A proof of God's self-evidence

[Theaetetus]

Dialectic is only academic to those that don't fully understand it. Life itself is dialectic. Everything and everyone has its vantage point whether it is recognized or not. Thus, life is an experience of the dialectic. Your interpretation "finish" the dialectic as long as you incorporate others' into your own.

[Protoman2050]

Praise Kierkegaard then! Now we can stop "wasting" our time trying to prove or disprove the existence of Someone who is beyond our comprehension and degree --not type!-- of reasoning.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But the problem is that God is impossible to affirmatively prove even if he does exist, and logic cannot prove the existence or truth of something in reality.

Claiming that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible put the burden of proof to the unbeliever, aedes. Care to explain why it is rationally impossible?

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Dialectic is only academic to those that don't fully understand it. Life itself is dialectic. Everything and everyone has its vantage point whether it is recognized or not. Thus, life is an experience of the dialectic. Your interpretation "finish" the dialectic as long as you incorporate others' into your own.

So, was this a good first attempt at philosophy/theology, then? Good first thread?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

Now we can stop "wasting" our time trying to prove or disprove the existence of Someone who is beyond our comprehension and degree --not type!-- of reasoning.

Assuming he exists...

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Well, I think your mistake is not so much one of logic, per se. It's that you're taking on a project that people worked VERY hard on in the time of Aquinas, only to find that it was just unsatisfactory. Remember that in the Middle Ages, following the Crusades, Christian Europe became exposed to the philosophy of ancient Greece (which had been mainly known to the Muslim world at the time). Rationality and logic suddenly became important, and seemingly a way to legitimize theology.

But the problem is that God is impossible to affirmatively prove even if he does exist, and logic cannot prove the existence or truth of something in reality.

This is why modern philosophy has basically given up that project. Descartes, despite offering a God proof of his own, did a lot to damage God proofs by putting the rational man at the center of all knowledge. And since then, in various ways, everyone from Spinoza to Kierkegaard has undermined the God proof. Kierkegaard is the one from whom the "leap of faith" idea famously comes, i.e. belief in God is NOT rational.

Praise Kierkegaard then!

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Assuming he exists...

That wouldn't be very worthwhile then.

[Theaetetus]

It was very good Proto as long as you learned something from it. I was forced to apply my learning so I know I learned something.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by midas77

Claiming that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible put the burden of proof to the unbeliever, aedes.

Hardly. If you want to prove it to a believer, then your standards don't need to be very high -- that whole "preaching to the choir" thing... If you want to prove it to a skeptic, good luck. That's quite a burden of proof to shoulder.

Care to explain why it is rationally impossible?

Because a purely rational proof will at best lead to a logical tautology that has no relationship to ACTUAL existence outside the proof itself. Though realistically I'd bet that most such proofs will inevitably have circularity and assumptions just below the surface as well.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

It was very good Proto as long as you learned something from it. I was forced to apply my learning so I know I learned something.

I learned that I need to define terms as clearly as possible, not cite out-of-context, and that trying to prove God w/o faith and solely w/ logic is a surefire way to get yourself into a philosophical mess.