tzor wrote:Proof in dialogue form:
Fred: Hey Joe, do you believe in God?
Joe: No.
Fred: Why not? God believes in God.
Joe: No he doesn't.
Fred: Yes he does and I can prove it.
Joe: You can't. God doesn't exist.
Fred: Work with me here. You say God doesn't exist.
Joe: Right.
Fred: That means to you God is nothing.
Joe: BINGO
Fred: And I think it is safe to say that if something is nothing it can't believe at all; it can't believe in anything.
Joe: Correct.
Fred: And anyone who can't believe in anything believes in nothing.
Joe: Yes.
Fred: And that means nothing believes in nothing.
Fred: But you insist that God is nothing or in other words nothing is God.
Fred: So that means if nothing believes in nothing and nothing is God ...
Fred: God bleieves in God, QED.
I'm seeing a few conclusions here... So:
1. Joe is nothing, since "nothing believes in nothing" and "nothing" is replaced with "God" and it was established that to Joe "God" is "nothing"
2. Anything is nothing, unless it believes in anything, since Fred said: "And anyone who can't believe in anything believes in nothing"
3. God is God, because it(he/she) believes in it(him/her)self, since "anything" can be replaced with "God" as well as Fred replaced "nothing" with "God"
What I'm wondering is:
1. If Joe is nothing, why should Fred care whether he believes or not?
2. Does Fred believe in anything? Because if he doesn't, he is clearly nothing, thus the hole discussion does not exist, since 0+0=0 (were nothing=0).
3. If God can exist only while he or she believes in (him/her)self, it means at one point, past or future, he or she may stop to exist. For all I know that is not according to some writings.
Overall, that was funny!
It always amuses me how those who try to prove God's existence, use for this Logic in a twisted form (read lack of it), hoping probably that the one in front of them won't see the flaws. In that little dialogue, the "subject" was changed so many times that I lost track of it.
Cheers!
