A proof of God's self-evidence

Hardly. If you want to prove it to a believer, then your standards don't need to be very high -- that whole "preaching to the choir" thing... If you want to prove it to a skeptic, good luck. That's quite a burden of proof to shoulder.

Because a purely rational proof will at best lead to a logical tautology that has no relationship to ACTUAL existence outside the proof itself. Though realistically I'd bet that most such proofs will inevitably have circularity and assumptions just below the surface as well.

Hardly. If you want to prove it to a believer, then your standards don't need to be very high -- that whole "preaching to the choir" thing... If you want to prove it to a skeptic, good luck. That's quite a burden of proof to shoulder.

Because a purely rational proof will at best lead to a logical tautology that has no relationship to ACTUAL existence outside the proof itself. Though realistically I'd bet that most such proofs will inevitably have circularity and assumptions just below the surface as well.

Kierkegaard is the one from whom the "leap of faith" idea famously comes, i.e. belief in God is NOT rational.

Thinkers had suggested that belief in God was not rational for centuries before Kierkegaard. Muslim philosophers recognized this pretty quickly in the middle ages.

And this could be why they so stubbornly cling to their Qu'ran

if you look at it closely, alongside of the Torah, Gospels, and Epistles, which it claims to be the fufillment of, there's so many true contradictions; Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an.

Faith needs to be tempered by reason, and reason needs to go as far as possible before we play the "faith" card; God is a god of logic, order, and reason; would He expect His followers to be the opposite?

What do you mean 'stubbornly cling'? If you mean Islamic fundamentalism, this is the result of radicals taking everything in the book literally - which misses the point of the book.



The Torah, Gospels and Epistles are also full of contradictions.

Looking through this link you provide, it seems like the author was more interested in finding apparent contradictions in the book rather than understanding the book. Checking the main site, I'm appalled by the blatant misrepresentation of Islam promoted by the site.



Depends on which conception of God you appeal to. The notion of God has changed over time. We see contradictory notions of God in the Bible.

To say that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible must have its rational foundation too. The only way to do this is to proove the incosistency or the self-contradictory nature of the concept we call God.

And this could be why they so stubbornly cling to their Qu'ran...

hmmm, I don't like the sound of that...

What do you mean 'stubbornly cling'? If you mean Islamic fundamentalism, this is the result of radicals taking everything in the book literally - which misses the point of the book.



The Torah, Gospels and Epistles are also full of contradictions.

Looking through this link you provide, it seems like the author was more interested in finding apparent contradictions in the book rather than understanding the book. Checking the main site, I'm appalled by the blatant misrepresentation of Islam promoted by the site.



Depends on which conception of God you appeal to. The notion of God has changed over time. We see contradictory notions of God in the Bible.

Perfectly holy, just, merciful, forgiving, all things which are invention of men. God is not within the discription of god, but rather all descriptions are within god as they are by default part of god's creation thus less than god assuming you take god to be the creator, lest man can also create on the same level as god in which case you admit that man is god, which is just silly as we are such insignificant specks of amalgamte energy and space bound by the same physical laws as anything else. God can only be the unutterable, unkowable and no human thought can even approximate such a god, only god's works, as we are of the same nature of god's works, we are one with the physical universe, composed of the same matter and bound by the same physical laws.

Wittgenstien himself admitted that none of the great questions man can ask can be answered through logic and that thus metaphysics was not within the realm of the considerable.

This concept may be of interest to you protoman:
Logical proof is true within the assumptions made in its construction; e.g.
Making the assumption either my friend or I were the only two people who could have commited a given act and it could not have been both of us and the act was indeed committed then
(A)I committed the act
(B) My friend commited the act
A<---->~ B (A if and only if not B)
~A<---->B (not A if and only if B)
A B (A v B) (A or B) is tautology since the case for both A and B is
T F T T F excluded
F T F T T
Now the problem lies in the assumptions, no one can possibly reduce reality to all of its possiblities to confirm the assumptions and thus the proof is inheirently flawed. such a proof is applicable when probablility is taken into consideration, however it is not absolute. This is one problem with applied logical proof.

The next problem is more directly linked trying to define a metaphysical or supernatural thing specifically god. In orber that a thing be proven, it must be defined very specifially leaving out no attribute. In the case of god, such a definition restricts god to a very pale and insignificant figure or only addresses one attribute, such as a 'creator'. This god might not fit the descriptions of another person's god and might just turn out to be somthing insignificant, expelled by another simple logical proof.

attempting to understand something when you have no basis or start for learning merely puts you into more ignorance thats why you'll hear people say the word faith in trusting the Bible.

Elaborate, please!