Well, it seems like you are saying that God is not proven, yet geometrical shapes are. I don't see a perfect triangle ANYWHERE in nature. If a patch of flowers happens to form a triangle, it is still off by like .00245 degrees right? I mean, the perfect 180 only exists as a "form" in our heads. We generalized a triangular shape and made an axiom out of our fallacial generalization. It works, serves its purpose and all, but if you read philosophy of math, they disprove it all day long. Look at Einstein's black hole: space bends, no longer are triangles 180 degrees. So, in that case, I can't think of anything that is "proven" as a basic belief. We just HAVE to accept some axioms that are easier to swallow than others to make logistic progress. Or else we would have the endless regression problem, and we would all have to resort to believing in the Unmoved Mover. As for God, it can never be talked of and dissected in that logical realm philosphy dwells in. Unless God is rational, which I doubt.
I don't really think that geometrical shapes have to be proven or accepted. We made them up. Someone saw a natural phenomenon and made up a perfect shape to simplify that phenomenon so that we could use it to figure things out. I mean, to me, those triangle-like things that occur in nature are not really triangles, and if space bends to make a triangle not 180 degrees, it isn't a triangle anymore. I guess what I am saying is that we made up the definition of triangles, so no matter what, they have to be 3 sided things that have internal angles adding up to 180 degrees. It doesn't matter if they actually exist or not. But it does matter that God exists because that is part of our definition of God. That, to me, is why it doesn't make sense to define God or try to prove Him through philosophy or any other means. I agree with you, it's not a rational thing like a triangle is. It's silly to try to rationalize it.
Comments 9
So, in that case, I can't think of anything that is "proven" as a basic belief. We just HAVE to accept some axioms that are easier to swallow than others to make logistic progress. Or else we would have the endless regression problem, and we would all have to resort to believing in the Unmoved Mover. As for God, it can never be talked of and dissected in that logical realm philosphy dwells in. Unless God is rational, which I doubt.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment