Art is indeed evidence of the person who created it. But thats because art is an artificial object that does not exist in nature. By contrast, the same does not hold true for humans, animals, the Earth, the universe, etc., because the empirical evidence, when examined carefully for the most likely explanation that excludes other explanations, clearly shows that those things formed through natural processes. Not so with a gallery full of art. Thus, this man did not prove that God exists in three minutes. He merely *argued* that point, and did a poor job of it, since the essence of his argument was an obvious false analogy. God is an article of belief. His existence does not lie within falsifiable, testable matters of fact, and therefore, there is proof of his existence, or is proof even relevant, since matters of religion do not require proof. They provide meaning for those who subscribe to them, and are not about empirical matters. To try and fit the square peg of religious ideas into the round hole of empiricism is to miss the point of both.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:32:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015