Descartes and see a deeper point. It’s just not likely to persuade a skeptic up front.

The Teleological Argument

This one says: “The complexity, harmony, and intelligent order of nature suggests an intelligent Designer.” That’s appealing to the intuition that, because human-made artifacts (like computers) require intelligent design, then nature— which seems far more complex—should require even greater intelligence.

But the counterargument is Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection, which can produce complexity and the appearance of design over billions of years without a personal designer. That, combined with geology, fossil records, genetics, and so forth, is very compelling. So from a mainstream scientific viewpoint, the teleological argument seems outdated.

On the other hand, one can still wonder if evolution itself is part of how God’s design unfolds. God might be the entire “system” or the “universe” that’s designing itself through natural laws and randomness. So it’s possible to reconcile Darwin and God if you define God as “the total reality,” but that just invites the question, “Then why call it God at all, rather than just ‘the universe’?”

The Fine-Tuning Argument

Closely related is the fine-tuning argument:

The universe’s physical constants—like the speed of light, gravitational constant, etc.—are tuned with unimaginable precision, allowing atoms, heavy elements, and ultimately life to form.
The odds of all these constants being exactly what they are by random chance is astronomical—effectively impossible.
Therefore, an intelligent Designer must have set them.

The mainstream scientific retort is often: “Maybe there’s an infinite ‘multiverse’ or many parallel universes. Naturally, only the ones that happen to be fine-tuned produce life forms like us, who then look around and say, ‘Wow, isn’t it amazing how well-tuned the universe is?’” So it’s a classic standoff: theists say it’s too improbable to be chance; atheists argue that improbability alone doesn’t prove a supernatural designer.

On the surface, the teleological and fine-tuning arguments won’t conclusively convert a skeptic. However, someone who has had a deep “realization” of the infinite intelligence woven into existence might look back at these arguments and say, “They do point to something real, something profoundly intelligent about reality.” But again, you kind of need that direct experience first.

So let’s move on to the next argument.

The Moral Argument

It goes like this:

Humans have a sense of morality and moral order.
There must be an objective ground or source of that moral order.
That source is God.

This argument states that without God, there can be no objective morality. If everything is just human invention, then morality is just relativistic and arbitrary. This troubles some people. They say, “No, morality can’t be relative. Killing babies for fun is always wrong. So there must be an absolute moral law.” The claim is that we can only have absolute moral law if there’s a lawmaker—i.e., God.

Analysis

Here’s the issue: does a sense of objective morality necessarily imply an absolute “moral lawmaker” outside of time and space? And if so, why call it “God?” Even if there’s an objective moral dimension, how do we know it’s an anthropomorphic, loving being with intelligence?

Moreover, you have the “Euthyphro dilemma” from Plato: is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s moral? If you say it’s moral purely because God commands it, that’s arbitrary—God could command anything. On the other hand, if you say God only commands things that are already moral, then we didn’t need God to begin with. Either way, it’s not a slam dunk.

Some theists try to get around that dilemma in various ways, but it remains messy. Strictly logically, the moral argument doesn’t prove God exists unless you accept that morality must be absolute and that the only way for it to be absolute is through God.

Argument from Miracles, Revelation, or Mystical Experiences

This argument says: “Miracles happen—look at these miraculous healings, look at Jesus’s resurrection in the Bible, or see how some people have near-death experiences. Therefore, these prove God.”

But this depends on whether you trust the accounts of miracles, biblical stories, or mystical experiences. An atheist can say, “Those stories are unverified or rely on hearsay.” Or, “Maybe there’s a scientific explanation we don’t yet understand,” and so on.

Mystical experiences do exist. People report them in every culture. The deeper question is how to interpret them. A materialist might interpret them as “just brain states.” A theist interprets them as contact with the divine. A lot of conflict arises here.

Pragmatic/Existential Argument

Sometimes called “Pascal’s Wager,” it’s basically: “It’s safer to believe in God than not, because if you believe and you’re wrong, you haven’t lost much; but if you don’t believe and you’re wrong, you go to Hell. So you might as well believe.” That’s a poor argument by most philosophical standards—motivated by fear, not by serious epistemology.

