|
Why don't you folks have this discussion of proof in a thread that isn't about how unsuitable any one standard of proof is when one attempts to apply it to everything?
When it comes down to it, we're all empiricists(in the general sense), so all this nonsense about proof is a colossal waste of time and effort. The need to prove the existence of a deity implies a certain insecurity of faith, likewise, the need to disprove the existence of a deity implies a lack of understanding about the different ways experience informs knowledge.
I'm not a spiritual person, but i do believe that i've experienced things that are implausible and whose significance is unprovable. The fact that i can't prove the significance of these things makes them no less significant. For this very reason, in my mind, a blind commitment to only believing in things that are provable or probable isn't prudent. I am very certain that the ratio of phenomena to explanation in this here existence is rather large.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that my experiences suggest to me the existence of a deity in the standard christian sense, but i could understand how someone else, having different experiences, might come to the conclusion that there might actually be something to this whole god business.
I don't think trying to objectively justify a belief such as that is necessarily a good way to waste time, but i don't happen to enjoy the experience of futility (aside from my occasional participation in the politics forum).
|