Am plecat de la cele doua afirmatii si am incercat sa construiesc un rationament.Nu mai am cand sa si traduc,scuze.Ce am scris trebuie privit in interdependeta si nu izolat.Nu am pretentia sa conving pe cineva.Expun doar un punct de vedere,fiecare sa judece conform propriei sale contiinte:

Thomas Hobbes:

“Curiosity or love of the knowledge of causes, draws a man from consideration of the effect, to seek the cause, and again, the cause of that cause; till of necessity he must come to this thought at last, that there is some cause, whereof there is no former cause, but is eternal; which is men call God“.

“...though they cannot have any idea of him in their mind, answerable to his nature.For a man that is born blind, hearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought to warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himself, there is somewhat there, which men call fire, and is the cause of heat he feels; but cannot imagine what it is like“.

Mortimer Adler:

,,An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do."

Partea deductiva de rationament:

,,Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times.

If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard."

Critica :

,,One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular.

Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.

To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm."

Sfantul Teofan Zavoratul a sintetizat: ,,Taina religiei: Care este lucrarea celor care se ingrijesc de mantuire sufletului? Sa IL aiba pe Dumnezeu ca Dumnezeu al lor si sa se vada pe sine ca pe unii care sunt ai lui Dumnezeu.A-l avea pe Dumnezeu ca Dumnezeu al tau este o latura a acestei lucrari care nu poate capata temeinicie daca va lipsi latura a doua care este constiinta ca suntem ai lui Dumnezeu,altfel spus incredintarea ca,precum tu IL ai pe Dumnezeu ca Dumnezeu al tau,asa si Dumnezeu te are ca are ca om al Lui.Aici este miezul unirii cu Dumnezeu si toata taina religiei".

Este ce spunea si Hobbs cand vorbea despre ,,but cannot imagine what it is like".Din acel rationament lipsea constiinta,era nevoie de un factor exterior.In acel post extrem de plictisitor am incadrat situatia la: ,,c).A treia problemă legată de negarea adevărului absolut este eşecul de a trăi la nivelul a ceea ce ştim că este adevărat în propriile noastre conştiinţe"

Acest esec,in opinia mea,te aduce in situatia raportarii din explicatia lui Hobbes. Ai nevoie de factori exteriori, adica opus la esenta sintezei lui Sf.Teofan Zavoratul. N-a spus Mantuitorul ,,Căci, iată, împărăţia lui Dumnezeu este înăuntrul vostru."(Luca 17:21)?

Constiinta ca suntem ai Lui...cred ca aici este diferenta intre cele doua situatii.