A proof of God's self-evidence

Okay, why isn't it scientifically rigorous?

But still, do you believe it is plausible for a system so complex to have come about by random chance...the odds against it are overwhelming. And science can't explain why the Big Bang happened: Life against the odds..

When scientists can't answer, philosophers attempt to.

There had to be, by logical neccesity, an eternally existent Object, since an infinite regress makes no logical sense whatsoever, in my mind, or else there would be, and always would've been, nothing.

Going one step further, since according to Hume all ideas are images of sense impressions our idea of God is a dim copy of the real God, something that our finite minds can grasp.

Those interviewed for the book were mostly philosophy and theology scholars, and none of those interviewed oppose ID.



It's not like we're stuck between random chance or ID. More importantly, throwing God out as some metaphysical goop that fills all crevices as yet untouched by science doesn't hold much water.



And outside of the Discovery Institute, ID is not taken seriously.




Logical necessities are not necessities of reality.

I think the problem is rooted in the mistaken attempt to prove God. It's impossible and misses the point.

Unless we're mistaken and it's a dim projection of ourselves instead. Just because you have an impression of something doesn't mean that your interpretation of that impression has anything to do with reality. We could all name examples, like when we think for a moment that we see a face we recognize, or we think for a moment we hear our name. So this "link" in your chain of logic cannot prove your premise unless you also hold that our idea of x is ALWAYS correct, and can never correspond to something other than x in reality.

Let's assume that our impressions are always correct.

*Sigh*. Should I give up, or keep banging my head against the wall?

Where is my mistake?

But the problem is that God is impossible to affirmatively prove even if he does exist, and logic cannot prove the existence or truth of something in reality.

Dialectic is only academic to those that don't fully understand it. Life itself is dialectic. Everything and everyone has its vantage point whether it is recognized or not. Thus, life is an experience of the dialectic. Your interpretation "finish" the dialectic as long as you incorporate others' into your own.

Now we can stop "wasting" our time trying to prove or disprove the existence of Someone who is beyond our comprehension and degree --not type!-- of reasoning.

Well, I think your mistake is not so much one of logic, per se. It's that you're taking on a project that people worked VERY hard on in the time of Aquinas, only to find that it was just unsatisfactory. Remember that in the Middle Ages, following the Crusades, Christian Europe became exposed to the philosophy of ancient Greece (which had been mainly known to the Muslim world at the time). Rationality and logic suddenly became important, and seemingly a way to legitimize theology.

But the problem is that God is impossible to affirmatively prove even if he does exist, and logic cannot prove the existence or truth of something in reality.

This is why modern philosophy has basically given up that project. Descartes, despite offering a God proof of his own, did a lot to damage God proofs by putting the rational man at the center of all knowledge. And since then, in various ways, everyone from Spinoza to Kierkegaard has undermined the God proof. Kierkegaard is the one from whom the "leap of faith" idea famously comes, i.e. belief in God is NOT rational.

Assuming he exists... :whistling:

Claiming that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible put the burden of proof to the unbeliever, aedes.

Care to explain why it is rationally impossible?

It was very good Proto as long as you learned something from it. I was forced to apply my learning so I know I learned something.