I am curious...why should God "have to be provable"?
- Thread starter Arsen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It won't y'know.Arsen said:
But as to your question, A deity needs to be provable because I refuse to waste a decent portion of my life worshipping something that probably doesn't exist. Prove it exists and will be pissed off if I don't worship it and I will.
The necessity of proof is down to the individual. If someone genuinely believes in God, and they're happy to do so without what others might consider solid evidence, thats absolutely fine. Likewise, its also fine if someone doesn't want to believe in God unless his existance is proved as entirely infallible.
If the belief in a deity, or "God", didn't cause such a terrifying amount of problems for the world people wouldn't be trying to disprove it all the time. Also, if people could learn to be humble instead of arrogant there wouldn't be an equal effort out to prove it.
To answer your question. If something is to have any kind of influence in the real world then it has to be sustained by at least one type of human reasoning. Be it physical evidence, reason or logic etc. All types of religion fail at this.
To answer your question. If something is to have any kind of influence in the real world then it has to be sustained by at least one type of human reasoning. Be it physical evidence, reason or logic etc. All types of religion fail at this.
But the thing about religion is that it does not claim to "succeed" in being a proof. If a deity has to be proven to you, then you have no motivation for said religion to begin with which defeats the purpose. It's fine to want to prove the existence of a deity, but basing belief on it misses the point.
Because there are two 'truths' in this world. Religion and Science. Science is provable, so everyone that believes in science comments about religion not being provable and thus being the lesser truth.
Wow, just came up with that on the spot.
Wow, just came up with that on the spot.
It's about man's never ending quest for knowledge. Hypothetically (read: Religiously), God gave us the faculty to reason out the universe, which we have been doing since before recorded history. We do not always do it accurately, but we always do it. If reason has allowed us deeper understanding of one thing in Creation, it makes reasonable (see what I did there?) sense that reason would allow us to understand another, and perhaps even God itself. Humanity strives, seeks, finds, but it does not yield, to paraphrase Tennyson.
The problem arises when people believe that there exists two clear sides to the matter and forces others to choose between one of the two: the True Believers with whom faith alone holds sway, and the Skeptics, who would not believe in God unless science proved God's existence without a doubt. In fact, throughout Christian history, people have been questioning God's existence not as a matter of atheism, but as a way to gain a deeper understanding of God. Aquinas, for instance. Some early church fathers believed that God could only be understood in the negative (i.e. infinite is the negative of finite) and thus could not be understood in the affirmative. On top of that, one must consider that other religions have existed throughout the history of the world, each with its own understanding of deity. In what do you have faith? Why is one faith truer than another? Lot's of people go "well, it doesn't matter which God you believe in, so long as you believe in a higher power" but the truth is, organized religions almost universally condemn the practitioners of other religions to some form of hell. And organized religions claim these condemnations come from on high. So it makes sense to go: "Well, I don't want to be sent to hell, which is the right religion? How do we know? Maybe we should find God and ask him."
The problem arises when people believe that there exists two clear sides to the matter and forces others to choose between one of the two: the True Believers with whom faith alone holds sway, and the Skeptics, who would not believe in God unless science proved God's existence without a doubt. In fact, throughout Christian history, people have been questioning God's existence not as a matter of atheism, but as a way to gain a deeper understanding of God. Aquinas, for instance. Some early church fathers believed that God could only be understood in the negative (i.e. infinite is the negative of finite) and thus could not be understood in the affirmative. On top of that, one must consider that other religions have existed throughout the history of the world, each with its own understanding of deity. In what do you have faith? Why is one faith truer than another? Lot's of people go "well, it doesn't matter which God you believe in, so long as you believe in a higher power" but the truth is, organized religions almost universally condemn the practitioners of other religions to some form of hell. And organized religions claim these condemnations come from on high. So it makes sense to go: "Well, I don't want to be sent to hell, which is the right religion? How do we know? Maybe we should find God and ask him."
Because I refuse to accept the sexist, homophobic and violent ways the bible teaches without adequate proof. The god outlined in the holy bible is not the kind of god I'd want to accept, much less worship even if he was proven to be real.
There are a lot of stupid things that mainstream faith try to claim, and I just don't see why people should want to beleive with adequate proof. Having faith in an organized religion is less about having faith in a higher power and more about having faith in what people tell you.
There are a lot of stupid things that mainstream faith try to claim, and I just don't see why people should want to beleive with adequate proof. Having faith in an organized religion is less about having faith in a higher power and more about having faith in what people tell you.
Because stating that something exists wihtout proof is a logical fallacy of the highest order, religion makes the claim that an all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent being created the world and all life so therefore they have the burden of proof. If your like me and you care about what you beleive in being right then you will look for evidence to support that beleif for god there is NONE outside of personal experiances.Arsen said:
Why would we care? Because we can only perceive thngs within our own limited mentality everyhting within the world we perceive to make claims beyond that is rediculous, If god truly is so far beyond our perception as some claim then how can you even begin to make ANY claims about it.
Anyway it boils down to make a claim, you have the burden of proof.
Science isnt always proveable, science and religion are almost a ying-yang type realationship.TheDuckbunny said:
Like we know that everything is basicly atoms but we dont know why they are there and if someone created them or put them there.
What science dosnt know is religion. What religion dosnt know is science.