The thought
struck me that I can derive several proofs of the existence of God from just
about any picture. As if that wasn’t good enough, I realized that the following
picture fit the ticket for the proofs and as a bonus was rather amusing to look
at:
Cosmological Argument
Looking at this picture, you
probably don’t notice the usual things about it. You notice, of course, that
I’m upside-down; but that’s really irrelevant to the point I want to make
(although, in a sense, everything is relevant to the point I want to make).
What you don’t notice is that there is contrast – light and darkness –
throughout the picture, but there is no discernable source of light or
darkness. Without assuming that the sun is somewhere outside the edges of the
picture, you would have to say that the light and darkness are simply there,
with no source or reason for being there. But think about it: you did assume that the sun was somewhere
outside the picture, didn’t you? Isn’t it natural to assume that?
Now look at the world around you.
It’s a bit harder to glance casually at the whole of existence than to look at
the picture above, but let’s say you could actually do that. Now in the case of
the picture, we saw light and shadow and automatically assumed that the sun was
outside the picture causing it – a natural assumption to make. Looking at the
universe, you might notice that it does in fact exist. It’s there, and you see
it every time you look at it. Why?
Just as we assumed an external
cause of light in the photograph, we might also assume an external cause for
the whole of the universe. There’s no discernable cause in the picture for what
we’re seeing, so obviously the cause is outside the picture. What’s the only
term we know for the ultimate cause?
God.
Ontological
Argument
Now look again at the picture.
Recall that you didn’t just see light and darkness, but you saw contrast as
well. Notice also that no part of the picture as bright or as dark as it could
be. Surely you’ve looked at bright lights that are brighter than the white in
this picture, and it’s certainly darker in lightless rooms at night than the
darkest places in this picture.
How is contrast evidence of God?
Well, if you think about the white in the picture, you can only describe it in
relation to another shade. It’s lighter than dark, or it’s darker than a
flashlight being shined in your eyes. No part of the picture is perfectly
white. I can say that because I’ve seen things that are much more white than
the so called white in that picture.
In our thoughts about things, we
compare all things to each other, but primarily we compare them to the absolute
concepts we have in our minds. Let’s look the same way at the issue of
morality. Of course everyone has an idea in mind of what correct morality is,
but no one really embodies that perfect morality. How is it that we have this
concept of perfect morality, then? It’s obviously one of the absolute concepts
we have.
So now we must see the significance
of absolute concepts. We can’t conceive of things that don’t exist in some way.
You can’t conceive of a white that is brighter than the brightest white you’ve
actually seen, can you? Your conception of light is limited to your experience.
Likewise, your conception of morality is somehow related to your experience –
somehow related to reality and what you know.
You know that there is such a thing
as absolute goodness. It’s natural to have that concept, just as it’s natural
to have a concept of what you see as absolute brightness. We get our frames of
reference from experience and the world around us. Thus, we must conclude that
absolute goodness does actually exist in some form. What do we call absolute
goodness?
God.
Comments (44)
I like your idea of perfect morality. I’ve thought about absolute morality, but never considerd the phrase – perfect morality, even though I know God is perfect. Very good!
larry
This topic is horribly unclear…
“Separation of church and state” as outlined in the Constitution, or “separation of church and state” as twisted and distorted by modern liberal politicians?
Answer it in whatever way you interpret the question
. That’s what philosophical discourse is all about 
.
hey. thanks for the comment.
nice xanga too, by the way.
I’m no big fan of titles, but I can appreciate your comments and I understand completely what you said. Thanks.
Hey! Seems like my kinda Xanga. Thanks for stopping by.
Insometry
I was wondering if someone would call me out on some logic! Good form!
Guessing randomly, there is a 20% chance, so that would mean that two possible answers are right.
Answering 20% is actually 40% likely to be true. Therefore, 40% is the most likely answer, not 20%.
If 20% is not the most likely answer, then there is only a 20% likelihood of answering correctly, because it means that 40% is no longer the most likely answer.
B contradicts A and C, so you can never actually get to the stage of even considering D.
