A Deductive Proof for Divine Existence from First Principles
This paper presents a novel deductive argument for the existence of God based on three sequential logical gates that progress from empirical observations to metaphysical conclusions. Unlike traditional cosmological or teleological arguments, our approach begins with the fundamental distinction between coherent (order-creating) and decoherent (order-destroying) processes, establishes the logical impossibility of perfect coherence generating perfect decoherence, and concludes that observed decoherence phenomena require an external obstruction to an otherwise perfectly coherent source.
A full audio reading of this academic framework will be available here.
Classical arguments for God's existence typically begin with explicitly theistic premises or rely on intuitive gaps that allow for easy dismissal by skeptical audiences. The cosmological argument assumes the necessity of a first cause, the teleological argument presupposes that design implies a designer, and the ontological argument operates purely within conceptual space.
This paper adopts a different strategy: progressive logical implication. We begin with a minimal set of empirical observations and a single metaphysical axiom, then demonstrate the deductive consequences that follow.
Our argument proceeds through three sequential "gates," each representing a logical hurdle:
Definition 1 (Coherence): A process P exhibits coherence C(P) iff P increases the information content, organizational complexity, or systemic integration within its operational domain. Formally: C(P) = +1 for maximally coherent processes.
Definition 2 (Decoherence): A process P exhibits decoherence D(P) iff P decreases the information content, organizational complexity, or systemic integration within its operational domain. Formally: D(P) = -1 for maximally decoherent processes.
Definition 3 (Ontological Independence): An entity E is ontologically independent iff E's existence and essential properties do not logically depend on any other entity's prior existence.
We begin with an observation that spans all domains of human experience: reality exhibits a fundamental duality between processes that create/maintain order (coherence) and processes that destroy/reduce order (decoherence).
Premise 1: There exists an objective, measurable difference between coherence-increasing and decoherence-increasing processes.
Let us define a perfectly coherent entity (E) as one whose essential nature is exhaustively described by the principle of maximizing systemic order, integration, and being (C(E) = +1).
From this axiom follows a necessary corollary: A perfectly coherent entity (E) cannot, by its essential nature, be the originating source of an act of perfect decoherence (D(A) = -1).
Logical Derivation: To perform an act of perfect decoherence would be to act in a manner perfectly contrary to the stipulated essential nature of E. This would constitute a logical self-contradiction, a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
This axiom reveals a fundamental asymmetry in reality: while decoherent processes can always be explained as the absence, blockage, or corruption of coherent processes, coherent processes cannot be explained as the absence of decoherence.
Given the established principles:
We now confront the empirical reality that our universe contains extensive decoherence phenomena. The critical question: If the ultimate source of reality is perfectly coherent, what accounts for the observed decoherence?
When observing a shadow, we do not conclude that light creates darkness. Instead, we infer that an object is obstructing the light. Similarly, observed decoherence in a reality whose source must be coherent is best explained as the result of an external obstruction.
Having established the logical case, we examine the primary alternative: the Material Causation Hypothesis (MCH) - that undirected material processes produced all observed complexity.
| Test | Challenge | Probability Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Fine-Tuning | Fundamental constants precisely calibrated | ~1 in 10120 |
| 2. Abiogenesis | First self-replicating cell from chemicals | ~1 in 1040,000 |
| 3. Genetic Information | Complex specified information via mutation | ~1 in 10600 |
| 4. Consciousness | Subjective experience from matter | Category Error |
Design Hypothesis (H₁): Reality originates from perfectly coherent intelligence
Material Causation Hypothesis (H₂): Reality emerges from undirected processes
The convergence of deductive logic and probabilistic evidence produces an unavoidable conclusion: reality originates from a perfectly coherent, intelligent source—precisely what classical theism identifies as God.
Axe, D. (2004). Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology, 341(5), 1295-1315.
Barnes, L. A. (2019). A reasonable little question: A formulation of the fine-tuning argument. Ergo, 6(42), 1099-1154.
Behe, M. J. (2019). Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. New York: HarperOne.
Bennett, C. H. (1990). How to define complexity in physics, and why. In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (pp. 137-148). Addison-Wesley.
Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Collins, R. (2009). The teleological argument: An exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202-281). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. Knopf.
Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne.
Penrose, R. (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Jonathan Cape.
Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59(22), 2607-2610.
Access the full proof with all chapters, visualizations, and citations.
Complete Paper (PDF) Individual Chapters Visual Proofs