The main feature of religious reasoning of a valid and/or sound nature appears to be that it doesn't seem to exist
and since the deity of choice appears of the same nature, the one seems to infer the other.
A Logical Analysis of the Existence of "God"
Either "God" can be detected and proven, or not. There are no other choices.
When "God" cannot be detected and proven, case closed, it's a "dead-end" option. (Case A)
When "God" can be detected and proven, it will either be in a scientific, or non-scientific way.
When it is via a scientific way that "God" can be detected and proven, we haven't developed science to that point yet. (Case B)
When it is not via a scientific path, we simply must wait for the "revelation".
When that "revelation" can be verified by science, we can have a "proven God" once and for all. (Case C)
When that "revelation" cannot be verified by science, it is a personal experience, like the state we're in now. (Case D)
"God" thus, either exists or does not. We therefore can build a truth table to chart the permutations and the combinations:
"God" does Exist:
Case A (God cannot be detected or proven) - Not much anyone can do.
Case B (God can be detected or proven) - Eventually science will detect and prove "God".
Case C (God will be revealed non-scientifically, but verifiably) - Eventually "God" will be proven by science.
Case D (God reveals itself to people personally) - Great for the people involved.
"God" does not Exist:
Case A (God cannot be detected or proven) - Of course, you cannot detect or prove what does not exist.
Case B (God can be detected or proven) - Again, you cannot detect or prove what does not exist.
Case C (God will be revealed non-scientifically, but verifiably) - When "God" does not exist, such "revelations" don't have anything to do with "God".
Case D (God reveals itself to people personally) - When "God" does not exist, these people are delusional and Science may like to help these people.
God, full stop, cannot be (dis)proven - and that then, is where the buck stops. Nothing anyone can do about it.
A god claimed to exist and credited with characteristics and feats can be disproven, and fairly easy so, since explicit contains implicit, always.
Characteristics and feats attributed to this god or that therefore; the biblical God included, will backfire on those alleged gods rendering them self-contradictory and that of which its nature is self-refuting cannot, and therefore does not, exist.
Brought to you by:
**And I still feel the content of my posts should be scrutinized on their own merits and nothing else (mumble .. grumble .. mutter)**
- abductive, inductive, deductive are
the 3 basic modes of reasoning and
when we fail to discern between them
we are destined to act accordingly ...
... after all, inference demands explicit contains implicit
so, iff what is explicitly posed is true, then what it
necessarily infers or implies must logically be true
as well - if not, then it is incontrovertibly axiomatic
there is something amiss with the explicitly posed ...
...such is the excruciating irony of incomprehensibility
& self-refutation; those oblivious of it become
indispensably the experts in applying it, effectually
revealing the exact opposite of apparent intent
thereby granting the courtesy of instant clarification.
Mice In A Maze-Going In Circles
It is as it is - It goes as it goes
If it doesn't go, that's how it goes
If it isn't, then that's how it is
New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
I like hu-mans. Really
They do funnee stuffs
They seems to live with the
impression that they is some
sorts of omniscient - you can
then always depend on them
to tells you exactly what your
thoughts and feelings is.
There is forgiveness. Unfortunately, forgiveness doesn't mean a thing
..... when not applied that is. Therefore, it is I who forgive, publically
those who either dare or will not - for, as it seems, they are not ready
yet, to do so by themselves; out of themselves. I hereby thus, plow
the road; leading the way, for those eager to walk that walk as well.
JVH, July 20, 2010, 2:22