Absolute proof of Christianity

[MorkandMindy]

The basis of this proof is that none of the arguments against Christianity are even worth considering, and so as the last man standing, Christianity is the victor.


1. Christianity has a value to the human population on Earth, that is either positive or negative, but it is a distinct value, that can be determined to lie within a particular range. The argument works even if you take it to be the entire planet GDP or the economic contributions of all those killed by the war-mongering of the American Christian Fundies. Whatever your opinion; the economic value is finite.


2. The number of possible arguments against Christianity is not actually finite. It is finite right now but ever-growing and since there appears to be no actual limit to the amount that can be known, there is no limit to the number of counter arguments. There is also a continual spawning of new takes on Christianity, each will undoubtedly have flaws which constitute counter arguments, unless one is the 'right one' in which case the whole of Christendom will eventually come around to accepting it mainly on the basis of no one seeing a need to leave it.


1 & 2 dividing a finite value by an infinite number of arguments leaves each argument having a value of zero.


So all arguments against Christianity are valueless.

 

[quatona]

I don´t accept any sophistry unless it is employing the terms "necessary" and "contingent".

 

[Paradoxum]

The basis of this proof is that none of the arguments against Christianity are even worth considering, and so as the last man standing, Christianity is the victor.

Is this a serious argument? I can't tell.

1. Christianity has a value to the human population on Earth, that is either positive or negative, but it is a distinct value, that can be determined to lie within a particular range. The argument works even if you take it to be the entire planet GDP or the economic contributions of all those killed by the war-mongering of the American Christian Fundies. Whatever your opinion; the economic value is finite.

I don't really understand this? What does GDP have to do with Christianity? How do you know that it has a finite value? Maybe Christianity is priceless or worth nothing.

2. The number of possible arguments against Christianity is not actually finite. It is finite right now but ever-growing and since there appears to be no actual limit to the amount that can be known, there is no limit to the number of counter arguments. There is also a continual spawning of new takes on Christianity, each will undoubtedly have flaws which constitute counter arguments, unless one is the 'right one' in which case the whole of Christendom will eventually come around to accepting it mainly on the basis of no one seeing a need to leave it.

Nothing is infinite. The arguments would never become infinite.

1 & 2 dividing a finite value by an infinite number of arguments leaves each argument having a value of zero.

A finite number divided my a infinite number= 0? I guess that makes sense.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Is this a serious argument? I can't tell.

It is important. If Christianity is false then a lot of people are wasting a lot of time, and passing a lot of laws that are not beneficial. But if Christianity is true then the people are not wasting their time and the laws will help some people get into the afterlife. There really is a lot at stake.

I don't really understand this? What does GDP have to do with Christianity? How do you know that it has a finite value? Maybe Christianity is priceless or worth nothing.

I have used 'value' to mean 'economic worth' throughout the entire proposition.

Nothing is infinite. The arguments would never become infinite.

The arguments are unbounded in number. I had considered using the more precise terms 'tend to infinity' for the number of arguments and for the value per argument the term 'tend toward zero'.

A finite number divided by an infinite number= 0? I guess that makes sense.

It makes sense, but is it meaningful to apply it in this situation?

 

[bhillyard]

Replace the word Christian by Moslem or Hindu or ... and the proponent of that religion would say the same. Any proof of the Christian God must exclude the others in some way. Unless you want to go the way of saying that if there is only one God then any proof of God (whatever name is given to him/her) means they all are one and the same.
Many would find that idea unacceptable.

 

[Paradoxum]

It is important. If Christianity is false then a lot of people are wasting a lot of time, and passing a lot of laws that are not beneficial. But if Christianity is true then the people are not wasting their time and the laws will help some people get into the afterlife. There really is a lot at stake.

True, but I'm not sure that I agree that legal laws can help someone get to heaven. Some of the things Christians advocate to be law shouldn't be law anyway (even if they a morally good).

I have used 'value' to mean 'economic worth' throughout the entire proposition.

That does make sense, but it wasn't obvious at first that you simply meant it to mean monetary value.

The arguments are unbounded in number. I had considered using the more precise terms 'tend to infinity' for the number of arguments and for the value per argument the term 'tend toward zero'.

Still I would think there would be a limit to how many arguments there could be against Christianity simply because there are only some many versions of Christianity. Taken to its extreme, there are only a finite number of combinations within the laws of logic.

I would say the bigger problem is that this whole argument can be applied to anything, not just Christianity.

It makes sense, but is it meaningful to apply it in this situation?

I don't think this argument is going to work honestly.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I call this game "exquisite syllogism" because it reminds me of the products of the surreal game exquisite corpse. The implication is normally it would take two independent minds, trying their best to be "creative", to come up with such a bad argument.

God bless!

 

[cXXo]

This indicates a severe lack of understanding when it comes to logic.

The effect that Christianity has on the world is irrelevant when assessing it's truth. Many people believed the world to be flat, which had a profound effect on the world, but it was ultimately a false statement.

Also, it's non-sensical to try to solve this mathematically. What you're saying is that we are going to divide the effect of Christianity by the number of arguments that can be made against it. Why are you doing that? I can divide the number of times I've eaten donuts (which is finite) by the number of digits of Pi (which is infinite) does that mean that the value of Pi is 0?

Your post is an argument against religion. How can something that produces such illogical ideas and stupidity be good?

 

[keith99]

Absolut proof is usually 80, but it also comes in 100 proof.

Just wanted to ahve somethign actually useful in this thread.

 

[cXXo]

No dude, absolute proof is ABSOLUTE. 100%. Meaning 99.999% is very likely, but not ABSOLUTE.

