| | For all you Christians out there, I'm sure that
someone, somewhere asked you to basically prove that God exists.
Whether it was some offhanded comment about the problem of evil or a
direct confrontation, it happened. Now how did you respond?
Most try to prove God from what the Bible says or from nature - the
complexity of life or, even like C.S. Lewis, try to prove God from our
thoughts about right and wrong. All of these seem steeped in
futility, but why is this so? Because the existence of God is
axiomatic.
An axiom is something in mathematics that you can't
(or think you can't) prove, but seems to stand up to scrutiny.
That's it. Axioms are necessary, because you have to start from
somewhere, and that starting point can never be proven, otherwise it
isn't a starting point. Addition is an axiom. Think about
it. Try proving that 1+1=2 or 2+2=4. I asked this of my
Sunday School class. They said, "well, you get two rocks and you
put them side by side. One rock + one rock = two rocks."
BAH! That's no proof. It's an axiom. Who says that
what seems to work (at this instant) for rocks works for a, b and
c? You see, the word asks the impossible. You can't prove
an axiom. You can only add circumstantial evidence.
But, is this concept so foreign? While
Mathematics just labels addition as an axiom and moves on, because
mathematicians don't really put a lot of thought into axioms.
They just state them and move on to what interesting things are the
results of those axioms.
What about Physics? It's the same thing.
You have laws. Now scientists hold up Evolution as a theory, but
what is it really? It's an axiom. The scientists will never
prove Evolution. Scientists can't prove gravity, they can't prove
relativity. Ah, you say, "but I can conduct experiments that show
gravity exists." But I can say that a billion experiments cannot
prove gravity, because, gravity may not work the billion+1th
time. It's an axiom. You assume that it's true, state it
and move on. Physicists are often wrong about their
theories. Classical physics is, at best, a convenient
approximation of relativity, and a convenient aggregation of the
shadowy happenings of Quantum physics.
All axioms appear to be circular logic. I've
been accused of circular logic more times than I can count. Why?
Because I treat God as an axiom. When you talk about 1+1=2, you
don't spend time considering what would happen if 1+1 equaled 3.
You take two rocks or fingers or coins and show that 1+1=2. But
that is a circular proof. You are starting from the conclusion
that 1+1=2 to prove 1+1=2. In the same way, the Bible claims to
be Gods Word, and the Bible claims that God Exists. Those who
believe the Bible understand that it is a circle. Those who don't
want to break it up. You believe God because the Bible claims He
exists, and you believe the Bible because you think it is the word of
God. Circular logic.
The important thing with every so-called axiom, or
theory, is that it withstands scrutiny. You may get ridiculed for
believing in God, but the existence of God withstands scrutiny.
Why isn't God scientific? Because the scientists declared that He
is not scientific. That's why Intelligent Design is so hated
among scientists. It cuts at the very heart of their denial of
God. For better or worse, science has been declared to be the
study of only measurable things. God cannot be measured,
therefore God cannot be shown by science. The next step, which
science loves to take, is that God cannot exist. But even in
"explaining" Evolution, science actively denies God, which leads it to
erroneous results. Think about it. Here's a bit of
evidence, the evidence can easily fit with Creation/Biblical accounts,
or it is a quandary for evolution to solve. Since I can't use the
Bible to explain the evidence, I must accept the quandary and move
on. Thus science has stabbed itself in the back by forcing an
explanation for something that it cannot answer.
|
| | Posted 10/19/2006 7:28 AM - 64 Views - 12 eProps - 11 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
