Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Proposing a God does nothing to explain anything, it only pushes the question back one more level. I might as well say "the beginning of the universe is incomprehensible and cannot be explained" as "God is incomprehensible and cannot be explained". As a reason for belief, it fails entirely - yet for some reason it is continually raised as if it actually had some power to convince.
However, in principle it may indeed be possible to explain the beginning of the universe, which would be the ultimate attack upon the "God" hypothesis. If that day ever comes, it'll make the debate over evolution seem like a mild disagreement between good friends in comparison.
The existence of a God or gods is not a question of proof, it is a question of probabilities. You can't use logic to *prove* God exists, which has been a mistake of philosophers through the ages. Either it exists, in which case your proof is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case your proof is wrong.
Looking at the evidence for or against a God allows you to assign a *probability* to its existence using logic, however. I can certainly disagree with an opinion based on faith, and you can disagree with one based on probabilities - but what I can't do is accept that "faith" is an unanswerable argument and that people of faith should not have their beliefs questioned.
I can't *prove* that faith is misplaced, but I can certainly point out where it conflicts with observed reality. You are free to point out any flaws in my reality, as well - if you can find them.
|
I agree 100 percent with your post that faith and proof are different things. I have faith in god doesn't mean i can prove there is a god because no one can.
There is no right or wrong conclusion in this thread but it is pretty interesting to hear all sides of the argument. I respect every religion equally or people who have no religion at all. All that really matters in the end is if we are good people.