(May 28, 2010 at 8:48 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:I think you're misrepresenting his argument. There are a few implied points I had to fill in, but this ends up a little more logical.(May 28, 2010 at 4:06 am)mem Wrote: Huh??
Well, here's the argument in Ray's own words.
Quote: I offered, "It's really easy to prove God's existence." He replied, "It's not healthy for me to talk about God." I said that I could understand that, and added, "But you are a reasonable and open-minded person, so you can listen to me for two minutes."I might have been missing some vital step that would have made Ray's argument make any damn sense, but from this, I doubt it.
He gave me the okay, so I told him how he could know for sure that God existed, that God had given him a conscience and that if he even lusted after a woman, Jesus said that he had committed adultery already with her in his heart. I also mentioned that if a criminal was given a death sentence and he said to the judge, "But I don't believe in the electric chair," it didn't change reality.
He politely listened, and said, "Well, I'd better board the plane."
- Humans have consciences
- God defined sin as a bunch of things that are bad
- God says that when we commit a sin in our minds it's as bad as commiting it in flesh
- When a married man lusts after a woman while married, his conscience knows it's an unfaithful thought and he presumably feels bad
- Because this natural "sin detector" theory lines up with ancient texts we can assume these texts are true.
- Therefore the Bible is true and God exists.
Of course this argument is still far from perfect, as it doesn't take into account things we feel guilty about that aren't sin, or sins that we don't feel guilty about. It's a terrible argument but it isn't the complete non-sequitor you make it out to be.
- Meatball