Another pragmatic line says: “Believing in God gives life more meaning. It makes you happier, gives you a sense of purpose. So it’s better to believe.” That’s not so much a proof of God as a psychological or utilitarian stance. It doesn’t resolve any deeper metaphysical questions.

Digging Deeper into Epistemology

When we see all these classical arguments—cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral, miracles, pragmatic—most are far from conclusive. They can be easily countered or debunked by someone who wants to see them as silly. But remember, as I said at the outset, there might be multiple layers to these. At a surface level, they can look like rationalizations that religious people made up to justify their preexisting belief.

Yet from a truly radical, open-minded viewpoint, you might discover that reality is stranger than you think. Some of these arguments, in a twisted or incomplete way, do point toward something. But that “something” may not match the Sunday-school notion of God or the typical atheist straw-man notion, either.

Why Are These Arguments So Problematic?

Because we’re trying to conceptualize and prove something that is—by definition—beyond the human mind. The mind uses logic, language, concepts, and symbols, all of which break down when we talk about infinite, eternal, absolutely formless reality. That’s the ultimate problem. It’s not that God is “irrational” or “unscientific”—it’s that it transcends logic and science. It includes logic and science, but it can’t be pinned down by them.

We humans often don’t realize how much we’re relying on certain assumptions about space, time, matter, logic, causation, or even existence itself—assumptions that might not apply at the ultimate level. Any proof for God that tries to stay within conventional human logic is going to run into paradoxes. From inside that system, it seems impossible. But from a different vantage point—let’s call it “pure consciousness”—the question is resolved directly, experientially, yet can’t be fully explained in words.

The Deeper Challenge

No matter how much we try to do “advanced metaphysical analysis,” if you haven’t had the direct consciousness or realization of God, you probably won’t be fully convinced. You might see hints, or you might remain skeptical. If you have had that direct consciousness, you no longer need logical arguments or external confirmation. That’s just how it is.

Thus, from the outside, you might accuse the mystic of circular reasoning: “You say you’re certain of God because you experienced it, but maybe you’re delusional.” And from the inside, the mystic might say, “Well, your skepticism itself is the delusion.” It’s a stalemate—unless you actually do the work to investigate consciousness, to see for yourself. That’s what many of the world’s serious contemplative traditions (whether Christian mystics, Sufis, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) point to. They don’t merely rely on philosophical arguments. They point to direct methods—meditation, prayer, introspection, self-inquiry, psychedelics, or other non-ordinary means of exploring the mind.

Conclusion So Far

The upshot is that these classical proofs, taken purely as logic, are not likely to convert a skeptic or materialist. Many remain unconvinced, and you can see why. Still, a deeper exploration reveals something interesting. After all, why have humans, across so many centuries and cultures, kept returning to these arguments and claims about God or Infinity or Absolute Reality? It’s not just random superstition.

In the next part, we’ll explore even more details—like the nature of “proof” itself and why, strictly speaking, you might not be able to prove anything at all, let alone God. We’ll see how logic, mathematics, and even science rely on certain bedrock assumptions that might not be as rock-solid as we think. That has huge implications.

What About “Proof” Itself?

I want to introduce the idea that the very notion of “proof” is more complicated than people realize. We assume we can arrive at complete certainty through logic, mathematics, or even through science. But if you investigate the foundations of mathematics—people like Kurt Gödel showed us that within any sufficiently powerful formal system, you run into statements that can’t be proven true or false from within that system. That is Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

This same kind of issue arises in metaphysics. If you’re trying to use the “system” of human logic, which is basically how your mind is wired, to prove something that might lie beyond your mind, then you could run into a fundamental limitation. You’re never going to find a final “proof” that absolutely compels all minds to accept it.

Key Insight: The mind itself can set up definitions and axioms that produce certain conclusions, but it always takes one or more assumptions on board. Proofs are built on assumptions. With God, we’re dealing with the question of whether there might be something beyond any assumptions—like the absolute ground of existence, which can’t be captured by the mind’s conceptual frameworks.

Why Must It Be So Hard?

You might say, “If God exists, if God is infinite intelligence and love, why doesn’t God just show us or demonstrate it clearly? Why is it all so murky?”

Well, there’s an important point here: if God is infinite, then it includes all possible perspectives, including ignorance. In other words, it includes the possibility of “not knowing God.” It includes illusions and confusion. It includes everything. So yes, it also includes a perspective in which you’re in the dark.

For the scientist or atheist who demands data and evidence, ironically, the “evidence” might be everything you see. But if you haven’t recognized it as divine, you say, “It’s just matter and energy following laws.” From another perspective, that is the very expression of God. A shift in consciousness is required to see it that way, not more data or “facts.”

The “Flipside” of Proof-Seeking

Another dynamic is that some people don’t want God to be real, either because of religious trauma, or a fear that God would mean some moral or social obligations, or they simply dislike what they see as “religious nonsense.” This unconscious motive can shape how they interpret any argument or evidence.

At the same time, there are people who really want God to be real because they crave certainty, security, or comfort. This can bias them in the other direction, making them swallow weak arguments without much scrutiny.

These psychological factors greatly affect whether these “proofs” or “arguments” appear convincing. Rationally, you might tell yourself you’re neutral, but deeper down there might be existential motives on both sides.

Mind-Bending Possibilities

When you go all the way to the root, you must consider wild possibilities like:

Maybe nothing exists at all, and this is all an illusion.
Maybe God is imagining all of us.
Maybe there’s only one infinite “thing,” and we are it.
Maybe we are a tiny piece of God’s dream, in a “partial amnesia” state, so we forget that we are God.

And so on. It might sound like science fiction, but if you’re going to ask fundamental questions about reality, these are serious considerations. And mainstream logic or mainstream science doesn’t handle that territory well—it’s off the map.

Does This Mean We Shouldn’t Argue?

No, not necessarily. Healthy debate can sharpen our intellect, help us see hidden assumptions, and spark new insights. But at some point, logical debate might become a dead end. True exploration of God (or absolute reality) might require:

Direct introspective methods. Meditation, prayer, self-inquiry, contemplative practice.
Mind-altering experiences. This can be a spontaneous mystical experience, or near-death experience, or sometimes psychedelics (though that’s controversial and not for everyone).
Profound life changes. Sometimes intense suffering, heartbreak, or other upheavals can open one’s mind in unexpected ways.

In other words, the shift from “I believe in God or not” to “I have a conscious realization of something infinite” is not just a matter of reading a clever argument.

Beyond Words

Lastly, words are symbols. God or Infinity is not just some conceptual patch. This is why ancient scriptures and mystics often speak in paradoxes, poetry, metaphors, or riddles. They try to point you beyond language.

The heart of the issue is that if you could pin down “God” with a formula or an argument, it wouldn’t be God, because God is unbounded and not a concept. It’s too alive, too infinite, too everything. It eludes any box you put it in.

The secret is: once you realize that, you see that “all is God” and there was nothing to prove in the first place. But that’s not going to satisfy a purely intellectual quest.

Recap of the Arguments

So, to restate them in brief:

Cosmological: Everything has a cause—must be some uncaused cause outside the universe.
Big Bang: The universe seems to have had a beginning—someone or something started it.
Something-From-Nothing: Nothing can’t birth something—there must be a prime mover.
Ontological: If you can conceive of a perfect being, existence is part of its perfection.
Descartes’s Causal: An idea of infinite perfection must come from something infinite and perfect.
Teleological: Complexity, design, and harmony imply a Designer.
Fine-Tuning: Physical constants are too finely tuned to be random—there must be a tuner.
Moral: Objective moral values require an absolute ground—God.
Miracles/Revelation: Supernatural events, near-death experiences, religious texts, mystical visions.
Pragmatic: It’s psychologically or socially beneficial to believe in God, or “safer” than not believing.

