virus: Existence of Telepathy vs. Existence of God

Lior Golgher (
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 16:02:09 -0700

I'd like to use Drakir's theory of telepathy in order to make my former
point clearer.
Drakir's theory is scientific. It is based on ampiric facts and can be
proved\contradicted according to them, and only according to them. The
fact that it's currently only an unproved theory is irrelevant.
Moreover, any disagreements with that theory can be posted as an
antithesis, and discussed logically.

Now, the existance of any God is NOT based on ampiric facts. Unlike
Drakir's broom, if one day some little green creatures would land on
Earth, say "Greetings, we're what you call God", and would be
ampirically proveable, it will have nothing to do with the question of
God's existance, as absurdic as it sounds. The reality upon which the
whole ampiric structre is based is only an axiom, an unproveable claim.
Each try to prove that reality by ampiric proofs will inevitably lead to
meaningless tautaulogy, just as with every axiom. Even though, people
still defend this tautaulogy in the same kind of passion every dumb [no
offense] religious man does - a dogmatic passion hidden by religious
cries. This dogmatism should not be misassociated with religious
fanaticism. The first is a senseless try to make us feel just right by
hiding our basic dependance upon axioms, while the last one simply says
"this is my belief, and it is the truth", nothing more, nothing less,
for the better and [usually] for the worse.

A real contradiction to a religion, the religious parallel to the
ampirical antithesis, can only come from the same axioms and truths upon
which that religion is based - just like a real antithesis to an ampiric
claim can only be ampiric. Therefore arguments about the existence of
God between Atheists, Christans, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. are
meaningless and therefore futile, just as long as they're not based on
the same axiom of the existence of God - internal contradiction.
This does not mean that all the people in the world must base their
preception upon the same axiom of the existence of God so that they all
could share their opinions and argue freely, but the exact opposite -
that all the people in the world should keep on to their preception of
God's existence, remembering that axioms are not argueable.

As for another idea suggested recently, the axiom of God's existence is
definately not a yes\no question. That claim is similar to the claim
that the color of sth is a yes\no question - You can look at it that way
[yes-it has a color\no-it hasn't, yes-the color is red\no-it isn't, and
so on], but it's actually the simple what question - What is God or What
is its color.