Because B immediately nullifies its basis, A and/or C are the most likely answers.
The correct answer is 20%.
After the assumption that 40% is the true answer because 20% is true, we cannot then say 20% is not true one moment later. Then 40% wouldn’t be true, because the 20% answers aren’t true. If the 20% answers did cease to be true and 40% remainded the only answer, there would be nothing to substantiate the 40% claim. Per would say, “Why is 40% the answer?” and Son in response, “Because 20% is the answer, and there are two of them.” Per responds, “But the inextricable fact that the 20% answers were true made 40% true, therefore if the 20% answers are not true then the 40% answer is neither true. They are either both true or neither true, it cannot be one and not the other.”
Think about your answer, it can’t make sense: if 20% is the correct answer, and there are two 20 %’s out of 5 answers, then you have a 40% chance of getting it right. Two potential right answers out of five unchangingly equals a 40% chance. Then not only is 40% true because 20% is true, but 20% is also true because 40% is true. It’s a circular support, not only the 20%’s supporting the 40%.
Something inside me guesses that if we were to submit this to a logic professor he would say it is a nonsensical conundrum.
Oh, sorry, I meant to italicize that first long paragraph. I’m sure you’ll recognize that it’s yours eventually anyways.
when you say mindless to the core….explain yourself. Also, what is your favorite approach or if you don’t have one, what would your ideal approach be?
As far as prayer goes….yeah I don’t think i can ever pray enough, if you think about how much Christ prayed and how long? Did you know that people used to have all night prayer meetings…why don’t we do that anymore? yea, i will be the first one to admit, i am unsure if i could do it, but i would like to give a try sometime. I would also have the fear of repeating myself….in front of people especially.
Hi! I’m your brother in Christ, Jeff. I love you neighbor! Spread the Love!!! =]
Hey!! I’m sure you’re wondering who I am.. lol I checked in here yesterday (actually it was probably sometime in the early AM) and didn’t leave a comment. I noticed your name on my tracker this morning and that you got there from your footprints and felt bad for not leaving a comment… so I just thought I’d come back here and let ya know I’m not a stalker and you’re welcome to come by my site anytime!
God Bless!
<3 Ashley
AWESOME POINT!
A fellow W.L? Way cool. I’m glad you were encouraged.
I debated as a youngster. Thats why I dont mind talking as much…but until debate I totally know what you are saying about Public Speaking. Keep some bullet points and talk around them…after the first 2 minutes it gets easier.
Dont hesitate to leave any thoughts you have on praise/worship!
RYC: Bible study in a public library? There is a law called “equal access”. This means that if a location is open to the public for meetings, then no group shall be excluded from having the same access. Basically, if a ssecular group has the right to meet in a public location, then any group (including religious ones) have the right to meet in that same location.
my apologies, your approach to apologetics, how to present the gospel to non-believers
So should the government basically not categorize religion? Perhaps it should treat religion as it treats any other organization?
Most churches are registered with the government, more specifically the IRS, as a non-profit organization. So, yeah, I could agree that the government should look at places of worship as any other organization. Although, I would hate for The Salvation Army to be seen as an equal to the ACLU. Shudders my very bones.
Hmm, OK, let me preface this comment by noting that I do believe in God. Perhaps not a theistic God, but that God does exist and can be experienced.
On the cosmological argument – it assumes that there is a cause behind our perceptions. Which assumes that what we perceive is somehow related to a reality that we can grasp. It goes back to the whole quantum observational changes. I think there is really a question whether perception is in fact reality.
On your ontological argument – light, dark, contrast – aren’t these just variations on the spectrum of brightness. So even thought they appear separate, aren’t they in fact part of a certain “oneness.” Same thing with abolute and relative – aren’t these just variations on a spectrum of “truth” or “reality.” While they seem to negate one another, aren’t they really just part of a single concept.
Perhaps it’s because my view of God is more the “oneness” or the “is-ness” of things. I believe that God is found in the light, the dark and in the contrast. That perhaps to God these things are not light or dark at all. That light, dark or contrast are our perceptions and those are not the perceptions of God.
