Religion of Love




Man » PQR » Provability and Proof of L  (Previous | Next)



Provability and Proof of L

[480] Only to demand from L will not do justice to zer. We should be content with if we may talk "only" to a divine instance since it is indistinguishable from L for us. Divine instances are to be addressed therefore with L. We know from reports that there is more than that what constitutes the human existence. The complexity of the world and the miracles make L in addition to the creation more than only a hypothesis.

[481] We cannot prove L, but zis probability lies close to 100%. It jibs the sense of justice accrued in us that everything is over for us with death. Our imaginative power outreaches what is given with this world. We have e.g. the idea of infinity which exceeds our finite world. Why should not exist what we can well imagine?

[482] From the improbability of our world and its existence we can reason nevertheless the existence of the probable! Why the infinite should not exist? Why then L should not exist? Everything argues for L: Nothing develops on its own, for intelligence is necessary like the fine tuning of the constants, the highest characteristics, which we can imagine, should also exist.

[976] L is more than a law holding the universe together. Laws are general and persistent, L is yet individual and develops. Since the world also develops, rigid laws are insufficient to fulfil its needs. If so, it had to be a perpetual optimising principle that adapts to changing circumstances. But who wants to be determined already by an abstract principle?

[977] We want to be cared for after our individual needs - with heart and soul. If such a supervisor does not exist, it is something given to us humans what we would have the advantage of over the principle. But how can something emerge from nothing with the development of man without a creator? The principle would bring something of desirable value into being that it does not possess by itself. So it cannot also be optimal, but creates suboptimal.

[978] Since it would not perpetually optimise itself, we would be dominated by something morally doubtable. But there are people who are morally almost beyond all doubt. So the principle would be lower than many a person. Thus, there is not such a principle standing above man. But now we notice a perpetual optimisation, not only founded in man: this is a contradiction!

[979] It is reference theoretically impossible to create something what one does not possess, since the creator has all crucial references to the created. So if one had to assign ownership, then one had to do it to the creator. Ze has first to dissolve the references of zis ownership before one can say ze would not possess the created anymore. The creator will consider accurately with what ownership ze will part when ze wants to be optimal.

[980] Hence, there is a account manager who can fulfil our needs: L. This optimal proof may be extended to an ideal one if we imagine that we anytime would create what is ideal after our knowledge, if we only could. Again the optimality found in man would be a contradiction to the missing optimality of L. Unfortunately, we can (only) prove a divine instance ("L").

[981] Man cannot state anything about the essential individuality of L since it transcends zis imagination. But ze can exclude certain human characteristics that are lower than the highest ideal of mankind. All human ideals are finite and can never do justice to L. Even the predicate infinite is too weak to touch what L essentially represents.

© 2006-2009 by Boris Haase


Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • mail@relil.de • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top