All have counters, loopholes, or assumptions. None is airtight if you’re determined to doubt. On the other hand, if you’ve had certain experiences, you might see these arguments in a different light. That tension is inherent.

Where Does This Leave Us?

If you’re an atheist or skeptic, you might feel validated because none of these classical arguments “clinched” it. You might say, “I’m still not convinced.” Indeed, NOT trying to convince you.
If you’re a theist, you might feel frustrated or might see that these arguments do point to something. You could also say, “God is above all arguments. I don’t need them.”
If you’re uncertain, you might conclude, “Hmm, maybe there’s more to reality than I assumed, but these arguments aren’t enough by themselves.”

That’s the honest place to land, at least intellectually. Then the bigger question becomes: what do you want to do about it?

Revisiting the Larger Point

If we step back, the broader takeaway is this:

Classical arguments about God—cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral, miracles, etc.—get us only so far.
On the surface, most are not conclusive enough to transform an atheist into a believer, or vice versa.
Yet they hint that something bigger is going on—something beyond what conventional Western philosophy or everyday thought captures.

The challenge is that the very nature of God—defined as infinite, unlimited, omnipresent—defies our usual modes of reasoning. Our assumptions and logic might work perfectly well for normal, everyday phenomena, but might collapse or fall short when we try to apply them to “the Absolute.”

Why Humans Keep Revisiting These Arguments

For centuries, people have tried to formulate arguments because the “God question” feels urgent and central. It touches on life’s meaning, morality, our origins, our destiny after death, and so on. Many people sense, on some deep level, that there’s more to life than just matter and energy. That fuels the desire to prove or disprove God logically.

Others see the potential for superstition, dogma, and social control within religion. That motivates them to debunk God-arguments. The result is this centuries-long intellectual tug-of-war. Yet neither side has produced a final, knockdown proof.

The Experience Dimension

One of the main points is that God, if real, is something you can become directly conscious of—similar to how you know you exist, or how you see colors and hear sounds. It’s not a matter of reading arguments in a book. It’s a consciousness shift, a state of direct realization. And once you have that, you don’t really need a “proof.” To you, it’s self-evident.

However, if you haven’t had that shift, from the outside, it might sound outlandish or delusional. That’s where an open mind becomes essential: to even entertain the possibility that such shifts are legitimate, one may need to explore areas of introspection, meditation, or psychedelic states, none of which are guaranteed to “work,” but might at least show how consciousness is more fluid than we assume.

Final

Before we wrap up, let me cover a few classic arguments and additional points I hinted at but didn’t fully explore. These complete our survey of how humans have tried to prove God’s existence—showing both the depth of the attempts and the pitfalls.

Aristotle’s Proof From Movement

One historical approach is Aristotle’s famous “unmoved mover” argument:

Everything within this universe moves and changes.
Everything moved is moved by some other thing, creating a chain of movers.
This chain cannot be extended infinitely back, or we’d never explain the entire chain.
Therefore, there must be a first cause of motion—an unmoved mover.
The unmoved mover has to be eternal and immaterial, or something else would have caused it.
Thus, it’s the ultimate source of all movement, and that is God.

Analysis. Of course, this begs questions. Why can’t there be an infinite chain? Why can’t the universe itself move (or create) itself? Even if there is an “unmoved mover,” why call it God? If we say that this mover operates by “love” or “desire,” how exactly does that impart motion? The deeper you drill down, the more assumptions appear—such as “no infinite regress” or “movement requires an external mover.” None of these is self-evident.

Yet, if you accept that an infinite chain is impossible, you land on some notion of a primal source. Whether that primal source deserves the name “God,” or is just an empty void or some metaphysical principle, remains unsettled unless you go deeper than logic.

Two Proofs by St. Augustine

Eternal Truths Argument

Certain truths—like mathematics, logic, or necessary principles—appear eternal (they don’t change over time).
These truths transcend individual human minds; we don’t invent them, we discover them.
Eternal truths require something equally eternal and unchanging as their ground.
The material world is always changing, so it can’t ground eternal truths.
Therefore, only God—an eternal and unchanging reality—can be their foundation.
Consequently, God isn’t simply “truthful” but rather Truth itself.

