NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that so many people think that they can prove their religion? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't, like, 80% of all religions based on having FAITH in a supernatural force such as a God? So wouldn't trying to prove that the God was there be sort of a contradiction to the entire purpose of the religion itself, which is to have faith that such a force exists?

I'm not saying that all people try to prove the Bible. I was just reading some of the stupid things that people have been saying on these forums, trying to prove that their religion is real.

This reminds me of a quote from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy that someone posted recently...

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and any other believers in a Supreme Being and ultimate creator who engage in debates to "prove" the existence of that deity are fools. They are fools because by merely engaging in the debate they are accepting the premise that their belief in god is based upon verifiable factual data. They are entering into the world of science and reason, which is not the world of religion. To do so they must accept the basic premise of science, that the proof of a theory is dependent upon evidence that can be independently corroborated, knowing that further data may one day overturn that theory. Science is not about ultimate truths, but rather truth as we comprehend it now.

Those arguing for a "proof" of God would do well to keep in mind that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but rather certainty. Belief in god is just that - a belief, based upon faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Believers show their lack of faith by entering into such a discussion.

Rationalists, humanists, atheists, and scientists would also do well to stop wasting their time applying the scientific method to an idea that exists beyond the boundaries of science. Logic and reason are powerful tools, but as a wise Vulcan once said, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." The scientific method cannot create a painting to rival Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring, craft a play on par with Shakespeare's Hamlet, compose a song to compare with Willie Dixon's Hoochie Coochie Man, nor comprehend a person's faith in God.

1. Hitchiker's Guide is a staire. Don't try to quote it to prove a point.

2. If that doesn't convince you, remember that babel fish don't actually exsist.

3. I agree. Religion is a matter of faith. It cannot be undeniably proven. Just like the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, sometimes I wonder why there isn't a "theory of religion".

3. I agree. Religion is a matter of faith. It cannot be undeniably proven. Just like the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, sometimes I wonder why there isn't a "theory of religion".
I have a lovely arguement for proving Atheism as a religion :D
Haven't read all of this...but...yeah...Here 'tis...


Summa Theologia
Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.
Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.



I would also like to remind you that while yes, religion does require a lot of faith, so does denying religion. You cannot disprove my God any more than I can prove him.

The way I see it, if there were a rational proof of any religion, any rational being would automatically have to conform to it. And the point of religion is not to be convinced, it is to be attracted to a deity, a set of principles, etc., and to believe. So basically, if you could rationally prove any religion, you would make a lot of people follow it for the wrong reasons. The whole idea is that you don't have to believe anything, you choose to. If you can't take a leap of faith, as it were, then you're probably not going to be very committed to your beliefs. A mythology professor I had once put it very nicely. Another student mentioned that supposedly some wood supposed to be from the Cross supposedly had some blood on it that supposed only had half a genome, which of course would signify a person with only one parent. The professor said, "I think if I were the Holy Spirit and I impregnated a woman, I probably wouldn't leave hard evidence."

As a Christian, I pretty much look at it like this: if Jesus had really wanted everyone to just rationally know he was God, he would have flown around with bright light emanating from him and spoken in a loud, magical voice. But he didn't. So he must have wanted us to figure it out for ourselves, to come to that realization individually.

I saw a definition for "agnosticism" once that was basically this idea, i.e., the belief that you can't prove anything about the supernatural. By that definition (though not by the more common one of the subsequent lack of belief in any particular thing about the supernatural), I'm a Christian agnostic.

By the way, I would slightly disagree with the previous poster, in that I think, by the OED, religion implies that your views pertain specifically to some divine being; however, atheism definitely takes the place of religion in the looser definition of "set of beliefs about the supernatural" (that set of beliefs being "it doesn't exist" in this case), so I would say that the absolute lack of religion is agnosticism in the second, more frequent definition I gave above.

3. I agree. Religion is a matter of faith. It cannot be undeniably proven. Just like the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, sometimes I wonder why there isn't a "theory of religion".

