-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would proof of God devastate humanity?
- Thread starter HerCrazierHalf
- Start date
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,841
- 11,623
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
That's not what I've read. Falsification has already been been shown to have structural weaknesses philosophically. Maybe....read some Philosophy of Science, or at least some more if you've already done so.
Well, let me get out my clown make up, and I'll put on a show.
Upvote
0
Perhaps it IS just my misunderstanding then!
How on earth you believe you can hold justified true believes in P when you can't tell us a single observation that would differentiate P from ~P is quite beyond me.
I consider P indefinite in such a case and what you are doing as mystical guess work.
Well, let me get out my clown make up, and I'll put on a show.
It's not really funny ha ha, more funny sad.
Upvote
0
As long as the op doesn't mind us having it here....and to do this properly we should start before the beginning and go in correct order of arising. Or else we'll be jumping between horizontal scalar branches of info with nothing to connect them. They all are supported by a vertical trans-scalar trunk which starts under the surface of things.
Or I can start a new thread...whichever is preferred.
Upvote
0
As long as the op doesn't mind us having it here....and to do this properly we should start before the beginning and go in correct order of arising. Or else we'll be jumping between horizontal scalar branches of info with nothing to connect them. They all are supported by a vertical trans-scalar trunk which starts under the surface of things.
Or I can start a new thread...whichever is preferred.
I would rather you limit your discussion to one, I don't feel like arguing across that many disciplines.
Upvote
0
The trunk I intend to describe is more important than the details of the branches. I'll limit my references to where each branch (scales of scientific exploration) starts and it's basic shape. All of it starts with a seed planted in the darkness, we'll have to start there. Before the beginning of the tree/universe.
Funnily enough, we will start with exactly "ONE" =)
I suppose I will start a new thread, here in the philo forum. I intend it like a debate/discussion. I am not trying to "prove my point over yours" but just sharing the current way I can make the most sense of things. I welcome you to challenge any part or the entire thing. I'm just not interest in composing/navigating a wall of paragraphs. More of a back and forth on specific points in order. I intend on learning as much as I can from you in the process.
Is this acceptable?
Upvote
0
Will do! Looking forwards to it and rest well.
IRL what time is it there? It's 2pm here...
What is your window of time tomorrow?
Upvote
0
It was 7:41pm when you made this post (usually that would be fine but I haven't been feeling well), I'm on eastern standard.
Upvote
0
Alright, I'll compose my thread in the morning and you can get to it when you are able. I'll pm you with the title...not sure as of yet how to phrase it.
Hope you feel better!
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Honestly, I don't believe a demonstrably proven god would change a whole lot, apart from the skeptical community largely accepting a God claim.
The current major religions will still write the conclusive proof off as a "satanic deception" and implore their followers to continue to have faith in the "one true religion". After all that's what they do with every other discovery that contradicts their doctrine.
The current major religions will still write the conclusive proof off as a "satanic deception" and implore their followers to continue to have faith in the "one true religion". After all that's what they do with every other discovery that contradicts their doctrine.
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I don't know if it would be dangerous. I just don't think it'll sway the people who base their beliefs on faith all that much.
Upvote
0
so basically it would possibly create another faith, sect, or denomination that would believe (rightfully in this hypothetical) that they have the truth. In the grand scheme of things this wouldn't be much different than today.
Interesting
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
klatu
Wannabie
- Nov 18, 2009
- 47
- 4
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Green
Proof of God. It remains an interesting, even a dangerous idea and question for exiting traditions. And if such a proof existed, the impact on religion could only be severe. For a start, any authentic proof could only be 'revealed' by God and be confirmed by God. The theological construct we call religion 'presumes' a revelation with the existing scriptural record, but the process of interpretation has been one of the most divisive and bloody projects of human history. Not really the stuff of truth.
The promise of the Incarnation to end evil has yet to be realized. Thus any revealed proof must also offer the potential for moral progress not yet possible under the existing faith paradigm. Such a proof would thus resolve the 'Theodicy' question.
The existing scripture record contains many references to false teaching, false interpretation, antichrists, even a great deceiver. Yet as all tradition is theological, it is impossible to know why one might be more 'true' than another. Such a proof would resolve that ancient question. But also expose the fact that the last two thousand years of theological exegesis are a human intellectual self deception.
The 'church' often speaks of searching for God but with nothing definitive to 'search and find' within tradition, the expression remains hollow.
The ascendency of atheism has brought the idea to the forefront of many discussions. Their main argument is the lack of direct evidence which the church cannot provide to sustain their truth claim. In that sense,the faith of tradition today is not in Jesus or God but the theological interpretations of men. To presume than natural reason has successfully understood the mind of God is the gamble of faith.
If there is in fact a omnipotent, omniscience God, the idea of a direct moral proof, realized and confirmed by faith sounds a lot more rational then what tradition has to offer. I have no problem imagining such potential. At a time when the world is desperate for change, peace and justice, I can think of no better catalyse for such change than for such a proof to be revealed.
Maybe that's what the 'second coming' will bring? Or as Dante wrote in his Divine Comedy:
For as I turned, there greeted mine likewise
What all behold who contemplate aright,
That's Heaven's revolution through the skies.
The promise of the Incarnation to end evil has yet to be realized. Thus any revealed proof must also offer the potential for moral progress not yet possible under the existing faith paradigm. Such a proof would thus resolve the 'Theodicy' question.
The existing scripture record contains many references to false teaching, false interpretation, antichrists, even a great deceiver. Yet as all tradition is theological, it is impossible to know why one might be more 'true' than another. Such a proof would resolve that ancient question. But also expose the fact that the last two thousand years of theological exegesis are a human intellectual self deception.
The 'church' often speaks of searching for God but with nothing definitive to 'search and find' within tradition, the expression remains hollow.
The ascendency of atheism has brought the idea to the forefront of many discussions. Their main argument is the lack of direct evidence which the church cannot provide to sustain their truth claim. In that sense,the faith of tradition today is not in Jesus or God but the theological interpretations of men. To presume than natural reason has successfully understood the mind of God is the gamble of faith.
If there is in fact a omnipotent, omniscience God, the idea of a direct moral proof, realized and confirmed by faith sounds a lot more rational then what tradition has to offer. I have no problem imagining such potential. At a time when the world is desperate for change, peace and justice, I can think of no better catalyse for such change than for such a proof to be revealed.
Maybe that's what the 'second coming' will bring? Or as Dante wrote in his Divine Comedy:
For as I turned, there greeted mine likewise
What all behold who contemplate aright,
That's Heaven's revolution through the skies.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
