Some time ago I wrote in my journal that "I believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant, just like the question of the existence of any supernatural being is irrelevant." But then I asked myself "Irrelevant to what?" Now I finally elucidated to myself what I meant by that statement.
ARGUMENT:
The question of the empirical existence of God is irrelevant to the validity of religion. In other words, the proof of god's existence (if it is possible to obtain) would not serve as a reasonable support for theological dogma, because even if god exists it does not logically follow that the Bible is the word of god, i.e., that god authored the Bible.
- Objection: The validity of theological dogma does depend on the existence of god because god has to exist in order for the Bible to be the word of god, i.e., if god does not exist, then the Bible can not be the word of god.
- Counterargument: Yes, and this also means that if god does exist, it still does not follow that the Bible is the word of god. In other words, god is a prerequisite for the Bible to be the word of god, but the existence of god does not make the Bible the word of god.
- If the Bible is the word of god, then god exists. It does not follow that if god exists, then the Bible is the word of god.
- So if god exists, it does not mean that religion is true. But if god does not exist, it means that religion is false.
Christian apologetics should seize trying to prove the existence of god through rational means, as the Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God--it is inconsequential to Christianity's validity, or any other creed for that matter.
P.S. It is amusing that Christians dismiss arguments against their religion as irreverent rant. But I will save this topic for a separate occasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment