NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/851

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 5.4 KB | 104 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux4.cso.uiuc.edu!jlamb
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: God exists. Proof within.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: God exists: proof by Jeff R. Lamb
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:27:03 GMT
Lines: 92


Ok. Here we go. I posted to this group once with the claim that I could
prove the existance of God. A bunch of people came clammering to my
mailbox demanding I post this proof so here it is:

1) Disclaimers. The opinions expressed within are soley mine. They come
from no book (although based on a certain book), come from no other
person (although based on the life of another person). I take full
responsibility and credit for my views.

2) Basic outline of the approach I intend to take:
    A) The Bible is absolutely true.
    B) The Bible claims that God exists.
    C) God exists.

3) a) Proof that the Bible is absolutely true:
    One of human's greatest assets is the ability to see a group
    seemingly random, unpredictable data points, and distingush
    a pattern from this chaos. Humans can GENERALIZE. This means
    they can infer from interelated facts. Humans can see a pattern
    and project it into the future.
    Think of the Bible as being a collection of related statements
    of fact (not facts yet, since that's what we are trying to proof)
    Now take any abritary set of statements of fact. This second set
    you want to discover the nature of. So you take one of the facts
    contained in the set and test it. For our discussion, let's say
    it turns out to be true. Now you take another statement in the set
    and test it. It is also true. You try again. This time you pick
    a statement that you can't prove one way or the other. You don't
    have an instrument sensitive enough to make the require measure-
    ment or the statement is about a rare substance you don't have,
    let's say. You try a fourth fact; true. Fifth; true. Sixth; you
    can't tell again. In this manner you go through the whole set and
    always you get either true or can not be determined.
    Now let's look at what you know: the statements are all inter-
    related. Some of the statement you know to be true. Some of the
    statement you aren't sure about. NONE of the statements are false.
    Now you notice another interesting thing. As time progresses, more
    and more statements in the set are being proven true. Still none
    are being proven false. Now armed with these facts you generalize;
    you decide that from what you have found out experimentally, the
    set of facts seems to be true. Now this is all very logical and it
    goes on everyday, yet I think I can feel some of you screaming even
    before I post this. Look at what is done in physics. You have a
    particle that you test. Let's use the developement of the Periodic
    chart. You find that the elements you have available seem to fit
    a pattern. Every element you test fits this pattern, yet you can't
    get a hold of every element. Still you are able to predict, through
    generalization, the properties and configurations for elements you
    haven't seen yet. In addition as time goes by more and more evidence
    come to surface that supports the periodic chart. NO elements show
    up that contradict it. Are you assumptions and predictions any
    else valid? No. Just because you can't make the measurement doesn't
    mean the facts aren't worth anything. you take the periodic chart
    as true even though you haven't proven all of it yet. (Of course
    I am speaking from the point of view of very shortly after the
    periodic chart was released (before modern chemists (hats off)
    made the measurements to prove the predictions)).
    Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
    ments of fact. Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
    it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
    or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked. (If
    you have one I'll be glad to fight you over it). So how is this
    any different? It isn't. The same thought process and generaliza-
    tion techniques that are considered valid and a mark of higher
    intelligence in the world can be applied here as well. It makes
    logical sence for the Bible to be true.
3b) The Bible claims that God exists. Since we have established the Bible
    as a collection of true facts:
3c) God exists.
QED                    -Jeff R. Lamb

Closing statements: Flame at will. Write me if you want some more particulars
on this subject. I have another argument for the existence of God called
God or Coinincidence. I'll post it if this one flies well. Think logically.
A lot of Randites have just as much blind faith in the fact that there is
no God as the people who have blind faith in a God. Any reasonable, serious
questions will be answered as quickly as I can. If possible post the question
and mail me to let me know the post exists and I'll make sure to deal with
it as soon as I can. Also try to keep the subject lines sorta descriptive
of this topic. I can't go looking through every post to find the ones dealing
with this subject. (This is only a problem when you change the subject line
of course).

Have a great life.


--
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?"             | Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"       -Ayn Rand     | ([e-mail])