J Lee Grady is a former editor of CHARISMANEWS and on 3/20/2014 he "proved" that God exists. Grady here forwards he following “things” as proof: 1-Babies, 2-Thunderstorms, 3- Flowers, 4- The Bible, 5- The global spread of Christianity, 6- Jesus, 7- His personal friendship with God.
I am not going to describe what is wrong here and why it does not prove anything, but I think that any person, not blinded with faith, can accept these “things “ as proof. Secondly he takes it for granted that Christianity is the only religion which we should consider.
I stated that, since unbelievers’ requests from believers to proof the existence of God have resulted in statements such as the ones in Grady’s Blog, or an admittance that it cannot be proved and that we cannot prove the non-existence of God either, I tried to do just that which generated a vigorous debate in the comments that followed.
My argument is as follows: Since there are many different religions, currently and in the past, and every religion claims their God is the only real one and all others are false, one can logically conclude that they are all false. The comments were furiously attacking the conclusion.
You seem to continually come back to the argument that you can logically prove that no God exists by reasoning: Because there are multiple religions and they all claim to be correct and the others wrong, therefore all of them must be incorrect.
Please explain this - why cannot one be correct?
One of them correct? which one? yours of course, but all the others say you are wrong. If you were right, then most of humanity living and dead would have never had a chance to get "the message".
I still don't get your reasoning. How is it logical that none of the religions can be correct / true? Why cannot one of them be true? How do you come to this conclusion LOGICALLY?
We then got in a discussion about “Logic”, Deductive logic, Boolean logic, probability theory, acceptable facts, Schrodinger’s cat. Many strawman arguments. I at first , argued that you can not apply mathematical logic (true and false) to fairy tales that any writer can dream up or write down, myths passed down orally from a more distance past, but later I accepted that any proposition can be true or false even if some of these are preposterous. So by applying Boolean Logic, there is an infinite small chance tat ANY proposition is true.
There are not only many different religions, but many factions in any particular religion and even many individuals with a different concept of god, so the probability that one of them is right is correct except it is vanishing small. There are many children who believe in Santa Claus, so if any proposition, as the commentators claimed, are candidates for applying logic, that same rules then will allow for all of them. There is indeed a vanishing small chance for all propositions to be true. God, Santa, Zeus and so on. So I will agree that the probability that god exists is as probable as the possibility that Santa, Zeus, Thor etc. exists. But although the probability is there and not zero, it is close to zero.
Then there is the further argument that if god existed and makes him/herself only known to a select group of humans out of all of the humans created since the beginning, it isn’t conceivable (yeah, I know, we cannot understand god’s mind) and is very unlikely, so we can come to a logical (see the dictionary definition: natural, reasonable, sensible, understandable; predictable, unsurprising, only to be expected, most likely, likeliest, obvious) outcome that the probability of god existing is infinitely small (i.e.Zero)
I am not going to describe what is wrong here and why it does not prove anything, but I think that any person, not blinded with faith, can accept these “things “ as proof. Secondly he takes it for granted that Christianity is the only religion which we should consider.
I stated that, since unbelievers’ requests from believers to proof the existence of God have resulted in statements such as the ones in Grady’s Blog, or an admittance that it cannot be proved and that we cannot prove the non-existence of God either, I tried to do just that which generated a vigorous debate in the comments that followed.
My argument is as follows: Since there are many different religions, currently and in the past, and every religion claims their God is the only real one and all others are false, one can logically conclude that they are all false. The comments were furiously attacking the conclusion.
You seem to continually come back to the argument that you can logically prove that no God exists by reasoning: Because there are multiple religions and they all claim to be correct and the others wrong, therefore all of them must be incorrect.
Please explain this - why cannot one be correct?
One of them correct? which one? yours of course, but all the others say you are wrong. If you were right, then most of humanity living and dead would have never had a chance to get "the message".
I still don't get your reasoning. How is it logical that none of the religions can be correct / true? Why cannot one of them be true? How do you come to this conclusion LOGICALLY?
We then got in a discussion about “Logic”, Deductive logic, Boolean logic, probability theory, acceptable facts, Schrodinger’s cat. Many strawman arguments. I at first , argued that you can not apply mathematical logic (true and false) to fairy tales that any writer can dream up or write down, myths passed down orally from a more distance past, but later I accepted that any proposition can be true or false even if some of these are preposterous. So by applying Boolean Logic, there is an infinite small chance tat ANY proposition is true.
There are not only many different religions, but many factions in any particular religion and even many individuals with a different concept of god, so the probability that one of them is right is correct except it is vanishing small. There are many children who believe in Santa Claus, so if any proposition, as the commentators claimed, are candidates for applying logic, that same rules then will allow for all of them. There is indeed a vanishing small chance for all propositions to be true. God, Santa, Zeus and so on. So I will agree that the probability that god exists is as probable as the possibility that Santa, Zeus, Thor etc. exists. But although the probability is there and not zero, it is close to zero.
Then there is the further argument that if god existed and makes him/herself only known to a select group of humans out of all of the humans created since the beginning, it isn’t conceivable (yeah, I know, we cannot understand god’s mind) and is very unlikely, so we can come to a logical (see the dictionary definition: natural, reasonable, sensible, understandable; predictable, unsurprising, only to be expected, most likely, likeliest, obvious) outcome that the probability of god existing is infinitely small (i.e.Zero)
RSS Feed
