Child's play.
It has everything to do with duality.
The same mathematics (idea) that you use to explain physical reality also breaks down when applied to its limits. You cannot point to an infinite physical thing, can you? You cannot divide matter indefinitely. At one point, you are left with an indivisible something.
And if you want a more rigorous exercise in this direction, contemplate the axiom of choice (which deals with uncountably many sets) and how it results in skolem's and banach-tarski paradoxes.
Theology and natural philosophy (science) are THE SAME logical inquiry with completely different premises.
Let us stick to the basic question of the thread - proving merely the EXISTENCE (and not the nature) of god, shall we?
The argument I am making is that causation (which is the basic premise of science) inevitably leads to a first cause. The alternative, an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress, is ILLOGICAL.
That is an example of it. There are many philosophical traditions that adhere to some form of duality. You already know buddhism, no?
Sigh
Ask yourself what constitutes as immutable, objective and independent reality, and you would realize that only ideas fit this.
Then let us discuss kant. I think such a discussion would be more appropriate in the homosexuality thread. I was hoping to draw acg in a discussion of the comparative merits of hume and kant in that thread. No such luck.
Ask yourself what constitutes as proof, in your opinion. And lets test your standard of proof using the rigors of logic, shall we?
NO NO NO
A priori reasoning is as indispensible to math and science as it is in philosophy. MATHEMATICAL AXIOMS have no formal proof except its intuitive correctness. They are a priori. And if you still don't understand - would you mind giving the formal and rigorous proof of (lets make it grade school simple) the commutative, associative and identity axioms of addition and multiplication.
a+0=a; ax0=a - proof?
a+b=b+a; ab=ba - proof?
(a+b)+c = a+(b+c) - proof?
Any takers?
LOL
That the authors prefered to use allegorical tales to convey truth doesn't mean it is a lie.
And if you insist on applying scientific rigor to an allegorical tale and completely ignore its truth, as some people I know insist on doing, then you are just as dumb as they are.
There is actually some truth in what was considered a mythical tale. Religion and these fanciful tales were transmitted to us through the SAME oral tradition. We marveled at the archeological evidence even if the original authors never meant to give archeological evidence. At the very least, that should prompt any reasonable individual to re-examine his biases.
Have you read the kalam or thomasian cosmological argument, hmm?
So why do you think an imperative to eat cabbage, regardless of the imperative's source, is absurd, eh?
It is the inevitable conclusion to the premises of science.