Analysis. If math and logic truly exist outside human cognition, then yes, we need a “location” or “foundation” for them. But is it automatically God? Is math truly outside the mind, or do we just assume it is? Could it be part of the structure of our brains? If so, that breaks Augustine’s logic. If not, maybe it really does imply a cosmic ground.

Hierarchy of Goodness

We see degrees of goodness everywhere (some things or people are morally better or worse).
This suggests a standard of perfect goodness.
That perfectly good standard must be real, not just an idea; if it existed only as a concept, it’d be incomplete.
Hence, the highest good is God—“that than which nothing better can be conceived.”

Analysis. This hinges on goodness being objectively real, rather than a convenient social or biological tool. If morality is purely relative, the argument collapses. If it’s absolute, Augustine concludes that it requires a perfect ground in God. And yet, we still haven’t shown why that ground must be a personal or loving being rather than an abstract principle.

Argument From Participation (Neo-Platonic)

An old Platonic and Neo-Platonic theme underpins this:

Qualities like unity, beauty, goodness, intelligence, and consciousness appear in varying degrees.
Whenever something partakes of a quality to some limited extent, it “participates” in that quality from a larger or ultimate reservoir.
If we scale that up infinitely—perfect intelligence, perfect beauty, perfect unity—we land on God as the infinite source of these finite expressions.

Analysis. A purely bottom-up materialist says we don’t need top-down “participation” at all; complexity evolves out of simpler building blocks with no overarching perfection. But a more holistic or mystical view reverses it: the universe is inherently intelligent, so that intelligence flows “downward” into creatures. If you accept that, then everything from love to reason to creativity is borrowed from the infinite mind.

Aquinas’s “Teleic” Proof

Thomas Aquinas refines the design argument:

Unintelligent objects—like planets—behave in an orderly, goal-directed way (e.g., orbits).
If an object has no intelligence but still acts toward a consistent end, some intelligence must direct it.
An arrow needs an archer; the cosmos needs a higher cause.
We call that higher directing intelligence God.

Analysis. A skeptic might say the “direction” is just physical law, no consciousness required. Or that emergent order can arise from natural selection and complex systems. But from another perspective, the laws themselves need explaining. Perhaps they are the expression of a vast cosmic mind.

The Neo-Platonic Proof

In a similar tradition:

The physical realm is a realm of multiplicity.
All multiplicity presupposes a deeper unity that contains or births it.
That unity must be absolutely simple and beyond change or composition.
We label that perfect unity “God.”

Analysis. If you think multiplicity can’t exist without a unifying ground, you lean toward a single infinite source. But again, you can’t assume it’s personal, moral, or loving without further leaps.

The Performative Contradiction of Naturalism

Also called an “argument from reason” or “self-referential incoherence”:

If naturalism is strictly true, our minds evolved purely for survival, not truth.
Then even our best logic and science are shaped by fitness, not necessarily correctness.
But we trust science and logic to reveal truths about the world, which implies a faith that our cognition aligns with reality.
Essentially, we have faith in some deeper rationality underlying everything, or else why trust our own brains? That hidden rational foundation can be seen as “God,” or at least something beyond a random survival machine.

Analysis. A strict materialist might say, “Well, it works, so that’s enough.” But “works” begs the question: “Works for what, and how do we know it’s not just illusions that happen to keep our genes alive?” The point is that trusting your reason’s reliability smuggles in a hidden assumption that reality is in sync with mind at a fundamental level.

Argument From Scripture

Many religions say, “Our holy text is divinely inspired or the actual Word of God.” That’s often cited as proof, especially if it contains moral wisdom or interesting historical accounts.

Counterpoints: Humans write scriptures, humans edit them. Translation errors, political agendas, mythic elements—these abound. Even if a prophet was divinely inspired, ego could corrupt the message. A circular logic emerges: “It’s from God because it says so, and it says so because it’s from God.”

Argument From Popularity

“Since most of humanity, across cultures and ages, believes in some form of God, that many people can’t all be wrong.”

The tricky part is that mass consensus doesn’t guarantee truth. Whole civilizations can share illusions. Still, there is a deeper reason God keeps popping up in every corner of the world—namely that something is actually there, glimpsed (however vaguely) by countless minds. But the details can be wildly off.

Argument From Success

Sometimes you’ll hear, “Religion wouldn’t have survived so long if it were purely fictional. It must be pointing to real truths.” Yet religion often endures because it’s useful for survival and social cohesion, not necessarily because it’s an unvarnished metaphysical fact. That said, many religions do preserve a kernel of real mystical insight—just layered with dogma, culture, and corruption.

Argument From Faith

“You just need blind faith; proof is irrelevant. God is testing our willingness to believe.”

This is dangerous if you want genuine truth. Blind faith easily becomes self-deception, stalling deeper inquiry. If something is true, being open-minded and skeptical shouldn’t kill it; real truth withstands doubt.

The “God of the Gaps”

“Science can’t explain X (origin of life, consciousness, the Big Bang), so God must fill that gap.”

This argument historically led people to attribute storms, diseases, or even rainbows to God. Then science explains them. Ultimately, if your understanding of God only lives in gaps, those gaps tend to shrink. If God is real, it must be more fundamental than “just something we plug into the unexplained corners of physics.”

Information Theory Argument (DNA as Code)

A modern variant:

DNA is coded information, akin to programming instructions.
In information theory, codes don’t arise by random accident; they come from minds.
Therefore, DNA must originate from conscious intelligence—God.

A skeptic might say, “We only see one instance of DNA arising, so maybe that’s the rare case of spontaneous emergent code.” Or maybe the cosmos is set up in such a way that code can arise naturally—still leaving open the question of where that deeper setup came from.

Argument From Free Will

“If matter is all there is, everything’s determined by physics. We sense free will, so there must be a non-physical dimension, i.e., God.”

But free will itself is hotly contested. For many serious mystics, the realization of God actually reveals no free will—everything is a perfect, necessary expression of infinite mind. So ironically, that can invert the typical theist assumption.

Argument From Consciousness

“Consciousness can’t be reduced to matter; matter is dumb. So it must come from a non-material source—God.”

Indeed, I maintain that consciousness is God. But from an outside, materialist view, that can sound like a leap. The “hard problem” of consciousness remains unsolved by classical neuroscience. So either you say “We just haven’t explained it yet” or suspect consciousness is fundamental to reality.

The Deeper Threads

All these arguments illustrate one main thing: logic alone can’t resolve God conclusively if you’re determined to doubt. They also show there’s more going on than a naive, bottom-up explanation of everything by random chance. Underneath each argument are hidden assumptions: about time, causality, infinity, morality, logic, or the reliability of our minds.

Ultimately, truly grasping God involves consciousness of God—not a mere mental concept. That’s why each classical proof, at best, leaves signposts. But the real shift is experiential. Mystics throughout history discovered that you can’t just reason your way there; you must directly contact the infinite.

Once you do, you’ll look back and see, “Ah, these old arguments actually pointed to something real,” but from the outside, they remain easy to poke holes in. That’s the big reveal: the final understanding of God isn’t a concept to accept or reject. It’s a conscious recognition of the infinite substance of reality, which includes you.

Where This Leads

As I stressed, this post is an appetizer. We still need to deconstruct the notion of “proof” itself and see how it can’t fully capture the Absolute. Then, I’ll share my own, more refined proofs—ones I formulated after years of firsthand consciousness work.

They still won’t be “airtight” from a purely logical standpoint, because nothing about infinity can be pinned down that way. But they’ll be more direct, clearer, and better aligned to how you can actually realize God for yourself.

Remember, I’m not here to convert you; I’m here to show you the pitfalls and subtleties of pursuing something as vast as absolute reality through a finite mind. If that sparks your curiosity, and you’re ready to dig into the deeper layers of epistemology, metaphysics, and direct introspection, stick around.

There’s a lot more to come.

🔗 Source: Leo Gura