Friday, March 18, 2011

Theological Argument

This is an argument I posed for my friends back in November, which relates back to Naturalism / Supernaturalism as well as the upcoming Agnostic / Atheistic. I was hoping I could get feedback to either make the argument more sound or reasons why it does not conclude properly on one point or another.

"For something to exist at least one person has to believe in it, otherwise the idea of it does not exist, and without the idea, it has the same relevance to a person as having not happened; e.g., does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? Thus, we can conclude that, at the least, the idea of God exists because we know what this idea means.

Next, for something to be based in faith, there must be no evidence of it, because to have evidence of something and to have faith in it is simply called understanding. This is what separates the pondering of most likely unanswerable questions, philosophy, from faith in the possibility of an answer for an unanswerable question, religion. Religion is then equivalent to taking a philosophy of which there is no evidence and concluding that it is correct. This concludes that the idea of God exists, as well as the possibility for God’s existence being derived from those on Earth having faith in His existence rather than understanding of His existence.

Next, to remove the need of faith in a subject, one must gather evidence to support the claim. Once there is evidence, faith is no longer necessary. This concludes that the idea of God exists; that the idea that God exists persists due to faith, and that to prove God does exist would remove the necessity for faith in his existence and replace it with understanding.

Finally, by the fact that belief in God’s existence persists only because of faith, proving his existence would remove faith, and thus removing the only link to the possible existence of God. This concludes that proving God exists proves he does not exist. All that is necessary is to prove that an idea exists. Since we know the meaning of the idea of God, we know that the idea exists, and because we know that the idea exists, we remove the need for faith, and because we remove the need for faith, we subsequently remove the possibility for the existence of God, thereby concluding that either God does exist, and is not necessary, or God does not exist, and we think for ourselves. Any evidence of God interfering with our lives would prove his nonexistence, and full lack of evidence would prove his unimportance.

Final conclusion: God is not relevant to your life, whether or not he exists, via the combined paradoxes of putting faith in something that requires evidence to have justification for being believed in the first place, and not putting faith in something that, because of the latter conclusion, cannot possibly influence your life."

No comments:

Post a Comment