Today (and possibly tomorrow) there will be no new post on faith. I want to give ample time for people to really answer yesterday's post.
I did want to answer one concern, though, that has come up. My intent in asking for your stories is as a mutual encouragement and challenge based on your belief (or response to mine). I have absolutely no intention of trying to attack, discredit, or blow off your personal thoughts. In the future, I may post questions or ideas based on some of your thoughts, but never in direct attack or in belittling your experience or reason directly. I simply want to hear your hearts and thoughts and I think it would do each of you well to hear it from each other - whether your grounding is simple or complex, logical or illogical, defendable or not... those labels are unnecessary and irrelevant. This is simply a time to hear from each of you.
Thanks for joining me in the journey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
this comment would probably fit better in the section about the reliablity of science, but that's way far down at the bottom of the page now. so i'm leaving it here.
i've been looking at some non-scientific arguments for god's existence & (although i personally didn't think i would find it to be very convincing) i was interested in the logic behind the modal ontological argument for god's existence (alvin plantinga) and found it more interesting than i had originally anticipated.
it's pure logic & reason here, no science, but it still gave me a headache trying to work it all out. here goes with a brief explanation (sorry about all the "necessarilies" -- there's not really another way to put it.
1. if god exists, then he has a necessary (rather than contingent) existence (since he is a perfect being)
2. either god has a necessary existence or he doesn't have a necessary existence (there is no in-between, no "kinda" necessary)(seems pretty straight forward so far, right? not too much to argue about yet)
3. if god DOESN'T have a necessary existence, then he NECESSARILY DOESN'T have it (it is necessary that he doesn't have a necessary existence) (this is based on Becker's postulate which is a widely-accepted principle of modal logic -- it states that the POSSIBILITY of "p" implies the NECESSITY of the possibility of "p" so if it's possible that god isn't necessary, then it's necessary that god isn't necessary) (now we are starting to get a little heady)
therefore:
4. either god has a necessary existence or he necessarily doesn't
5. if god necessarily doesn't have a necessary existence, then god necessarily doesn't exist (if it's necessary that god isn't necessary, then it is necessary that he doesn't exist)
therefore:
6. either god has a necessary existence, or he necessisarily doesn't exist
7. it is not the case that god necessarily doesn't exist (some think this is a weak point in the logic, but think about it -- is it NECESSARY that god DOESN'T EXIST, or is it POSSIBLE that he DOES? if it's POSSIBLE THAT GOD EXISTS, then it's not true that he NECESSARILY doesn't exist)
therefore:
8. god has a necessary existence (as per points 1 & 2)
9. if god has a necessary existence, then god exists
therefore:
10. god exists
it has taken me a few days to really sit down and think about what that's saying -- i like logic puzzles, but this one was pretty tough! i hope someone can find this interesting and/or useful
Post a Comment