UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 5 to Meditation 797
Taking on "Challenge 3"

by: Kristine Robinson

To add to this exchange of views (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

I think having a doctorate from IUN (my favourite university) would be fun and a huge boost for my ego, so looking at the options presented I've decided I really want to challenge based on sections of the chapter published here: http://www.conclusiveproofofgod.com/ that have not yet been published on the UCTAA site.

The first sentence of Chapter 3 states "In this chapter I'm going to present an overall proof of the existence of God from the perspectives of science, logic and direct observations of how nature operates"

Great.  I think that is a wonderful starting point.  I wouldn't accept any proof that didn't conform with science and logic, and if there's direct observation involved, then AWESOME! 

But, skip down four paragraphs and it says "In a search for that answer, I will now show why we should abandon any kind of physical explanation to the origin of the physical universe."

Wait, what?

I just want to get this straight.  There is an intent here to present an overall proof, blah, blah, using science by NOT USING SCIENCE?

Science is physical explanation of a physical universe.  It attempts to answer one question.  The question is "How?"

Even if the rest of the gobbledygook in the chapter constituted something intelligible, there would still be a "how".  Unfortunately, the author has taken the "how" and told us it doesn't matter, because he thinks he knows the "who".

That's like looking at Criss Angel walking on water, saying "How did he do that?" and being replied with "It's Criss Angel, don't even bother asking."  If I then say "But I've seen videos on Youtube showing how it could be replicated," the reply would then be "Those videos can't be right, because I don't want them to be."

There is no effort on the part of the author to actually do what he has said he is going to do, i.e. present a proof.  Instead he has provided excuses for not presenting a proof.  Because with all the observable consistency of mathematics which is present in the Universe, Dennis Marcellino's God didn't have an actual method of constructing things.  He just did it.