JUST KIDDING
Have a read of this:
PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE? NICE TRY
Here's a couple of interesting outtakes:
The question remains: Can one prove God’s existence? Yes, but this does not mean that God exists. The classical syllogism is: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal. It provides the recipe for proving with equal elegance that Socrates is immortal: All men are immortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is immortal. By the same token, we can construct an indefinite number of proofs of God’s existence. If Jesus was trustworthy, God exists; Jesus was trustworthy; therefore God exists. The construction of premises from which the existence of God will follow as a valid conclusion is a mere matter of ingenuity: valid proofs of God’s existence are not hard to find.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us at a solid wall, and it leaves Aquinas in fantasy of his own dogma. We have no ways of knowing whether God does or does not exist, at least none that would allow for us to remain intellectually honest. Even the most sophisticated defender of Christianity, Søren Kierkegaard, says that faith is not based on logic or reason. If one chooses them as their ethos, then of course believing in God is ludicrous. As there is not a single piece of evidence in the world to suggest he exists, at least, one that isn’t self-referential. This is also not to say that it is impossible either, but only to expose the trickster’s trick. Speculation goes a long way, but it is not determinate. So, I have to disagree with the claim that science proved God is real, and I most certainly have to dismiss the archaic proofs of it.
Interesting topic.
ReplyDelete3/10
You won't because there's no such place.
ReplyDelete