You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Debunking Religious Notions - Rebuttal of @gavvet 's : Entropy vs Christ
For a 'proof' of god, you'd have to assume there was only one truth. (?)
If there was only one truth, then more than one god would be impossible. (?)
I you believe in 'proof', you believe in one god. (?)
Does this make any sense ?
not really. try to be less poetic
The concept of 'proof' derives from geometry.
That's the whole basis for science.
Something everybody had to agreee on.
The Pyramids still stand proof.
Some rectangular bricks where put up in a way, that correlated to the movement of the earth and the seasons and whatnot and a god of winter and summer where disproven.
After everybody sorta had to agrre, that 'It works !' - the concept of proof was born.
Gemometry could be scaled up and down and represented a universal truth.
Polytheism was disproven.
Geometrists agreed, that a higher hidden principle of truth must exist.
Otherwise their Geometry will be prooven wrong.
If you read the bible a bit more poetically; it says like 100 times, that god is light and truth and there's only one.
Believing in one truth is sorta monotheism, no ?
Believing that 'science works' doesn't work without believing in god.
Any better ?
Yeah. Note though that I specifically say that science demonstrates. science cannot possibly prove anything.
oh well then read up on existentialism, nihilism and such.
you aren't the first one to formulate these thoughts - it might be worth a look.
I repeat: You start out on Rebuttal, Debunking and proof and heavy words like that.
Then: science cannot possibly prove anything.
If logic cannot proof anything then don't bother starting out like that.
Lack of discipline I'd call it.
Good luck !