Posted by Ezekiel 25:17 on November 22, 2001 at 08:58:03:
In Reply to: Re: Can you prove god? (Proof enclosed) (Counter too) posted by James 5:16 on November 19, 2001 at 21:29:47:
: : 1+1+1+1+1+A=10+1+1+1+1
: : 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?
: Actually that is not true. We have set up algebraic rules in which we define how to handle such an equation. These rules are assumptions that are considered givens rather than something that requires proof. If A is not equal to 9 in your equation, then not only is the equation false, so too is the entire Algebraic system. That being said, we cannot make the subtractions on each side of the equation required.
Okay, I concede this argument and my poor algebraic skills :) It was a poor example.
: : 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.
: Let's look at this logically.
: a) a cheese sandwich is better than nothing.
: b) nothing is better than ultimate fulfillment.
: (Let's stop here for a minute. You are using the word "nothing" idiomatically differently in both sentences. In a), your statement uses "nothing" to mean "not having anything". In b), you use "nothing" to mean "not any one thing". Because of that, your proof is invalid.)
Out of interest, I can't figure out where I originally got this from, as it was a lot snappier than my half-remembered effort. If you can remember I'd appreciate knowing.
: You used an idiomatic trick to make your proof work. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
: But let's continue assuming your false argument that "a cheese sandwich is better than ultimate fulfillment" is true.
: : 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'.
: Is a) proven or an assumption? If it is an assumption, then the argument of God's existence is then a given. If a)is an assumption then we cannot bring God into this statement at all! If you do, you have given the proof that God exists fulfillment. Therefore, a) can neither be proven or assumed without destroying what we intended to prove.
: : 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.
: How do we make that process of elimination? If we assume there is no God or gods, then we assume that all events not given to human thought and interaction are randomly caused. By your statement, "if it's not [an] act of nature that has created" the sandwich, then it must be man. Else, you assume the existence of God again. Therefore, if man created the sandwich, your point is meaningless. If God created it, then you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Can't do that of course.
: : c) Thus, we can assume that cheese sandwiches exist as a creation designed to prove the ultimate existence of God.
: Well, if a) and b) both assume God's existence or that one of the statements is false, then c) is meaningless.
I concede all your points here :)
: Now, let's get a closer argument for God's existence.
: Let's assume that there is no God.
: Then the universe was created randomly as there was no designer to create it. As a result of this creation we, as humans, came about as a result of random chance. (I can't begin to tell you what kind of odds that would take, but let's continue.)
: We call into assumption, Newton's Laws of Physics. (Therefore, Newton's Laws are true without need of proof.)
: Newton's Third Law of Thermodynamics says that all systems go from a state of order to a state of chaos (by use of heat).
: If that is true, then the original universe must therefore be orderly, and proceed towards a chaotic state.
: The next question is therefore, how did order come to a seemingly random universe? That does not logically follow. Random systems are disorderly by nature. So, we have to make the assumtion that the universe was orderly.
: How did the system become orderly? There must be a force to impose order on the seeming randomness. The existence of this force counters the fundamental assumption that we made at the beginning of the proof.
: The must be an organizing force. Call it God, Allah, Jehovah, Thor, or whatever. The imposition of order on the universe requires an organizer.
: There is my proof. I can't proof of the Christian God but you can see the above argument.
Not being a scientist, I'm struggling to comprehend this theory. Are we assuming we live in an ordered universe? Why is it ordered as opposed to in chaos? Can Newton's laws apply universally or are they only applicable on this planet?
: Well, thanks for listening,
: James 5:16
Post a Followup