This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Proofs are different of reasons
In our talks the problem of existence is one of the main issues . We want to know if a certain thing is real or not , and if it is how does it influence our lives . In order to know it we usually try to find proofs for that thing ; in our hurry to do it many times we confuse reasons for proofs . They are different things . A proof is something that provides sufficient evidence for the existence of something and it's necessarily objective while a reason is
rather something that justify what we think .
I try to think at an example that will made what I said more clear but I find now once again that we actually have/know very few proofs for the things we think we know .
This distinction is crucial when we talk about God . There have been many times put the question : why to believe in the existence of God if I don't have/know any proof for it ? (I don't know of any ).The proofs for God seem to be impossible for us. The answer is simple if we make the distinction : because I have reasons to do it .
This is why I think the battle on this subject should be carried in terms of reasons and that adopting skepticism about this issue because 'I don't have/know proofs' is not necessarily irrational but inappropriate .
Closing Statement from E G
It seems we all agree on the distinction made , we may differ in views on the application of it .
Thanks for commenting .
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
natasha nikulina 50+
Faith in God arises out of the mystery that is the very structure and nature of reality, a mystery that will never be entirely understood despite what those who have placed reason on their altar might like us to believe.
The mystery of life that gives rise to faith suggests that faith is fundamentally rational, logical response to the mysterious. God is a kind of certainty that only the 'reason' 'mind' does not hold the key to understanding of the reality.
For me, God is perfectly natural and not entirely comprehensible. For anyone who asks :
Does God exist ? I'd like to answer with a question : Who do you think is asking ? :)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
When you say god is is symbol, I believe something similar, that the millions of views of what god is or the gods are human ideas. God is an idea. A human construct. There actually is no intelligent entity or creator, just the idea that there is one or many.
Re: The mystery of life that gives rise to faith suggests that faith is fundamentally rational, logical response to the mysterious. This reads like nonsense. Why is it logical to believe in something that has no meaningful evidence, that often reflects primitive attempts to understand the universe, that often reflects the time and place you were born as the explanation for what we don't know or fully understand.
Why not just say I don't know? Why personalise ignorance.
Actually I don't know how you personally define god, whether through an Orthodox Christian or other framework. Maybe you are just calling the unknown, god.
Re: Does God exist ? I'd like to answer with a question : Who do you think is asking - Obviously not enough people who believe in a particular view of god are asking is there a god. Maybe they should also ask why do I believe in my particular definition of god.
Non theists also don't ask is there a flying monkey on the dark side of the moon. But we live in a world filled with billions of different god beliefs so sometimes try and point out most of these make little sense. God is a primitive way to answer many questions. Religion is a powerful force in the world. Maybe that is why - not because there is a god, or god is inspiring us to ask, or that god was needed to explain our existence.
Most likely we evolved a consciousness that could ponder life, the universe etc
I ask you, do you think humans are the only sentient creatures in the universe asking these questions?
natasha nikulina 50+
"I ask you, do you think humans are the only sentient creatures in the universe asking these questions?"
-May I extend your question :
Are there any sentient creatures in the Universe ?
Is it the only Universe ?
And my answer is : I don't know.
"Why is it logical to believe in something that has no meaningful evidence,"
-Faith is logical, rational RESPONSE to the mysterious, I don't think that faith is based on logic or IS logical.
Hope now you see the difference.
"I don't know how you personally define god "
-I don't define God.
I don't believe in any ' holy other' divine being, whatever the name but have respect for people who do.
God is a symbol, but it doesn't imply that it is not real.
"God is a primitive way to answer many questions."
-God is not an answer , God IS a question :
Who am I ? What is real ?
"Religion is a powerful force in the world."
-Yes, indeed !
May I suggest to make a distinction between God and Religion. They are not unconnected but they are not identical either.
"Most likely we evolved a consciousness that could ponder life, the universe etc"
-Not exactly...maybe you are right, but i see it a bit differently.
May I quote : "We are coming to understand that the universe was (sic) aiming towards a space where it could reflect upon itself in conscious self-awareness
and that the human is precisely that space "
I can't take credit for this and don't remember where I've heard it, but I am on board with this vision.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
When you say - what is beyond our comprehension but resides in each of us => god
This is close to god of the gaps. It is impossible to prove or disprove something beyond our comprehension. Just like it is impossible to see or touch something invisible, immaterial, and outside time. Its a kind of circular logic to define something this way. Mind experiences + mystery does not automatically equal god. This is the remnant of a past age and obviously still resonates.
We've had a good discussion and I appreciate that. I think I understand some of where you are coming from. The confidence you have in some divine entity still baffles me. I don't see the final test, the final proof. I doubt personal revelation is a reliable source of justified belief or counts as evidence. Maybe my inability to accept what can not be proven in a reasoned or evidential way might, seeing the intuitive as not a valid pathway to truths about absolute reality, might seem strange to others. Thanks.