This is a continuation of a discussion here:
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...0;t=009078;p=4
Let's not flame each other shall we?
I've been given permission to start a new topic from a moderator, as long as it doesn't go the way of the last thread. Which was apparently circular debates for the sake of debates that go nowhere.
So let's keep that in mind.
I'd also like to thank you Neb for your contributions. They were well thought out and I enjoyed reading them. Thankyou. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Now. What I'm wanting to talk about is proof. How do we verify something?
My last couple of posts were concerning the situation, where Santa Claus is regarded as nonexistant, and God as being existent for the same reasons.
Human testimony.
It seems that some of us only like to accept human testimony when it suits us. That meaning, there are times when the only proof we have of a situation is the word of another human.
Let's look at Love.
Can you prove another person loves you? Why do you believe another person loves you?
Faith and trust in the person concerned and what they are testifying to be true are the only way. We cannot gather any evidence or even observe behaviour patterns. (Which can be imitated for personal gain)
Lets look at Santa.
Can we prove he doesn't exist in any other fashion other than collecting human testimonies and making an assumption?
All we can ascertain from "hanging up a sock on christmas night" is that Santa did not come to our house that night. That we have not seen Santa.
I don't for one moment believe Santa exists, but this is because I have faith in human testimonies. I read history. There are many things in history about which the only thing you could accurately state is, that at some point, someone wrote these words. Whether the actions happened or not is unprovable. Whether the person believed what they were saying or lying is unprovable.
All we can say is that they wrote it.
This is why we cross reference historical and journalistic sources. We check the statements of as many as possible. (which is why we have four cross referencial biblical gospels - plus an extra couple saying the same thing, not included in the biblical collection. In the old testament Samuel/Kings and Chronicals cover the same territory)
This is why we so easily accept Santa as not existing. No-one has ever seen him. All of us here would undoubtably testify that their parents were the giftgivers.
That said, can we still accurately say "He does not exist" or can we only say "I know of no-one who claims he exists"?
Lets look at God.
Millions, countless millions of humans throughout history have attested to knowing the creator of the planet. To being miraculously healed physically and mentally by him. To having relationships and circumstances change for the better once knowing him, to having perceptions change and life inspirations arrive once knowing him.
Why, when so many other "lesser" things are accepted on the weight of human testimony, is this one rejected?
All a human can ever accurately say is: "I have no experience of God, and I do not believe the testimonies of his followers." Not that he doesn't exist. That is an unquantifiable statement.
Unlike Santa, where no human testimonies of him existing are known to exist, countless humans have died refusing to retract professions of belief in God. Millions live their lives with belief orientated adjustments.
As they do with love.
The bible actually equates God with love. God is love. When you have God in you, you have love in you.
Anyhow, there you are. If you're going to reply, please read over the whole post so that we avoid repititions of the same argument. Thanks.
Hugh
[ 06-17-2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]