Monday, June 9, 2008

Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

CFP: Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Once again some christian shows their complete lack of understanding of the Universe, assuming that is some how complete planned out and structured like a building, instead of loosely structured and full of cosmic anomalies and irregularities. As well, he once again misses the ultimate problem. If it is structured like he says, that in no way gets you closer to the divine creator. It isn't "big bang or god". That isn't the way it works. Even if logically there absolutely must be a creator, you are still obligated to prove the existence of said creator and prove that said creator is indeed divine. Could we not be in someone else's petri dish? And just because you think you found a flaw in one natural explanation, that doesn't exclude all other possible natural explanations.

And then comes the good stuff. How many creators? What is the nature of the creators? Why not an entire group of creators? See, what these people are trying to get to is admittance of the existence of their god. Which their argument still doesn't do.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The first logical fallacy you is that of ad hominem you citisize the arguer first, rather than his argument. He may not understand the universe completely - as you do not either, but that in and of itself does not invalidate his argument. There are many anomolies in buildings, that is not proof of no builder or contractor. I do not have to possess much knowledge of construction to reason this out.
Second, if we were the mere products of someones petri dish, which I do not believe we are, this implies the a scientist behind it, which by the way does more to support his position than it does yours.
Third, I will ask you to study up on the nature of being and more specifically contingent and necessary being.
Fourth, to argue that there can be multiples of gods does nothing for the proposition that there is no god.
Fifth, can you provide any "proofs" to the contrary? Remember that logical positivism works both ways, that is, "The only propositions that have any meaning are those propositions that can be empirically verified or falsified." Meaning that while you may be correct to say that your opponent may not have empirical evidence for the existance of his God, you on the other hand have no proof to the contrary that his God does not exist.
Finally, assuming that you properly understand logical positivism you must know that it falls on its own sword, that is, it is a self defeating method of epistemelogical understanding of reality. It fails to measure up to its own criterea, because the proposition in and of itself is not empirically verifiable because propositions are not able to be verified or falsified.