I was thinking about this after a conversation with a christian I had yesterday, and after finishing a book called "Irreligion" by a mathematician about how there are no persuasive arguments for the existence of god.
Here's what I discovered :p
There are many arguments for the existence of a god, such as:
- the argument from first cause.
- the argument from design.
- the argument from the anthropic principle.
- the ontological argument.
- the argument from coincidence.
And so on...
What I realised is that not one of these arguments is relevant when discussing a specific religion, for example Christianity.
Take the argument from first cause. Even if one is persuaded by the argument and concludes that god exists, he is still left with the problem of the identity of this god. All these arguments can only conclude that a god exists; they do nothing as to identifying which specific god it is of which specific religion.
When a christian uses one of these arguments (or any member of a specific religion with a specific god), he is in the end doing absolutely nothing to back up his faith in his specific god. He is making a rather different argument, simply that god exists, but that in the end, he is unknowable.
For christianity to be true, there are only two arguments which can be made:
First Argument - Jesus
Any other arguments are inconclusive when it comes to Christianity or any other religion.
Here's what I discovered :p
There are many arguments for the existence of a god, such as:
- the argument from first cause.
- the argument from design.
- the argument from the anthropic principle.
- the ontological argument.
- the argument from coincidence.
And so on...
What I realised is that not one of these arguments is relevant when discussing a specific religion, for example Christianity.
Take the argument from first cause. Even if one is persuaded by the argument and concludes that god exists, he is still left with the problem of the identity of this god. All these arguments can only conclude that a god exists; they do nothing as to identifying which specific god it is of which specific religion.
When a christian uses one of these arguments (or any member of a specific religion with a specific god), he is in the end doing absolutely nothing to back up his faith in his specific god. He is making a rather different argument, simply that god exists, but that in the end, he is unknowable.
For christianity to be true, there are only two arguments which can be made:
First Argument - Jesus
- Jesus really existed and he lived, died and rose from the dead.
- Only god could rise from the dead.
- Therefore Jesus was god.
- By way of demonstrable proof, the bible is 100% consistent, reliable and relevant and is undeniably the greatest book ever written.
- Therefore the bible is divinely inspired.
- The bible says god exists.
- Therefore god exists.
Any other arguments are inconclusive when it comes to Christianity or any other religion.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God