The problem with arguments for God and man made religion is not that there is NO reasoning that people can come up with that suggest God could potentially exist, but that there is no reasoning that a person can come up with that is not based on so many ambiguous assumptions of reasoning on the one hand, and relies so obviously on its use of double standards on the other, that it is just as easy - and often far easier - to see how such reasoning can always be used to arrive at any infinite number of other conclusions as well; including conclusions that are often the very opposite of what "believers" think such arguments 'conclusively' demonstrate.
That the limits of their own reasoning prevents so many of them from seeing how this is possible, is not proof that their arguments for God's existence are therefore beyond logical challenge, but only speaks to the subjective limitations and fallibility that their own religion preaches we as 'fallen creatures" all suffer from.
Yes, there are arguments that use reasoning that "can" be interpreted as suggesting that God exists, but these same arguments can equally, and more easily, be understood to demonstrate that no God exists, or that two Gods exist, or that an infinite number of Gods exist, some or all of which may be dead or subject to still greater Gods by comparison.
The infinite gap between our ideas of ourselves as "children of God," and the "infinite" God we imagine to exist, can be filled with an infinite number of other ideas/beliefs, all of which may be equally as true or untrue as whatever belief in "God" we may happen to subscribe to at any point in our lives (since our "beliefs" always change as much as we do).
And the only way a person can "know" that their arguments necessarily "prove" that God must exist, is by first assuming that they have the kind of infallible reasoning and unambiguous use of language that only a god could possess. In other words, the only "gods" such arguments prove to exist, are the ones who employ such arguments as logical proof that God exists.
That the limits of their own reasoning prevents so many of them from seeing how this is possible, is not proof that their arguments for God's existence are therefore beyond logical challenge, but only speaks to the subjective limitations and fallibility that their own religion preaches we as 'fallen creatures" all suffer from.
Yes, there are arguments that use reasoning that "can" be interpreted as suggesting that God exists, but these same arguments can equally, and more easily, be understood to demonstrate that no God exists, or that two Gods exist, or that an infinite number of Gods exist, some or all of which may be dead or subject to still greater Gods by comparison.
The infinite gap between our ideas of ourselves as "children of God," and the "infinite" God we imagine to exist, can be filled with an infinite number of other ideas/beliefs, all of which may be equally as true or untrue as whatever belief in "God" we may happen to subscribe to at any point in our lives (since our "beliefs" always change as much as we do).
And the only way a person can "know" that their arguments necessarily "prove" that God must exist, is by first assuming that they have the kind of infallible reasoning and unambiguous use of language that only a god could possess. In other words, the only "gods" such arguments prove to exist, are the ones who employ such arguments as logical proof that God exists.
Comments
Post a Comment