Jean Buridan presented a “logical” proof of the existence of God:
- God exists.
- Neither of these sentences is true.
The two statements can be reconciled only if God exists.
Replace sentence #1 with any statement at all and you’ll better understand why I’m an empiricist and not a rationalist. Merely because something must logically be so, does not imply actual existence. That being said, I can almost guarantee there exist solid logical and rational refutations of this proposition. It’s a play on an idea called “Plato’s Beard”, which leads to some very complicated situations, yet has been shown to be false in numerous ways.
I’m ramping up for a trip down to San Francisco this weekend and just found out that the SF Atheists are having their monthly meeting tomorrow night. Sounds like a decent way to spend a few hours if you ask me. The drive, though, is something I am not looking forward to.
Depends on the media; what have you got in mind? If you’re thinking something musical, look up George Hrab (though, I don’t know him personally).
Aw, thank you. I very much appreciate the kind words. My hope is that at some point, if even just to the smallest degree, I’ll help influence someone to begin to think critically for themselves who otherwise wouldn’t. Granted, I’m intentionally full of snark on this blog, but sometimes being unsettling can be good (regardless of what Phil Plait says about “being a dick”).
Humans constantly strife to gain endless knowledge, to be able to process enough data to unravel every mystery, but has one ever thought to step back and observe this action? What does this accomplish? Knowledge in excess is a poison to human creativity, the window to the soul. Knowledge absorbs…
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week.
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. - George Bernard Shaw