Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

Wolf Kirchmeir wwolfkir at sympatico.can
Sat Dec 27 11:31:37 EST 2003


On 26 Dec 2003 19:38:03 -0800, keith wrote:

...snip...

>I don't agree that this would make God's existence logically
>indeterminant. However, if the reasons they (allegedly) know that God
>exists turn out to be wrong then the fact is they *don't* know that
>God exists.
>
>Keith

"Contingent" means "dependent on one or more other factors." This meaning
implies "It could have been other than it is" as _one_ of its consequences
(ie, when the contingency is material.)

If people want to "prove" that god exists, they are making god's existence
dependent on one or more other factors, which means that logically gods'
existence can't be absolute in their scheme of things. Since everyone that's
ever offered me a "proof" of god's existence also claims that god is absolute
in all sorts of ways, their theology is logically inconsistent. The fact that
they don't see this puzzles me, especially in light of the fact that they
insist on a "logical proof" of god's existence -- they put "logic" very high
in their scale of values, and would would think they would be disturbed by
the logic of their own arguments. For that matter, I don't understand the
need to "prove" god's existence at all - if I understand Kierkegaard
correctly, such a need implies a lack of faith. So how can people who claim
to have faith want to prove the existence of god?

Many of the comments I've snipped actually agree with my p.o.v, so I don't
understand why you make them. You seem to believe you are refuting something
or other.


-- 
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list