I proposed this to my world lit/philosophy professor long ago, and it was one question he could not answer. The math involved is simple geometry, so if you passed 9th grade, you should know it... Imagine a point of origin. Now imagine two lines extending from the point, each at 180 degrees from each other for an indeterminate but equal amount of length. So it looks like this: -------------O------------- These lines extend in the complete opposite direction, for an unknown or indeterminate length (yet equal). These lines could rotate any direction around the point in space, I suppose, as long as they stayed perfectly across from each other. Now add something at the end of each line: ?-------------O-------------? What are we adding? We're adding concepts. Absolutely opposite concepts, for example: LIGHT-------------O-------------DARK or UP-------------O-------------DOWN or even GOOD-------------O-------------EVIL We know these concepts exist: Dark is the absense of light, etc. Some could argue on the absolute Good/evil thing but that's not the specific issue here, so don't go there. (Let's not dive into the existentialist viewpoint regarding the concepts at the end, please... they are not the issue here.) We also know if one absolute of a concept exists, then the opposite absolute must exist also. (There are probably a few rare exceptions to this... but again, that's not the point here.) My question for you then: How do these exist, seperate and completely opposite each other (symbolicly, if you want to go visual) without an original point to base them from? Since they exist, what decides where they go and what they are? If you removed that point of origin, it would be impossible for them to exist they way they actually do in our universe. What thing/entity/person other than God could do this, and organize the universe as we know it: "In the beginning, there was nothing, and it exploded." Yeah, right... Thoughts?
Actually, I am not a non-believer of God but I admit one thing. If you start trying to prove the existence of God scientifically or logically, you might not be able to do that. Question after question rises and you fails at some point. May be its lack of my knowledge, but its what I understand. To believe in God you need faith and you should stop thinking after some point.
Sorry, Chulium, but if you're trying to take an empirical or logical approach to the existence of the divine, this is complete nonsense, in my opinion. You've mixed concepts, to begin with (possession of an attribute/absence of an attribute, in some instances, v. opposing "poles" on the other) - "absence" isn't the same thing as "opposite." Secondly, because something exists in nature (and nothing in what you gave as examples suggests it does - only that it exists as a construct in our consciousness), we must, therefore, necessarily impute divinity to it? This is no different from faith. A hackneyed "proof" has been put forth for quite a while - "A car in the desert is found." How'd it get there? God, of course. I admit my atheism takes faith, as does your religious view - but let's not try to apply logic in the way you have. It doesn't fly, in my view.
Well, I knew it is impossible to convince others of God by logic, so I actually don't know what the heck I was doing -_- I need a rest... had a headache all day.
Hmmm, trying to prove the existence of God by showing a lack of easy-to-understand alternatives, and basing the argument on the existence of interesting and complex continuums...
"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."
That proves nothing,all the god is what you thinking.Just some kind of ideas you think about.It is nonsense.
Great post, I love taking things back to the most simple level. The fault here lies in that you are placing human concepts into the equation from the beginning.