God v. logic, over three hundred proofs for gods existence


(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This kind of argument structuring is pretty much what I did all through my philosophy of religion classes. The logic of faith is so weak it’s depressing how easily the premise-conclusion relationship can be mocked.

(obviously some of these are unfair and oversimplified, but some are spot on (see esp. Ontological Argument I, it’s pretty much the base for them all))

Link (via. snowmit)

5 Replies to “God v. logic, over three hundred proofs for gods existence”

  1. Perhaps God doesn’t exist but don’t be so quick to join the modern
    day trend in youth of hating everything religious. The world is an
    amazing place and science, although it did bring about your wonderful
    technological toys, simply cannot explain most natural phenomena.
    Don’t confuse the religious Institution with the inner religious and
    collective minds. Don’t confuse God for a man. This isn’t to say
    I’m preaching or asking you to believe in God, but rather to look
    beyond the world science has created and realize we are still at the
    mercy of something we don’t understand. Also, Philosophy is retarded,

  2. What does creationism or evolution have to do with the existence of the absolute, formerly known as God? Nothing. Repeat after me: nothing.

    And how would creation compare to evolution? How would the transgression from the absolute to a finite universe and a mere finite process exclude each other?

    Evolution and the Big Bang are finite processes/events. But nothing finite can be by itself, i.e. everything finite asks for yet another cause. And all of finiteness as a whole asks for an infinite cause.

    Neither evolution nor the Big Bang can explain existence because they are finite. That’s why we need an absolute.

    Just my philosophical two cents.

  3. Maybe you can have both ; the absolute alongside creationism and evolution. Perhaps
    what we understand scientifically is the work of the absolute seen through a lense of tangible limits. The
    work of God if you will, could therefore never be understood because science simply does not see past the finite. Then again, the big bang isn’t finite. The
    theory suggests that matter is in constant expansion. The way I see it,
    science tries to explain God’s work with theories such as Evolution
    and the big bang, but can never succeed in doing so specifically because
    it is finite. It has definable limits outside of which it can’t operate.
    So I’d have to agree. We do need an absolute.

  4. I’m not going to go on about religion – too many arguments for my liking. But Jer, you used to always preach about God… I can’t picture you not believing.

Leave a Reply