關於愛，我是個小學生。

全文【論證】總整理

有效論證十有四，以下按出現順序排列，後附整理：

1.「如果說萬物都有起因 (p,q)，那麼，上帝也必有起因 (g)；如果起因不存在 (~p)，那整個世界抑或上帝皆因此毫無主從關係可言 (~q)。」If p, then q; g = p, so if g, then q. (Requisition: g = p!)

2.「人類所掌握的規律只是隨機事件出現的統計平均數。因此，所謂自然法則這一整套說法就不像過去那樣吸引人了。」我滿腦錯愕！？哲學但求真理，有憑有據，實是求是；試問吸不吸引人 (impressive) 於討論何益？雖是講演一篇，然其為何許人也，又話題震驚嚴肅，自當謹言乎矣。

3.「認為有自然法則 (N) 就有法則制訂者 (creator) 的這一看法，乃因將自然法則和人為規則 (M) 混為一談之故。」Because N is not eaqual to M, N has no creator. = M has a creator. But what if N has a creator but the creator is not human, then N is still not eaqual to M, yet N has a creator? 此篇真為羅氏所撰？我開始懷疑了。

4.「要是你說上帝高興怎麼做就怎麼做，不必什麼理由 (R)，那你又會發覺有些事物並不合乎規律 (I)；於是，自然法則的一系列理論便產生了矛盾 (C)。」If R and I, then C? But if R, then I doesn't exist. I is C. So if R, then ~I. = If R, then ~C.

5.「如果上帝的創造真有法則可循 (L)，那麼上帝本人也應受法則的約束 (R)，因此，把上帝搬出來作為中介，並沒有什麼好處 (~A)。」If L, then R? Why is a carpenter necessarily to be restricted by the pieces he created? What kind of logic is this? If R, then ~A? That means if God is not restricted by the laws He Himself stipulated, then there is benefit to humans to have Him be an intermediary between laws and the creatures?! Are the three factors, intermediary, laws, and humans, RELEVANT TO ONE ANOTHER?

6.「上帝並不能滿足你 (~S)，因為祂不是規律的最初創造者 (~C)。」If ~C, then ~S. = If C, then S. Really? Why does God serve your purpose only if He is the Creator of laws?

7.「如果你堅信確有是非之分 (F)，那就得說明是非之分是否出自上帝的命令 (E)。」If F, then E. It is only true if God does EXIST. But I remember the topic of the article is 'Why I am NOT A CHRISTIAN?'

8.「如果是 (G)，那麼對上帝本身來說便無是非之分 (N)，再說上帝至善便毫無意義了 (M)。」If G, then N? What if a lamb doesn't resemble its mother? = If N, then M. NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!

9.「如果你像神學家那樣，認為上帝至善 (V)，那就得承認絕對的是非獨立於上帝的命令 (D)，」M = V (Sophist...), and if V, then D? This is totally NONSENSE! If God is good, why do we have to admit such being good HAS TO be independent from His fiat? G, N,M,V,D form themselves into a closed loop...

10.「因為上帝的命令正是創造了是非善惡的基準 (O)，故此是非善惡非能以彼是非善惡所約定 (R)。」If O, then R? If evidence prepared, It can be true.

11.「如果是 (R)，你就必須承認，是非的產生並不只是由於上帝的命令產生，還出自邏輯上早於上帝的存在所產生 (A)。」If R, then A? Laugh... Russell tumbled himself over the question he made for his audience: 'Then who made God?' The issue we are now talking about lies exactly on the absolute existence and the 'ultimate' being'. Since this will be 'ultimate', it will no longer be an unlimited predecessor chain. If Russell insisted us to answer this question, he should have answered his own first.

12.「我們在這個世界上發現很多不公平，因此我們有理由認為世界上並無正義可言。依此看來，這就為人們提供了一個反對神祇之說的道德藉口了。」歸納論證法使用於社會人文科學之謬誤，在此畢露無遺。

13.「這意思就是說 (R)，如果不堅信基督教 (C)，我們都會變邪惡了 (W)。」If R is true, then if ~C, then W. What is R? R is a piece of literary works. R maybe false, so ~C then W maybe false. 羅氏否認以自欺欺人的態度來面對宗教。我深表認同。不過，前面數段，以他所寫的主張與論證看來，似乎並非如此。

14.「恐懼是整個問題的基礎 --- 對神祕的事物、對失敗、對死亡的恐懼。」之中隱藏了一個論證：｢宗教 (R) 以恐懼 (F) 為基礎 (C)，恐懼為對神祕事物、失敗、死亡的未知 (I)，故對神祕事物、失敗、死亡的未知為宗教的基礎。If R consists in F, that is, C is true, and F = I, then R consists in I.｣ 依舊，那要先證明 (C) 為真才行，就算為真，但這仍和  上帝存在的真確性無關，我以為，  上帝是否存在，才是吾人是否為其信徒之最終依據。若僅依某人或團體知言行舉止駁斥本源之理性存在辯證，豈配稱之為 ｢哲學研究｣？

【待續】