Find what you're looking for

Saturday 2 July 2011

Lack of proof.

Many times I hear words to the effect of, "Yes, but you can't prove it!" That always makes me sigh a little.

Generally speaking, when people say this sort of thing, they don't mean that there is no proof whatsoever for a God. Because, of course, there are; enough that many people have come to believe through them. I won't go over that now, because that would take a very long post, and more knowledge than I have handy; but there's definitely proof out there. They usually mean something that basically means there isn't enough proof to prove there's a God. Which is a fair enough argument; and, most probably, many Christians would agree with that.

And that's a thing with most faiths, which is why they have their name. There is an element of "faith" involved. That's what is one of the fundamentals of it - though that doesn't mean believing despite lack of proof, or in the face of opposing proof (I think I've written about this before. Will check, and if not, will do so soon) (EDIT: Checked, funnily enough, can't find it. Thought I had done a post called "defining faith", but apparently not. So, that one will be coming shortly. Hopefully I haven't just renamed that one as something else and so you're getting this twice :P). Each person who believes will do so for different reasons. But there's always that element of faith involved - even if it's not much (especially when they don't think they do), it's still there.

So I suppose what I'm saying is this; to a certain extent, there's not much point in saying "but you can't prove it!" when that's kinda part of the point; and there is a fair bit of proof out there for God. Whether there's enough to actually prove there's a God, to a guy like Richard Dawkins or something - I'd say probably. The trick is in finding it and presenting it well.

6 comments:

  1. It's funny you should post this considering my life has changed so rapidly over the past three months…even the past month has been a real eye opener. I don't have enough proof to prove there is a God to other people (though in my heart I have more than enough proof for myself), but at the same time no one has ever offered enough proof to prove there isn't a God. :P If that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Know what you mean, man :) Makes perfect sense, I feel pretty much the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hahaha. I'm glad. I was a bit worried, I've never said that to anyone before, and I only had a rough idea of what to say. Glad it wasn't too rough :P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't worry about it man :) I think there's a fair few people around who feel the same way, so don't feel like you're going it alone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the biggest roadblock is not proving God, but rather defining God. If God is defined well, I don't proof is necessary. Much like saying "I have an apple in my hand." If it is well established what the word "Apple" means in this context, all one needs to do is look at the hand in which it is said to be in. If I was to hold an apple and say I have a banana in my hand, then it must be established that what I mean by banana is apple. I believe all too often people use language that is foreign to non-believers; they use words that are perfectly reasonable, but are not universally recognised outside of a faith context if you get what I'm saying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, I get you. Not saying that proving God is the biggest roadblock, but it's certainly up there. Or at least, the world of science wants it to be. And I get what you mean about the foreign language, too; if we apply it to the apple, we'd get people saying something like - "It is both the core, and the skin," "The Unripened Ripener," "The seeds, the flesh and the skin are all different parts, but are together in the one whole." XD

      Delete

Please, tell me what you think. I'm not psychic, and I want to know :)