| Subject: There is no "why," there is only Zeul |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/15/02 5:13pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Elucidation." on 04/15/02 1:11pm
>Ben, I have a request. In our discussions, I would
>appreciate it if you elucidated on why you
>think I am wrong on a set of reasoning, an evidental
>argument etc. rather than just flat out saying, “you
>are wrong on this issue,” without giving any
>explanation for such a claim.
When did I say you were wrong? What I said was that you didn't answer my question, and that I was unwilling to engage in a discussion based on formal logic, which although you may be taking a course in, I am not.
> As I participate in
>this forum, I would like to understand the other side
>of the issues. But I can hardly do that if the other
>sides do not offer any explanations for their claims
>and positions.
I think I have explained my side quite well. Apparently, you were hoping I'd try to break apart your logical proof, but I cannot and will not do that. As I explained in the last post, I think you can probably use formal logic to prove just about anything if you stick in the right symbols and meanings. Furthermore, when I asked you to explain why God exists, I was not asking for an introduction to Logic 101. I was asking you to explain _why_ God is there, which your logical proof cannot do.
>>No offense, but I can't go off into this logical
>>expedition with you. If you want to discuss things
>>the way we have been, I will try to participate when I
>>can, but speaking in symbols is just not conducive to
>>the way I think. Plus, I honestly think that once you
>>put all these very complex concepts into simple
>>symbolic language, you lose a lot, and yes, of course
>>you can prove or disprove various things such as God's
>>existence. When I asked you to explain why God is
>>there, I didn't mean for you to give me a course in
>>logic symbols.
>
>Why think that I have lost anything in the argument?
>What have I lost? The argument essentially does this:
>take the bottom two premises,
>
>- If God (the greatest possible being) exists, then
>he exists necessarily.
> - It is possible for God to exist.
>
>And come to the conclusion:
>
>- Therefore, God exists.
>
>I suppose I could summarize a way of explaining why
>the conclusion logically follows in words, but the
>argument would not be proved valid. By using a formal
>proof, I can prove that the argument is valid. That’s
>why I used artificial language.
The argument may be "valid," but that does not make it true. I honestly don't care if God necessarily exists. I just want to know if he exists. You have shown that _if_ God exists, he exists necessarily. Fine. _If_ God doesn't exist, maybe he _doesn't_ exist necessarily. It really doesn't matter to me.
And please recall that I did not ask you to prove whether or not God existed. I asked you to tell me... _if_ God existed, _why_ he existed. And I don't mean "why" as in "Please list a logical proof." I mean "why" as it is generally accepted, which is, "Please explain the _reason_ for God's existence."
Do you not see that your logical proof does not in any way answer the question "Why does God exist?" All it answers (if it does) is the question, "Can the existence of God be proven or shown to be logical?"
It is amusing what great lengths have to be taken to show that God might exist. And at the end, any rational person would have admitted that a creator _might_ exist in the first place. The question is whether his existence can be proven conclusively, and of course it cannot.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 