Posted by Whiskey on November 15, 2001 at 15:00:58:
In Reply to: Re: Can you prove god? (Proof enclosed) posted by Ezekiel 25:17 on November 14, 2001 at 07:58:15:
: These points are made in the assumption that God is non-interventionalist, and takes no credence whatsoever in those who have personally been touched by God. (requires more discussion of free-will which will be discussed in the fullness of time)
: However, bearing all this in mind, I will attempt to do the impossible and prove categorically there is a God by sheer logic alone.
: If we assume A = 9, then the equation is correct. Thus, believing A to be 9 renders the whole equation correct. However, isn't it more likely to conclude that if A does not equal 9, it is the entire equation which is placed in doubt?
: Just one small element renders the large equation worthless if incorrect. Now apply this biblically.
: So how can we prove that God really exists without assuming God actually exists?
: Well, obviously we'll need to make some more assumptions.
: Lets start with:
: a) a cheese sandwich is better than nothing
: b) nothing is better than ultimate fulfilment
: c) thus: a cheese sandwich is better than ultimate fulfilment.
: Now that we've established a cheese sandwich is better than ultimate fulfilment, we must ponder how a cheese sandwich was created.
: Can man create a cheese sandwich by himself?
: No, he requires dairy products and grain.
: Can the process of evolution result in naturally occuring bread and cheese slices?
: Obviously not.
: a) We know that God acts as a pathway to 'ultimate fulfilment'.
This ASSUMES GOD EXISTS. What if there are really 2 gods? The god of cows and the god of grain? This doesn't in any way invalidate this clause, so your assumption is logically flawed.
: b) By process of elimination, if its not the act of nature that has created this work of art known as a 'cheese sandwich', then surely it comes from another source.
: c) Thus, we can assume that cheese sandwiches exist as a creation designed to prove the ultimate existence of God.
NO - it assumes something unnatural or uncomprehendable did it.
Here you have taken the existance of God as a given. This is where i get soooo frustrated. There is plenty of evidence that some sort of supernatural/deity/weird thing is going on - I accept that. But when all christians leap on it and say "Must be god" its a little bit easy. Must be which god tho? There is no way that anyone can prove christianity is any more valid than any other religion, and even if any religions are actually valid. I look on Religion as a form of science, that attempts to explain reality. The mere fact that we have so many difference "sciences" suggests that reality is a very difficult (and differing?) concept to comprehend, so how can we be even remotely sure that we are right? And assuming something so utterly crucial as the existance of God in trying to figure this out is somewhat hard to justify.
Post a Followup