are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
This, for my purposes has always been a good way to dismiss any argument of theology. What I have never considered before is an Ontological argument for God's existence. I find it incredibly interesting and far more convincing to hear an argument for the existence of god based on logic and necessity as opposed to what I've always been told: You will believe in god or you will be cast into the fiery pits of hell. Though convincing in its own terrifying way, this was never proof enough or even proof at all for god's existence so much as a way to scare people into believing.
What came first, god or existence? If God is the creator of all things and without god existence ceases to be, then all that my mother has told me is sound I suppose. Aquinas' argument for god as a cause for existence easily refute my more youthful assumptions that there is no god. Had my mom a grasp on these concepts I would have lost the arguments that Ultimately resulted in my lack of church attendance. Now I hold true the idea that God, if existent, is something that cannot be explained nor understood, and with this new cosmological explanation of god I find it harder to refute his existence as I have before.
No comments:
Post a Comment