Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an unusually honest admission relative to most theists in my experience.
I have zero issue with someone who understands what faith actually is and that what they choose to have faith in is what appeals to and resonates with them. Because someone like that has a fighting chance of respecting that I withhold belief for reasons that are good and sufficient to me: lack of what I can accept as evidence. As you say, you're not obligated to provide evidence for your faith. Indeed you are not, so long as you don't claim that your faith is rational or reasonable in some externally validatable way.
I was also stunned at his/her admission. Most religious folks tend to go on and on in circles about how their beliefs are true because of this or that.
There are some things in life we have no way of proving. Deities and universal origins are a few of them.
Thus we are left to have faith in what ever way you want to rationalize this earth, be it spiritually or through science.
Someone is right. Guess we will all find out (or not) when we die.
Deities are unfalsifiable and therefore unprovable, yes.
Ultimate origins is simply an unknown at this point and may also be unknowable.
There is a difference though between believing IN something and acknowledging that something is simply not known. I don't know the mechanism by which life arose from non-life or by which the universe came into existence (assuming that is even something that ever happened).
What I DO have an informed opinion about, is how likely it is that an invisible deity created the universe or spoke life into existence, relative to how likely the various scientific hypotheses are. Abiogenesis is, at least, marginally falsifiable. I say "marginally" because of the large amount of time required by the proposed mechanism, which makes it challenging but not impossible to substantiate. However its feasibility can be demonstrated in principle, at least. Until that happens it remains a hypothesis in which I do not "believe", I simply hold it as a possible explanation awaiting falsification or proof as the case may be.
This is why I object to false equivalencies between reason or science, and faith. Applying the term "faith" to the acceptance of a proposed scientific hypothesis, is at minimum a failure to understand reason and science, and it may even be a failure to understand faith -- although in your case I'm guessing that last bit is not a problem.
You have no idea if there is a supernatural deity.
Theory might be very solid, but not concrete. It is still unproven regardless of the evidence to support it.
I am intrigued by the idea of "subjective proof" - is that a coherent concept? I think it might be. If you feel as though you know something with certainty (or as close to certainty as radical skepticism allows), then does this count as a justified belief? I kinda think it does. And then, if it just happens to also be a true belief (even though you can't prove it to the satisfaction of anyone else), then it seems like it ought to count as "knowledge" (justified true belief). So, if you feel certain about something based on your own subjective experience and it happens to be true, then it seems that you know something that probably cannot be proven to be true.
But the rub, of course, is that you can never logically defeat the radical skeptic because, despite your overwhelming feeling of certainty about something, it seems you could still be wrong. Neurologists tell stories of patients who confabulate incredible narratives in order to explain something that is totally illogical (generally some form of agnosia, like "this is not my arm" even though it obviously is their arm). These folks are otherwise fully rational people - they're just not able to see the problem in this particular case. And then there is the "logic" of dreams that can seem logical at the time, but don't make sense from a waking perspective. I don't think you can 100% rule out the possibility that you are dreaming or insane. So your feeling of certainty is not an absolute guarantee, but it is powerful nonetheless.
Anyway, if someone tells me they are certain they've felt God's love, or whatever, I don't have to believe them - their subjective proof is not proof for me - but I feel respectful of their belief because, for all I know, they might know something that I don't know. Subjective proof for the existence of God seems possible to me, but I don't see how there could be any valid subjective proof for the non-existence of God. How could you have proof for the non-existence of something? Finding a logical contradiction would work, but without that, you're stuck.
I feel a high level of confidence when I say that traditional theism (the sort based on ancient holy books, etc.) is false, but I can't say I'm certain. I do feel high confidence in saying that, if the holy books are literally true, then God is not all-knowing and all-good. On the flip side, I also feel a high level of confidence in thinking that not everything that can be known is something that can be proven by purely objective evidence or logic. I strongly suspect that some truths can only be known subjectively. But how can I prove to anyone that some truths can only be known subjectively?
Deities are unfalsifiable and therefore unprovable, yes.
Ultimate origins is simply an unknown at this point and may also be unknowable.
There is a difference though between believing IN something and acknowledging that something is simply not known. I don't know the mechanism by which life arose from non-life or by which the universe came into existence (assuming that is even something that ever happened).
What I DO have an informed opinion about, is how likely it is that an invisible deity created the universe or spoke life into existence, relative to how likely the various scientific hypotheses are. Abiogenesis is, at least, marginally falsifiable. I say "marginally" because of the large amount of time required by the proposed mechanism, which makes it challenging but not impossible to substantiate. However its feasibility can be demonstrated in principle, at least. Until that happens it remains a hypothesis in which I do not "believe", I simply hold it as a possible explanation awaiting falsification or proof as the case may be.
This is why I object to false equivalencies between reason or science, and faith. Applying the term "faith" to the acceptance of a proposed scientific hypothesis, is at minimum a failure to understand reason and science, and it may even be a failure to understand faith -- although in your case I'm guessing that last bit is not a problem.
Unprovable and unknowable. Semantics at this point in time. The point is we do not know for sure either way, and if I had to bet money on it, we will never know.
Obviously the faith is slightly different, but the overall point still remains.
I am intrigued by the idea of "subjective proof" - is that a coherent concept? I think it might be. If you feel as though you know something with certainty (or as close to certainty as radical skepticism allows), then does this count as a justified belief? I kinda think it does..........snip.........
Subjective proof for the existence of God seems possible to me, but I don't see how there could be any valid subjective proof for the non-existence of God. How could you have proof for the non-existence of something??
Can you accept that my subjective but certain feeling that there is no god is not dealing with a negative but is, instead, based on an instinctive positive feeling for the idea of an infinite physical cosmos?
I was also stunned at his/her admission. Most religious folks tend to go on and on in circles about how their beliefs are true because of this or that.
Not sure why you guys are shocked. Ive always thought my train of thought was normal in my circles.
Maybe The Almighty Invisible Big Mac Who Is Everywhere has a plan of salvation...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does God never show himself?
