Monday, February 6, 2012


I walked away from a one-sided conversation the other day.  It brought up thoughts I wanted to put down here (and perhaps write more extensively on it later...)

The conversation went something like:

Other Person: Prove to me there IS a god.
Me: What can I say, there are many proofs both for and against the existence (being) of god.
Other Person: Show me using something I can recreate to verify your proof.  Something I can see or touch.

At this point in the conversation, I quickly surmised I would not be able to discuss the topic with the person.  Line of reasoning was not acceptable, nor was using any logical proof.  Moreover, I realized (based on other parts of the conversation) that the person hadn't even defined "god".

I decided to define "god" using the ontological argument.  "God is a being that nothing greater can be conceived of."  The person accepted the definition, so I waged into Decarte's proof and was told to stop.  The person didn't want to think.  They simply wanted to be "shown" god.

"God" cannot be "shown" or proven when the constraints on the process presupposes the lack of existence.  If we assume god exists, then anything (otherwise) unable to be explained proves God.  If we assume god does not exist, then anything unable to be explained falls into the category of "yet to be explained using some answer OTHER than God".

The first is not a proof of God, and the second is not a proof of the lack of God.  What needs to be explored is how to identify the existence of God without ascribing more to God than appropriate.  In the same vein, how to ascribe to God what IS appropriate.

No comments:

Post a Comment