Good morning.
I thought I'd start with a nice picture. |
Around these parts Rob's blog seems to be very popular and is building up more comments than any other blog. His latest post 'Prove it!' already has 15 comments.
This post starts off with, "Generally proof is required when contradicting an accepted belief. Atheism is not the status quo and never has been." What he's saying is that, for human beings, having a god is the accepted thing and thinking that there is no god is a bit weird. I got an Uber home from Wellington last night. I always like to chat to the driver because it's a half hour ride. The driver was Indian and told me that there are over 1,000 worshipped gods in India. I don't remember how the topic of gods came up and I haven't researched it online. If that is true, it means there is quite a bit of competition for being the one true god.
The word 'belief' seems to always pop up when talking about religion. Catholics, for example, seem confident that they have proof for the existence of their god. They tell us that this god is made up of three people. I don't think that any of them are female, though the Holy Ghost could be.*
I looked up the definition of the word 'belief' online. I got three 'answers'.
1) An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.2) Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
3) A religious conviction.
Here's a score that I bought in 1971. We studied it at university. |
6 commenti:
Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. The majority of prominent conceptions of God explicitly or effectively posit a being whose existence is not testable either by proof or disproof.... oh. I just noticed that you don't want any big flowery words. Sorry.
The answer then is no.
What does that mean?
RBB
He's right. We can deduce the existence of God but there is no experimental method that can be replicated to 'prove' His existence to satisfy scientists. But what about the proof that is used in a court of law that allows for reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt is not a proof. It just means that there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
RBB
You're wrong. We cannot 'deduce' the existence of god. There's no logical conclusion that any gods exist. What's wrong with you man?
ok I got that wrong.
Posta un commento