If you have read the Hitchhiker's Guide, you will probably be familiar with the part about the babble fish. If not, let me bring you up to speed.
The babble fish is a so heavily advanced creature it is hard to comprehend. It lives inside the auditory canal of a host and feeds on the language of the creatures that the host hears. It then runs the language through an internal biological matrix and excretes the information into the host as the host's native language. It has been used as proof of the NON existance of god. The logic goes something like this.
God: "I refuse to prove myself because my existance requires faith"
Bystander: "But you did prove yourself with the babble fish"
God: "Oh. I suppose you are right"
and he is destroyed in a puff of logic.
Which leads me to my main point. Wouldn't the logic be the same? By proving god, will creationists prove the nonexistance of god? If so, then should evolutionists try to prove god instead of proving one doesn't exist? And if this is the case, if there is any proof to be found, would it ultimately prove evolution? I'm interested in hearing some other opinions.
™ Version 4.2