10 Answers

  1. Proving the absence of anything is obviously a useless activity. For any proof, you can come up with a counter-proof.

    -“Prove that I don't have an apple.”

    -“I don't see it in your hands, but I checked your pockets, too.”

    -“Maybe it's in my house.”

    -“I checked the entire house – no apples.

    -“Maybe I have a secret passage in the wall.”

    -“Not at all. Here is an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, here is the house plan. No.

    -“No, no, no, there were no apples at the time of checking the house. Or maybe they are there now?

    … well, etc.

    That is why the burden of proof is on the one who claims the existence of something, not on the one who refutes it.

    Regarding the question “why” – because it's easier that way. Because it is easier for the brain to pull the owl of familiar ideas onto the globe of reality than to invent something new that describes this reality more adquately. By the way, not only religiously minded people fall into this trap, but also quite rationally minded people too. That's how the brain works. Costs of evolution. While the firmware in the brain is old, it won't work out any other way. Waiting for the upgrade.

  2. Modern reason is drawn by greed to certain goods to a greater extent than to the knowledge of the unknown. Therefore, it is always easier to replace it with the same God than to state ignorance in the original chaos of the universe. And most importantly, it is more convenient, since it guarantees that there is no fear of being lost, of not being interested in the world in a person.

  3. Given that both the existence and non-existence of God are equally unprovable, then statements about the divine sound equally to statements about the non-existence of the divine.

    If we recall that from the very beginning of the species homo sapiens sapiens (a modern type of person), he had all the elements of his religiosity, then for humanity as a whole, statements about the non-existence of its (religious) object sound as new as the news that aliens were brought to the UN.

    It is precisely because of the naturalness of religious experiences for humans as a species that it is periodically said that in matters of religion, the burden of proof should also be placed on the denier.

  4. I totally agree. Reichswehr soldiers had the slogan “Gott mit uns” stamped on their belt buckles, and you can't argue with that.

    In the first months of the war, combat-ready military units, equipment, factories and factories were destroyed, crop fields, food depots, etc. were seized.

    How to explain the paradoxical ending of the defeat of the powerful steel “fist” of the German military machine? Without the intervention of forces from Above, it is simply impossible.

  5. Indeed, there is no point in explaining the inexplicable to God.

    God created all that is natural.

    We are entering this world that was not created by us

    In a body that we didn't create.

    And all that we have of our own and what we are

    This is our life experience

    Our inner world.

  6. Neither you nor your opponents are obligated to prove anything to anyone, since there is no objective burden of proof. This is a stupid rule that people came up with to bring some order to communication. So that it does not come down to children's skirmishes like ” Yes no! – Yes yes!”, but it contained at least some attempts to convey thoughts convincingly.

    People have introduced this rule for their own convenience, and for their own convenience, they systematically violate it. I wrote a little more about this in my article.

    The divine theory is not proven for the same reason that no natural science theory is proven. The fact is that all these theories deal with the description of reality. Therefore, they are inductive in nature. And logical induction, which is generally incomplete, is logically incorrect.

    Example of incomplete induction: Napoleon is a commander, Suvorov is a commander, Kutuzov is a commander. Therefore, all men are generals.

    In theories, all argumentation is based on the principles of inductive logic: people observe a bunch of special cases and draw general conclusions from them. Without absolute knowledge, a person cannot make logically correct conclusions, so he allows himself to violate logical laws and is content with the plausibility of his theories.

    For this reason, no natural science theory has rigorous deductive evidence. Such theories can only have any number of confirmations. But no set of confirmations can prove that the theory is obviously correct and infallible. For example, the theory that all swans are white can be confirmed a million times by a million white swans, but just one black swan at a time negates them all.

    Proponents of the divine theory, even with a lot of evidence, are well aware that their theory is not proven, and therefore their attitude to it is called faith.

    Faith is the acceptance of a certain provision without sufficient grounds.

    In the case of atheism, there is often the thesis “There is no God”, which is presented to the public without sufficient grounds. Even if these reasons may not exist, it does not matter. The fact is, they don't exist. In this case, the opponents qualify their acceptance of this thesis without sufficient grounds as a belief in this thesis —just as they recognized their own belief in the divine theory.

    But atheists are not satisfied with this qualification: they do not consider their consent to be faith. But if it's not faith, then what is it? Knowledge? But knowledge is usually based on something. There are no grounds here, but there is agreement.

    The opponent begins to motivate the atheist to re-qualify his faith and present it as reliable knowledge. And for this he needs sufficient grounds.

    And then the atheist has the same question that you have.

  7. But if a person dies and is resurrected in three days, what is a miracle ? Do we all need to get down on our knees before this miracle ? Or study and understand ? In any case the opinion about this will be divided in half someone will say the charlatan fell into a coma and woke up to fool people and so on and someone will say this is a miracle and so on and a reasonable person will take information about this in the middle and carefully and this is the most reasonable thing we can do

  8. Well, first of all, without proof to say that there is no God is the lot of atheists, and what is an atheist is a flawed person, well, let's say a person has an area in the brain that is responsible for faith in God, then an atheist he is not developed, that is, it also happens that people have eyes from birth and they are blind others have hearing not developed from birth who is colorblind,

  9. And why do you think that “through God” is an explanation? This is simply a rhetorical device for denoting certain forces and phenomena that are not yet understood and do not have more precise definitions.

  10. Just because the world is full of stupid and naive people who simply do not understand and do not want to understand that there is no God. They are so stupid that it is simply useless to argue with them. It is a shame to think that this is the 21st century, and there are already so many things in the world that easily prove (and there is nothing to prove) that there is no God. But these idiots still believe. This gregariousness and human egoism, which completely deny the truth. This is so stupid. It is a shame to imagine that our civilization is based on this. Shame

Leave a Reply