(Yes, I can PROVE that) God exists
I can prove that God exists. Not a lot of it is original; I just want to lay it on the table, because I'm sick of people saying that there *can't* be any proof. (I think they mean empirical evidence, anyway.) Even *if* my proof is a failure, it is no indication that a proof cannot be made rationally.
Here is my paper. (<-- Click on that link) It requires time and thought. And probably Microsoft Word, as well. It is a rough draft (so be nice, even if I am cocky).
I also want to mention, on similar lines, that I think that atheism, on empirical grounds, is nonsense (yes, I'm talking to you, Sean -- and every other atheist I've met). Atheism is the thesis that "It is not the case that 'God exists'," or, that "God exists" is false. Agnosticism is the thesis that "We cannot know whether or not 'God exists'," or, that there is not enough evidence on either side at this time (or that the agnostic is aware of) to justify a belief in theism or atheism. Agnosticism is suspending judgment, as is any skeptical thesis.
To say that it is *false* that "God exists" is to say that there is evidence (enough for proper justification) that it is false that "God exists." Certainly, the lack of evidence in *favor* of theism is no evidence in favor of atheism; it is, if anything, reason to be agnostic. In fact, while it is vaguely *possible* that the existence of God be proven empirically (say, God comes down and proves it to us to our faces beyond a shadow of a doubt), it is actually not possible that his existence be *disproven* in such ways. So, to believe in atheism requires a rational justification. Unfortunately, this pushes atheism into a much stronger requisite thesis, as Descartes smartly realized -- an atheist must believe that "It is impossible that 'God exists'!" (Descartes also smartly proved that it is enough for the theist to purport that "It is possible that 'God exists,' and further, that the agnostic must suspend judgment as to the mere *possibility* of God's existence. His reasons are different than what I just mentioned, and actually much better, but more complicated.) This is a lot stronger, from a philosophical perspective, than it sounds. Philosophically speaking, it is not impossible that I jump to Mars and back. Also, justification for such a belief requires *extreme* evidence. It requires sound deductive proof that God *cannot* exist. Unless you have such an argument ready, you should be an agnostic.
As far as I'm concerned:
Theism is rarely respectable.
Agnosticism is always respectable.
Atheism is never respectable.
Here is my paper. (<-- Click on that link) It requires time and thought. And probably Microsoft Word, as well. It is a rough draft (so be nice, even if I am cocky).
I also want to mention, on similar lines, that I think that atheism, on empirical grounds, is nonsense (yes, I'm talking to you, Sean -- and every other atheist I've met). Atheism is the thesis that "It is not the case that 'God exists'," or, that "God exists" is false. Agnosticism is the thesis that "We cannot know whether or not 'God exists'," or, that there is not enough evidence on either side at this time (or that the agnostic is aware of) to justify a belief in theism or atheism. Agnosticism is suspending judgment, as is any skeptical thesis.
To say that it is *false* that "God exists" is to say that there is evidence (enough for proper justification) that it is false that "God exists." Certainly, the lack of evidence in *favor* of theism is no evidence in favor of atheism; it is, if anything, reason to be agnostic. In fact, while it is vaguely *possible* that the existence of God be proven empirically (say, God comes down and proves it to us to our faces beyond a shadow of a doubt), it is actually not possible that his existence be *disproven* in such ways. So, to believe in atheism requires a rational justification. Unfortunately, this pushes atheism into a much stronger requisite thesis, as Descartes smartly realized -- an atheist must believe that "It is impossible that 'God exists'!" (Descartes also smartly proved that it is enough for the theist to purport that "It is possible that 'God exists,' and further, that the agnostic must suspend judgment as to the mere *possibility* of God's existence. His reasons are different than what I just mentioned, and actually much better, but more complicated.) This is a lot stronger, from a philosophical perspective, than it sounds. Philosophically speaking, it is not impossible that I jump to Mars and back. Also, justification for such a belief requires *extreme* evidence. It requires sound deductive proof that God *cannot* exist. Unless you have such an argument ready, you should be an agnostic.
As far as I'm concerned:
Theism is rarely respectable.
Agnosticism is always respectable.
Atheism is never respectable.