Wednesday, March 24, 2010

I Think Therefore I AM Is

Just a little thought exercise about things that ultimately matter...

We exist, self-aware, but chance is not even close to being a sufficient cause to explain our existence.
Therefore, something other than blind chance is responsible for our existence.


Whatever we can do, think, envision, discover, or know, the something responsible for our existence must be able to do better.
Therefore that something must be personal and intelligent.


Since we can reason, explore and discover, especially things like those above, that something must have wanted us to be aware of his existence.
Therefore that something must be communicative.


Everything that exists is highly ordered, symbiotic and incredibly efficient within its environment.
Therefore, that something should not be expected to be inscrutible, indifferent, or uncertain, and especially not so in his communication to us.


Therefore, it should be expected that something would have spoken to us clearly, in an engaging, inviting, and understandable way, and there is neither reason nor excuse not to know of him.

Only Christianity can swim in these waters. Or in other, somewhat Cartesian words: I think, therefore "I AM" is.

Perhaps you have some thoughts that would fit into the exercise.

4 comments:

  1. God seems to think that it's a good argument since that's what we find in Romans 1:20

    "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..."

    Creation, and especially our very nature are evidence of I AM. I guess you have to be blind to miss it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blind like one of the those three monkeys avoiding evil? Of course, that's self-induced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think its called "total depravity", but it doesn't always manifest as out and out atheism.

    The argument is as sound as the part that acknowledges that we did not "come about by chance". thus, the argument fails for the "statistically challenged" who, like the Red Queen, are capable of imagining six impossible things before breakfast.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerald,
    Loved the double entendre in citing Carroll, nicely done!

    You are correct, the argument rises or falls on the statistical assertion. One has to believe in a string of impossible occurrences (improbable wouldn't do justice to the extremely large numbers) in order to maintain that chance, rather than God, is all that is necessary to explain the development of life in the universe. Whew, talk about a Red Queen principle!

    Between the two perspectives, I think atheism requires more faith!

    ReplyDelete

Any comment in ill taste or not germane to the post may be deleted without warning. I am under no obligation to give anyone an opportunity to call me names or impugn my motives or integrity. If you can't play nice, go somewhere else and play.