This page is dedicated to Jesus Christ

Finally, the site feels like it's beginning to expand. I'd like to point out that from any page in here, if you, the reader ever see the word "Author" underlined or "the Man Upstairs," then it's not talking about me, it's talking about God. So, without further delay, I'll let you get into some...
Tough thinking from the Author:

The lowdown on what to think of some ideas...
Part Three

What is soundness? .
We test the soundness of an argument by determining whether the
argument is true in real life. Remember the analogy of soundness. A sound
argument is like a bridge that leads across a river. As long as each part of the
bridge is solid, or sound, then a person can use that bridge to get safely across
the river. This involves examining each part of the argument. A person can
see that the bridge reaches all the way across the river, but if they don’t
examine the bridge for missing or damaged parts, they won’t know if it is safe
to travel across. If you didn’t read the brief discussion of “Validity and
Soundness” previously, follow the link below so you can understand what
this discussion will cover.
.

Validity and Soundness (Part One)
.
    Logicians generally evaluate validity before soundness, because soundness
can be somewhat abstract. People can, at times, disagree about whether or
not an argument is actually true, despite the logic. However, the following
rule is often used to evaluate soundness:
.
    1.) If an argument is invalid, then it is automatically unsound.
    2.) If an argument is valid, it may or may not be sound.
    3.) If an argument is sound, then it must be valid.
.
    Using the above, we understand why validity should be tested first. We
also know that if an argument is proven to be sound, then it is valid. How
could a person prove an argument was true when the logic they used was not
valid? This would be like constructing a solid bridge in thin air with nothing
to support it.
    The problem?
    This is exactly what is happening when a person attempts to use science to
deny the creation. Arguably, there is also no proof of creation. But that isn’t
the point. Even in an absence of evidence, an event can still occur. People
have been murdered and the Federal Bureau of Investigation hasn’t been able
to solve all of the criminal investigations. There is no evidence, except proof
of a murder: a person is dead because a weapon was used to kill them, there
are fingerprints on the murder weapon, but there is no trail. Murder cases
have sometimes gone unsolved for years. But the lack of evidence does not
mean that the victim was not murdered.
    Creation is like the ultimate mystery. We have fingerprints of God, but we
don’t have all of the pieces of the puzzle. We have remnants passed down
through generations of faithful scribes--we even have tangible words from
God in the Bible, truths which have been sound since the very beginning.
    All a scientist would need is evidence. But a lot of the physical evidence is
missing. And, it could be argued, a lot of the physical evidence is ambiguous.
You can't prove one side or the other. The fossil record appears to show a process
of evolution over millions of years, but the Bible says creation took six days. Who
is in a position to argue? Who is right? Can they go against the Almighty? If God
really does exist, can his creation be used to disprove him?
.
    We return to the argument of the building. Can anything found inside of a
building be used to disprove that somebody built it, or that somebody
designed it.
    Whenever we attempt to construct a valid argument that denies God’s
existence, we come up against a wall. There is a missing premise that will
forever deny us success. We cannot deny God’s existence with logic. It is as
though we were trapped inside a box as big as the universe. No argument of
ours can get us out of the box.
.
    What if we find alternate universes? An alternate universe might have laws
of physics that are entirely different from the physics of this universe. But if
we gained access to that universe, all that proves is that humans can get into
other universes. If we were created by God, proof of another universe
doesn’t deny that God created us. In fact, empirical proof of an alternate
universe would only prove that creation extends out of this universe and into
another universe.
    What if we find life on other planets? Or what if humans create artificial
living organisms in the laboratory? Empirical proof that life could be created
by a human would not disprove that God is the creator. In fact, without the
aid of scientific machinery, humans create life every day by having children.
    What if we find out how to fly faster than light? That just means we can
fly faster than the speed of light. It would do absolutely nothing to disprove
God’s existence, but instead does everything to change the way physicists
view the speed of light.
.
    When we attempt to argue that God does not exist, we find ourselves
trapped in the “box.” The “box” is our own physical existence. All we can
prove with physical evidence is that something physical exists, or does not
exist, in this universe. But God does not have to exist in this universe. He is
beyond our realm of understanding, and it is our understanding of the universe
that comprises the “box” which contains us and prevents us from disproving
God. We can’t prove the soundness of an invalid argument.
    And any argument that tries to disprove that God created this universe, or
disprove that God even exists, is an argument that is missing a premise. The
only thing that would support that argument is a logical way to get outside the
“box.” But there exists no such premise. It cannot be found by science. It
cannot be found by any human, because we are limited in our understanding.
Our life on Earth is limited to a short count of decades.
    Just try to compare a person’s understanding, amassed over only six to
twelve decades or less, to the understanding which God must have if he is
eternal. We can’t live long enough, we can’t search far enough, we can’t
understand enough to try to disprove God. We cannot find the missing
premise that leads to the total logical disproof of God and of creation. It
simply does not exist.
.
    And that missing premise renders the whole argument invalid.
.
    And the invalidity of the whole argument, as a result of the missing
premise, renders the whole argument unsound.
.
    The disproof of God with scientific thought or logic is humanly impossible.
It is scientifically impossible. It is philosophically impossible. By definition,
the disproof of God is categorically impossible. No matter who you are,
where you come from, or what you know, you will never disprove the
existence of God, and you will never disprove that he created you.
.
    If you do not believe in God, please do not think that these arguments were
meant to insult you. Disbelief is common. People are not expected to believe
everything they hear or read. But I suggest something to you if you do not believe.
Please do not walk away without looking at both sides of the issue. The Bible has
answers for you if you look for them. There are some questions that the Bible may
not answer, but there is something waiting for you in God’s word. You still have a
chance to learn about God and learn about the power of Jesus, his son. He gave his
life for you, and he loves you just as much as he loves any believer.
    I suggest, to the person who wants to believe, that you continue seeking God
earnestly. You will find him. Find a congregation of believers who agree with the
word of God and they will help you to learn more, they will help you to believe.
    People are praying for you, whether you believe or not. God bless you.

As the author of this website, I do not extend my copyrights to this material. Feel free
to copy any material seen in these pages and send it to someone you care about.
Above all, the material in this page
is dedicated to Jesus Christ, and not to myself.
.
About The Man Upstairs...

By no means do I intend to offend anyone with this material. But, in the same way my science fiction can make people think about things, so can this. If offended, please understand that these are thoughts I am sharing with the internet community.