Three Principles In Accordance

Logic, Science, Proof,..................... Do you believe in a god?


What if someone presented the following statement: Using LOGIC and SCIENCE, I can PROVE that GOD does not exist.

To understand the full claim of this statement, lets look at the four main content words (as highlighted in red)

1)GOD: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

• In most religion, god is stated to be the creator of everything, including the earth and everything upon it. Keep this in mind as we progress through the article.

2) LOGIC: the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Logic is built upon three laws:

• Law of identification
• Law of non-contradiction
  
• Law of excluded middle

Since the main subject of the statement is GOD, under the law of identification, GOD=GOD. GOD does not equal lampshade, or table etc.

(note: I know this is common sense to most, but bear with me, this is necessary knowledge to understand the concept of the statement)

• With gods existence in question, the law of non-contradiction states that GOD cant exist and also not exist. He must be existent or non-existent, as to oppose contradiction.

• And finally, the law of excluded middle states that GOD cannot kind of exist. He either exists in full, or doesn't exist at all.

3) PROVE/PROOF: the establishment of the truth of anything.

Their are two types of proof: Evidential proof, and absolute proof.

• Evidential Proof: This is the type of proof that we use every day. For example, we use evidential proof to establish that their is no traffic coming before we cross the road. The evidential proof is provided through our vision and hearing. Evidential proof is also the method used in court systems, and just about everything in life, big or small. Evidential proof has a cap limit of 99.9% accuracy.
  

• Absolute Proof: Absolute Proof can only be attained from logic based principles. For example, I can provide absolute proof that 7+4=11. Why? Because mathematics are based on fundamental principles that do not change. Since absolute proof can only be attained through logic based principles, it can not be used to provide any answers to questions outside of these logic based principles. Therefore, absolute proof cannot be used to determine the existence or non-existence of god. Just as absolute proof cannot be used to determine that their is not a pink unicorn hovering above your head, singing Elvis's greatest hits. Such a claim is outrageous, but still, you cant use absolute proof to say that its true or false. So you would resort to evidential proof. As we will in drawing a conclusion to the statement.
  

4)SCIENCE: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

• Science is built from the Scientific Method. This is the method that has been used to obtain such knowledge necessary to engineer nearly all the products that we use on a daily basis, such as your cell phone, computer, automobile, etc.

The Scientific Method consists of the following steps:

1. Ask a question
2. Obtain background information pertaining to the question
3. Create a hypothesis (note that a hypothesis is very similar to a theory in context, but has no evidential proof behind it)
4. Perform an experiment in regards to your hypothesis
5. Analyze the results
   
6. Draw a conclusion (only if substantial evidence is obtained from step 5)
7. Label hypothesis as a theory (if all the steps have been thoroughly engaged)

• A very common misconception is labeling a hypothesis as a theory. A hypothesis must go through all of the steps in the method to achieve such a title.

Because all the claims derived from literature within religions cannot be properly tested under the scientific method, all religion remains a mere HYPOTHESIS. On the other hand, in contradiction to the claims of religion, we have the evolution THEORY, the abiogenesis THEORY, and many other actual THEORIES that oppose the shallow claims of religion. And keep in mind, religion is nothing more that a HYPOTHESIS. So why would you believe a hypothesis over a theory? A theory that went through all the steps in the scientific method, and has evidential proof to back its claims. Such a closed mindset is not reasonable. For example, lets say I had a hypothesis that my friend "Joe" was 22 years old. But Joe's mother claimed that he was 19. I have no evidence to support my claim, so it remains a hypothesis. But Joe's mother has much substantial evidence to support her hypothesis (birth certificate, etc). So after going through the steps, she has a theory. So why would anyone believe my hypothesis over her theory? Just because i want Joe to be 22 so he can buy me whiskey (lol), it doesn't change the facts. Theory overrides hypothesis.

In conclusion, we know that under the law of non-contradiction in logic, god cannot be existent and non-existent. With that in mind, look at this simple contradicting comparison, the THEORY of abiogenesis and the HYPOTHESIS of religion/god. Abiogenesis is the THEORY that states "chemical evolution", the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. That THEORY is contradicting to the hypothesis of religion, which states that GOD created the universe and everything within it. Another example, their are theories on how old the earth is. One THEORY in particular states that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Compared to the claim from the HYPOTHESIS of Christianity, which states that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years old. So which will you believe? Hypothesis or Theory?

• A very useful tool in processing all of this information to draw a conclusion is REASONING. REASONING, along with LOGIC, SCIENCE, EVIDENTIAL PROOF, and the thought process, can provide assuring answers to the most compelling questions.

L__I__N__E__O__F__P__R__O__G__R__E__S__S__I__O__N