Mike,
I give you the words of Sam Harris, author of
The End of Faith:
Faith is what credulity becomes when it achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse.
In other words, you want to communicate in Mikespeak, regardless of the fact that no one else can speak the language. "Proof" and "logic" and "true" mean whatever you want them to mean. It's like playing chess with a four-year-old who thinks the rules don't matter.
You set up a deductive proof of God's existence that says
If we exist, God exists. Since we exist, therefore God exists. I apologize if you can't or won't recognize that literally anything could be "proven" this way, but that's the fact of the matter. The reason I asked if you were still parodying yourself is because I can't imagine any other reason an adult would put such a concept into words.
The reason I ignored what you evidently consider the meat of your post is that it was so irrelevant. Asking why the universe exists or why phenomena have causes is not something a philosopher would waste a lot of time considering. Certain basic facts have to be taken as given (i.e. that the universe exists) before we can even begin to formulate a fruitful discussion. You merely tweaked the major premise of your original proof to read
If time exists, then God exists, with similarly predictable (and unconvincing) results.
Lam's original challenge was for a believer to provide some objective evidence to back up his faith. Your question
Why are we here? is not an answer to this challenge.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
™ Version 4.2
