So Prove It

[linuxdoctor]

[blightyred]

Douglas Adams had a wonderful outlook on all things 'spiritual'.
Here is his take on the Babel fish, a device he invented that would translate any language in the universe .

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

[Scott]

I don't see why people are so concerned with what other people believe in. What I think is that whatever makes you happy or improves how you live your life, is what you should follow, no matter how far fetched it may seem or what other people think of it.

The only thing that really pisses me off about religion is when you get people who try to force it on others or go after others for not having the same beliefs as them. For example, the inbred rednecks that own the site Godhatesfags.com and go around picketing funerals are absolute scum, and are blinded by religion.
_________________
Tutorial Management Script - Version 1.4 Released
TutorialToday - Up and running, submit your tutorials!
Linux Tutorials - Coming Soon

[SE13]

[Xtreme]

Linuxdoctor, to clarify, I see total validity in the ontological path here. I was putting my ideas out there to point out to skeptics that many problems with "proving God" are problems with flawed methods, not a flawed God, and are not, in fact, exclusive to this case. If it cannot be demonstrated by an individual that other minds exist, even though that individual lives as such already, then how can he hope to demonstrate to himself that a transcendental - though logically necessary and perfectly immanent - being exists too? My point was that the philosophical process must be first examined if its conclusions are to have any measure of consistency or truth.

However, your Descartes reference bothers me. I'm not a huge fan of this particular school of thought - specifically the "I think therefore I am" concept. At the center of this universe is the self, and therefore perception is assumed to be reality and God becomes a consequence of logic rather than a necessity for it to be in the first place. Indeed it is compatible with the ontological proof to some degree, but it fails to acknowledge the fact that humans are a realized motion of God; indeed the self is only necessary for Descartes, nothing else.

Descartes again fails if we realize that the conception of a Supreme Being by the "self" presupposes the existence of the Supreme Being [causally] before the self, for the entire Being cannot potentially be contained within the imagination of the aforementioned self. And so then the philosophical construct's "center" moves away from the self and the entire "I think, therefore I am" conjecture becomes straw.

Philosophically, the idea of extrapolating existence from one's own conception of things is not an entirely useless exercise, but it is incomplete and cannot hope to explain the entirety of our questions. Indeed it creates may problems, and, I personally believe Descartes is responsible for a great many of the philosophical mistakes and blunders made to this very day.

On a different - and perhaps too divergent - note, I have something of a question myself that you may be able to stab at. If we are to demonstrate God's existence by logic alone, do we not presume that the tenants of logic itself are inherently truthful and accurate? I understand that these are, naturally, givens. But still, when speaking of God, the supernatural, and the metaphysical, should we not take the enlightenment from the natural light of logic (when it is by itself) with a grain of salt?



Moving on...



Blightyred, I believe if you refer to that particular bit of the Hitchhiker's Guide, you'll find that Adams's [brilliant] style is not, in fact, siding one way or the other on the issue; almost every time lays down satire of that manner he follows it up with a clarifying statement that assures that he doesn't REALLY necessarily believe this way or that. He's trying to get his readers to think, not necessarily to think a certain way.

Not to mention that faith DOESN'T deny proof or anything of that sort...

At any rate, I'm at a point where I feel - personally, this isn't some deeply theological or philosophical conjecture - that knowing God is best begun and carried out by living every moment, by carrying out every action, by planning every goal with Him at the forefront. Knowing God isn't about sitting down and thinking about it or talking or debating about it. It's about living and loving. And this is the way that we Christians demonstrate - and one of the most moving ways we "prove" - God's love.

Theologizing is good, but it's not the end-all of God's presence in our lives.

[linuxdoctor]

Disclaimer: I think that Xtreme forgot that most of what I write is for effect and points and are not to be considered my official position on anything. They key word is may. I often write in favour of things I am radically opposed or against things that I am passionately in favour. Above all, I do not take myself seriously and neither should anybody else. I also laugh at others who take themselves too seriously.

That being said ..... on with the show.