There are a couple of things that we should be very clear on before we continue.
The first one is that there do not exist any concrete proofs outside of the world of mathematics. That is, nothing can be proven to be absolutely true as it can in mathematics, hence it is impossible to give a concrete proof that God indeed exists. I hope that all of us agree on this at least. In the same way, it should be said that it is impossible to absolutely proof that God does not exist.
Nevertheless I am quite fond of mathematics and the way that things are proved in mathematics involves assuming certain things and then based on those assumptions, trying to prove something else. I do believe that we should take a similar approach when talking about the existence of God. At least that is the approach that has made the most sense to me.
What I mean is this: we deal with many difficult questions about suffering (to give just one example). When we get to those, you will see why I think we need to have discussed certain other aspects already. So I think that the evidence build on each other in a similar way as in mathematics. I realize that in order for someone to arrive at the same conclusion as me, that person has to accept the previous arguments as true, so I know that all of you will not arrive at the same conclusion as me. Once again I am simply stating my arguments and I will be happy to discuss and defend them at any point.
Having said that, I think that we should start at the beginning, which in this case is whether God exists or not. That is where we will go in part 3.
Hermann
The first one is that there do not exist any concrete proofs outside of the world of mathematics. That is, nothing can be proven to be absolutely true as it can in mathematics, hence it is impossible to give a concrete proof that God indeed exists. I hope that all of us agree on this at least. In the same way, it should be said that it is impossible to absolutely proof that God does not exist.
Nevertheless I am quite fond of mathematics and the way that things are proved in mathematics involves assuming certain things and then based on those assumptions, trying to prove something else. I do believe that we should take a similar approach when talking about the existence of God. At least that is the approach that has made the most sense to me.
What I mean is this: we deal with many difficult questions about suffering (to give just one example). When we get to those, you will see why I think we need to have discussed certain other aspects already. So I think that the evidence build on each other in a similar way as in mathematics. I realize that in order for someone to arrive at the same conclusion as me, that person has to accept the previous arguments as true, so I know that all of you will not arrive at the same conclusion as me. Once again I am simply stating my arguments and I will be happy to discuss and defend them at any point.
Having said that, I think that we should start at the beginning, which in this case is whether God exists or not. That is where we will go in part 3.
Hermann
The proof of the existence of God is an old and popular debate. There are those who think there is proof for or proof against, but there are also those who say it is a matter of faith.
ReplyDeleteI lean towards the latter. At least in the sense of regarding a proof as a proof that is able to be fully understood by man within the current limits of our knowledge and capacity to understand.
I firmly believe that we will have the irrefutable proof when our time on earth has lapsed. Then we will know whether God exists.
Until that time we have faith, or the lack thereof. Other than the aspect of faith, we can put forth arguments in a couple of forms. The different forms being based on certain exioms as alluded to by Hermann above.
Some of these forms are:
1. The argument that God indeed exists because of historical documents.
2. The high probability of the existence of God based on inductive reasoning.
3. Testimonies
I am sure there are quite a few more, and that is not even mentioning the possible arguments against the existence of God.
Since the topic for part three is whether or not God exists, I will save the expansion of the above-mentioned arguments for that.