Your arguments are wonderful and show just how much you’re wrestling. Like I say I love the way you wrestle.
RYC: I’m not so certain that you’re stuck. I think part of the beauty of life is that we get ready to walk down this carefully laid out path and then “boom” we end up walking along a different path altogether. Whatever path we take doesn’t so much matter. I really believe it’s not so much some destination as it is about enjoying the path.
Nice. I totally agree. Bravo!
hey. life is pretty good. learning?…most definately! thinking?….waaaaay too much! school is waring me out but i refuse to slack off !! lol
~CaRiS~ P.S. sorry about the ” unuseful” comment =-)
interesting thoughts…however “proving” God isn’t, I don’t think, our mission…for “it is by grace you are saved, thorugh faith”…not to say it can’t point someone in the right direction…and I’ll move on before i dig myself too deep a hole…
I disagree with Houston on a point…I am not sure I agree with his saying God doesnt’ see the light dark distinction…Biblically He does..although I’m sure it is not the way we see it…our perspective is warped…for example we rate goodness but to God none is good (“none righteous, no not one”) and our righteousness is thorugh the blood of Christ…we tend to rate sins but sin is sin and it all needs covored/cleansed
so I don’t know if that makes any sense…but there it is…
liked christiancafe’s question…
Before they moved, my friend’s parents’ bathroom was carpeted. It was very strange. Danny Tanner seriously creeps me out… I couldn’t really explain why. And thank you for those encouraging thoughts on being a senior… I certainly cannot wait…
I’m only kidding about that last part. But as much as I really… am not a fan of high school and wish I were done, there’s something so scary about that so-called real world. You know what I mean?
yes, it is. The stroy being hopeless, I mean.
Oh, and finally! I was waiting for you to comment! Geez. lol
Ryc: true. It is an addiction. hence, “Oh God…why couldn’t I stop?!” But, anyways, yeah, the black angels have the most hope indeed. It is they that never take the Lord’s love as granted.
Very interesting and well constructed arguments.
RYC: I didn’t really think you were a stalker. I just get cranky about that kind of comment. Since I never try to hide where I am, I assume it would be easy enough to find me if someone wanted to or to find Lance too if they wanted to. People who want to create havoc or cause harm would find you easily enough anyway.
Shalom!
RYC:
hehe! I could make some points about you crazy ‘mericans.
I will refrain though!
Shalom!
I like your disclaimer at the top of the page, too. Very true for me also.
RYC: The American form of government has its own civic form of morality, found in the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. We agree on the source of popular morality, unfortunately a large segment of the population does not. Does that mean that they must be forced by government to live by God’s law? How can that be possible since mankind exists in a state of total depravity? Only the power of Christ can grab a person by the chin long enough to elevate his gaze from the slop he wallows in. I don’t expect the non-believer to live by any other morality than his own selfish self-centeredness. This is why it is the Church’s job, not the government’s, to be the instument God uses to bring about any sense of morality. Salt and Light, remember…
RYC II: Paul says the Law is there to show us what sin is, that is its purpose. It is an impossible standard and meant to be so. This is why we need the Savior.
No one comes to God unless the Spirit enables him. Man is completely fallen and incapable of lifting his eyes to God on his own. How then is it possible to expect someone without Christ to adhere to God’s standard? Yes, it is the standard the world shall be judged by, but we are incapable of even considering it save by the power of the Holy Spirit. You don’t come to the Father unless He chooses to reveal Himself to you via Jesus. On our own we are incapable of choosing God or His Way. I’m a Calvinist, what can I say?
Like I said, I feel that the so-called Religious Right made a big mistake when they decided to go the legislative route and bypass the Great Commission. Not everyone will be saved, just the elect. Jesus Himself tells us this in the 24th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, in the end, there will be so much conflict that the love of most will grow cold. Its not going to get any better, partly because the Church refuses to do the work Jesus gave us to do.
I know its a crass way of putting it, but I don’t expect the unsaved to follow God’s morality any more than I expect my dog to sit down at the table with me with a napkin in his lap to eat dinner with a knife and fork. Its not in his makeup and its stupid of me to expect him too, same goes for the unbeliever.
That sounds like a good plan… may I come too?
Amazing.
You can deprive proof of God from a picture and I……
can pick my nose.
Good for you.
<3 Sara
RYC: Sometimes I’m serious, sometimes I’m not. I can be irreverent and irrelevant at the same time too.
RYC: You don’t have to kid, you probably can make nose picking look intellegent, I’m one of those sloppy pickers…..
It always looks like I’m trying to poke my brain. Lol.
<3 Sara
P.S.
Update already.
I love your entrys!!!
RYC: I’ll take that as a compliment.
I like to write things that get you disturbed and thinking.
Bet cha never saw the ending coming did ya, lol.
Did it cross the line?
__________________________
Well hurry, hurry. I wanna read it, lol.
(On second thought don’t rush brilliance.)
<3 Sara
I work 9 hours and usually get paid for 8...how do I get a job like yours? Hahaha…
Study hard young padawan, study hard…..
Yeah………
-Isaac
My church is also closely knit and smaller.
Not only that, we have men in my church that back me. I can go to them with problems and get wise advice, prayer ect…
Its good.
Thanks for the comment!
PS - did you hear about the YG that had a youth “revival” that got thousands of youth out? It was a mega church - and the revival was amazing. So many youth came…God was there.
oh yeah! The coolest part??? They played a game called “the price is right”. Grand prize? 2006 Mustang. The car.
I need to go to more youth revivals.
See you around.
http://www.totalaxxess.com/audiovault/audio/5_jars_of_clay_nothing_but_the_b.mp3
For your listening pleasure. Its only 56k quality – but its a live acoustic version. Gots a great unplugged feel to it.
I’m listening to it right now actually…I might just post it on my xanga, despite the poorer sound quality.
Enjoy.
RYC: yes, it does. That story, dispite the fact that it is HORRIBLY written, has never not managed to freak me out.
ugh what is up with you and god
I know…it’s just sometimes you feel so…alone.
you know what else this picture proves? that today’s world would be a completly different place without jungle-jyms for highly immature seniors to play on.
nah…it’s a swing set see. The lack of jungly gyms would make no difference, Caleb would climb something else.
WAit a second… so just cause ou can’t see the light means the sun isn’t there? What drugs are you taking.? The sun is there… thats why the light is there… the shadow is there cause the sun has direction.
Believe me I’m a photographer.. I’ve photographed the sun… it exists… you all keep fooling yourselves into believing in this thing thats out there, that you’ve never touched.
HAve you ever wondered, with all the prayers people make in this world, how come all this shit still happens in the world. Soon enough you’ll realise that God doesn’t answer prayers… and then you’ll wonder what god actually does in this world, whats God’s purpose if he doesn’t change anything… You haven’t seen people die in your arms..
Its a shame
On your first argument: one could argue that if we open the frame up a bit, we see the sun and therefore there is not necessarily always a light source outside the frame. It just means you aren’t looking at the big picture. Beyond that, God is not the only term we know for ultimate cause. There is no particular reason given why causality can’t stretch back into infinity or why the ultimate cause should have any God-like properties. Isn’t this just an argument for deism?
On the ontological argument: there actually is no brightest possible white. There is a limit for pictures because FFFFFF (or however many hexes the format uses) is going to code as some particular shade. In reality though, you can just keep piling it on. It’s difficult to generate more than a certain amount of light and any matter will vaporize if you pump enough energy into it, so there are practical limits, but no theoretical ones. There is a theoretical absolute black, however it’s impossible to reach for practical reasons. Essentially, this is a sort of concept of God, but there’s no reason why it would have to actually exist. And again, you’ve only named a concept God, you haven’t tied it to any particular conception of God. Labelling doesn’t create truth. If I change by name to George W. Bush, I still won’t be president.