 

[Blayz]

No dude, absolute proof is ABSOLUTE. 100%. Meaning 99.999% is very likely, but not ABSOLUTE.

Actually its about 96%, alcohol is deliquescent to a certain degree. If you create 100% alcohol it will suck water from the air until it drops down to about 96%.

Also if you divide the finite value of Christianity by it's infinite detractions to get 0, it's the numerator (Christianity) that is valued at 0, not denominator.

 

[TScott]

The basis of this proof is...

Christianity is faith based, is it not?

I guess my question is why is proof important to you?

It seems that the need for proof only indicates a lack of faith.

 

[The Nihilist]

Christianity is faith based, is it not?

I guess my question is why is proof important to you?

It seems that the need for proof only indicates a lack of faith.

Today it is, but only because of science. In the past, the role of god in a people's daily lives was supposed to be obvious. However embarrassing the god of the gaps is today, it's historically been a significant argument.

 

[GrayAngel]

The basis of this proof is that none of the arguments against Christianity are even worth considering, and so as the last man standing, Christianity is the victor.


1. Christianity has a value to the human population on Earth, that is either positive or negative, but it is a distinct value, that can be determined to lie within a particular range. The argument works even if you take it to be the entire planet GDP or the economic contributions of all those killed by the war-mongering of the American Christian Fundies. Whatever your opinion; the economic value is finite.


2. The number of possible arguments against Christianity is not actually finite. It is finite right now but ever-growing and since there appears to be no actual limit to the amount that can be known, there is no limit to the number of counter arguments. There is also a continual spawning of new takes on Christianity, each will undoubtedly have flaws which constitute counter arguments, unless one is the 'right one' in which case the whole of Christendom will eventually come around to accepting it mainly on the basis of no one seeing a need to leave it.


1 & 2 dividing a finite value by an infinite number of arguments leaves each argument having a value of zero.


So all arguments against Christianity are valueless.

Can't the same be said for any religion, or any side of any controversial topic for that matter? Are all arguments valueless?

 

[jpcedotal]

No dude, absolute proof is ABSOLUTE. 100%. Meaning 99.999% is very likely, but not ABSOLUTE.

there goes evolution then...of course it doesn't stand up to 50% proof.

 

[The Nihilist]

there goes evolution then...of course it doesn't stand up to 50% proof.

I wish someone would explain science to you guys.

 

[TScott]

Today it is, but only because of science. In the past, the role of god in a people's daily lives was supposed to be obvious. However embarrassing the god of the gaps is today, it's historically been a significant argument.

I think I understand what you're saying. There seems to be no doubt that the role of gods in ancient times were to fill in gaps in our understanding of our surroundings; sky gods, water gods, etc. I suppose you could say that the personal God of today, specifically the Abrahamic God deals in the final frontier (the final gap?) of human understanding-the understanding of the qualia that make up the human consciousness.

I think most Christians realize that the Universe is more than 6000 years old and I think some, like me, understand that much of the early books of the old Testament are indeed allegorical writings derived from earlier Babylonian and Sumerian writings. Some of us also understand that there are historical innaccuracies in all scripture. To me these were writings written 2-3000 years ago and should be used as a more general referrence-in that I'm sure I'm a minority, but thats just me. But even with all that, I think there are some questions about us that are not easily answered by science alone-heck when it comes to questions of our consciousness science hasn't even been able to come up with valid questions-let alone answers.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think I understand what you're saying. There seems to be no doubt that the role of gods in ancient times were to fill in gaps in our understanding of our surroundings; sky gods, water gods, etc. I suppose you could say that the personal God of today, specifically the Abrahamic God deals in the final frontier (the final gap?) of human understanding-the understanding of the qualia that make up the human consciousness.

I think most Christians realize that the Universe is more than 6000 years old and I think some, like me, understand that much of the early books of the old Testament are indeed allegorical writings derived from earlier Babylonian and Sumerian writings. Some of us also understand that there are historical innaccuracies in all scripture. To me these were writings written 2-3000 years ago and should be used as a more general referrence-in that I'm sure I'm a minority, but thats just me. But even with all that, I think there are some questions about us that are not easily answered by science alone-heck when it comes to questions of our consciousness science hasn't even been able to come up with valid questions-let alone answers.

I think you're a reasonable man, but your position represents a fall-back position for christianity, and stands in stark contrast to that of Thomas Aquinas, that science should reveal what is already taught in theology. However fervent its followers, christianity is a worldview in decline.

 

[TScott]

I think you're a reasonable man, but your position represents a fall-back position for christianity, and stands in stark contrast to that of Thomas Aquinas, that science should reveal what is already taught in theology. However fervent its followers, christianity is a worldview in decline.

No doubt, but the reason has nothing to do with Jesus or God and everything to do with the dogmatists. You could ask most Christians which was the most important facit of their religion and most would immediately tell you it was dogma. Few would say it was the teachings of it's pricipal figure. (Jesus, not Paul) Even to be "officially" considered a Christian one must claim belief in dogma that few even understand: The Trinity.

 

[The Nihilist]

No doubt, but the reason has nothing to do with Jesus or God and everything to do with the dogmatists. You could ask most Christians which was the most important facit of their religion and most would immediately tell you it was dogma. Few would say it was the teachings of it's pricipal figure. (Jesus, not Paul) Even to be "officially" considered a Christian one must claim belief in dogma that few even understand: The Trinity.

I'd like to respond by saying that it's always super nice to run in to someone who cares about what Jesus did while he was alive, rather than just how he died.