RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 15, 2016 at 8:26 pm
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2016 at 8:29 pm by Aristocatt.)
If I understand your argument correctly:
It sounds like you are implicitly personifying what you might call the laws of nature.
Then you search for said laws of nature.
Suppose that you have found evidence of said laws of nature.
Then say "aha, he does exist."
The problem is that there is no reason to personify causality, it's a non-sequitur.
Edit: I take issue with a lot of points you made, but this seems like a good starting point.
Why are you using words like creator/operator?
It sounds like you are implicitly personifying what you might call the laws of nature.
Then you search for said laws of nature.
Suppose that you have found evidence of said laws of nature.
Then say "aha, he does exist."
The problem is that there is no reason to personify causality, it's a non-sequitur.
Edit: I take issue with a lot of points you made, but this seems like a good starting point.
Why are you using words like creator/operator?
