Existence of God

 

Read the following Paragraphs below and see if you are convinced:

 

http://www.northforest.org/ChristianApologetics/godexists.html

The Assumptions of Deduction

The process of deductive reasoning is considered to be a reliable way to determine the truth or untruth of a proposition. The statement “God exists” can be analyzed using deduction and can be “proved” or “disproved” by logic.

In using the process of deductive reasoning, we start with one or more premises we assume to be true. Then we apply tried and true methods of combining these premises to reach a conclusion. If the assumptions are true and if we follow the process properly then the conclusion will be proved true.

The conclusion we are trying to prove is “God exists.” But what is the nature of this God and how will we know whether we have correctly identified Him? Rather than prove everything about God in one argument let’s limit our discussion to the statement “God created everything.” This statement has several variations, (1) everything that exists was created by God, and (2) anything observable was created by God.

What assumptions do we need to make to prove these statements? It’s a given that the proof depends on the fundamental assumption that logic and the process of deduction is a reliable way of determining truth. But when we attempt to prove the existence of God this way we end up with a troubling paradox. If God created everything then He also created logic and deduction. So how can we reliably use logic and deduction to prove the existence of God? It’s absurd to even attempt it.

Therefore, we discover that we can’t prove the existence of God with logic and deduction. But in the process of discovering this we’ve illustrated an important truth. The Atheist isn’t really an empiricist after all as he prefers to believe. Instead, he’s adopted a belief system that’s as arbitrary and unprovable as belief in God. By denying the existence of God the Atheist has really sabotaged his belief in empiricism. In doing this he has inadvertently illustrated that there really is a God after all. Since the concept of God lies beyond the scope of empiricism, then empiricism is not all there is – there is also God.

If we assume there is a God we have none of these problems. God as the creator of all things is naturally beyond the things He created. The simplicity of this world-view is further evidence that there is a God. How could an assumption be true if it doesn’t simply and accurately reflect the observations? In other words, if God doesn’t exist then why does the process of deductive reasoning in its essence support the idea that God does exist?

What I see as the flaw of this argument:

Suppose we claim God is the creator of all things.  Then since God is part of (or a member of, depending on your view) all things, then God must create God, which is absurd.  So clearly, it seems that there is one thing that is not created by God, namely God Himself.  So God must be something that always exists and not created.  So not EVERYTHING is created by God.  Suppose we allow for this “exception”, or a thing that is “beyond” what is created?  Why can’t we view logic and deductive reasoning also as an “exception”.  Something that always exist and not created, that is beyond all physical things?  Reason seems to be the law that governs how things work. 

 

The argument seems to suggest God exists is a self-evident truth which does not require and cannot be proven.  It’s like saying without God, there is nothing, so the concept of “proof” doesn’t exist, therefore we which a paradox.  But realize that, what the heck is a paradox if reason and logic don’t exist in the first place?  If we can accept p and not p at the same time (since the belief system is unproven), then there is no such thing as a paradox.  It will just be a jumble of mess, we can’t prove or disprove anything.  In other word, we are screwed.  So it’s like, take your pick, what’s the thing that we can’t doubt: reason or God.  To me, it seems like more people in the world believe in reason, than in God.

 

Don’t take me wrong, I believe in God, but I just want to point out that the argument presented here in that website really ticks me off because it is filled with holes.  And it makes us Catholics / Christians look stupid when we present an argument like that.  If we want to convince people to believe in God, at least first to show that it is reasonable to believe in God (and then we can let faith take them through the rest), we need to have sound arguments.

 

Not sure why i am bitter today, maybe it’s because US beat Canada by 1 medal and here is why:  (from cbc)

 

 

Canada would have reached its goal of 25 medals had:

• Short-track speed skater Eric Bedard not been denied by 4-1,000ths of a second in the men’s 500.
• Skier Kelly VanderBeek not finished 3-100ths behind the bronze medallist in the women’s super-G.
• Francois Bourque not missed the podium by 76-100ths in the men’s giant slalom.
• Pierre Lueders not lost out on a medal by 9-100ths of a second in four-man bobsleigh.
• Canada’s men’s hockey team won even a bronze medal.