Evolution, like everything in science, cannot be "undeniably proven." However, it CAN be "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt." And it has. Evolution is central to the understanding of just about all of modern biology. There is good solid evidence backing evolution.

There isn't a "theory of religion" because religion isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word - it is based on faith, while science is based on evidence.

Don't mix religion and science, please. Science is not based on faith. "Atheism" is, since the lack of a god cannot be proven any more than the existence of a god, but science is not the same thing as atheism.

Who needs to prove g.d exists, when you can't prove the emergence of sentient beings without an exterior motivation?

Tell me how inanimate matter (dirt, water, dust, gas) suddenly decided to morph into the bacteria which would give life to algae, plankton, and several billion years later, us.

Then, prove the reason why simply "being" is the norm instead of nothingness.

Then, give me a reason to believe that humans decided to evolve something that is completely useless survival-wise on their own : their brains. Why has the rest of creation focused on sharper claws, and not us?

You're given a chance to experience a whole palette of emotions and experiences that are so removed from instinct it's ridiculous. Why did the other life forms decide to do otherwise?

And for the record, I am not a creationist. I place enough faith in the fact that g.d wants us to find out on our own, and that scientific discourse should never be obstructed.

/hoping it won't drown in a sea of flames

This was a silly thread really. I've had this discussion lots of times before. People who don't believe in religion want proof. Religion is based on faith i.e. lack of proof. One side cannot defeat the other in debate, so it's pointless arguing.

For example. Science works by theorising and proving certain facts.
Religion says there is a God. You can't disprove him, so it must be a possibility.
Science then says, ahh but you can't prove him either.
Religion retorts, ahh, but we have faith. We don't need proof.
Science asks, where does your faith come from?
Religion replies, I just know he is around us.

I suppose in an infinite universe everything possible must happen infinite times. So either there is a god and the universe is infinite or there is a god and the universe is finite or there isn't a god and the universe is finite.

some of this depends on your definition of things (religion, god, etc.)... and while I don't think you can prove that god exists, I think that you can prove that a religion exists (they still might not be right about things, though). :p

some of this depends on your definition of things (religion, god, etc.)... and while I don't think you can prove that god exists, I think that you can prove that a religion exists (they still might not be right about things, though). :p
Of course you can prove religion exists, the religion is just a method of living your life by certain guidelines. Again proving the silliness of this thread.

And for the record, "theory of religion" is commonly named "metaphysics", and has been discussed for the last 5000 years.

Look up some descartes (if god is perfect, then he has to exists, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect - besides, who gave us the concept of perfection?), pascal (take his bet!), kant (what makes us call beauty, "beauty"? / shared with socrates), nietzsche (weak men think god/destiny/fate is a nanny, real men determine their fates without nannies) and all their wonderful philosopher pals for some interesting stuff.

/doesn't need to know you majored in philosophy and are so special
//needs an answer to previous post, in which case you are special :D

Why is it that so many people think that they can prove their religion? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't, like, 80% of all religions based on having FAITH in a supernatural force such as a God? So wouldn't trying to prove that the God was there be sort of a contradiction to the entire purpose of the religion itself, which is to have faith that such a force exists?

I'm not saying that all people try to prove the Bible. I was just reading some of the stupid things that people have been saying on these forums, trying to prove that their religion is real.

Most religions involve a degree of faith. For example, the Bible says that those seeking God "must first believe that he is." I suspect that many of those seeking to "prove" their beliefs are doing so out of a need more to convince themselves than to convince anyone else. This bespeaks a lack of faith.

Many ( if not most ) American Christians, and probably most others, have simply adopted their "beliefs" wholesale from their parents and/or the sub-culture in which they live. To me, the unexamined faith is no faith at all. If your beliefs cannot withstand challenges from science, logic and other faiths, perhaps they should be changed. What makes the difference is the quality of your faith. Again, referring to the Bible ( since that is the document with which most Americans are most familiar ), "even faith is a gift of God."

So, yes, attempting to "prove" your religion accomplishes little other than to make you feel better about what you believe. People are either going to accept what you tell them and choose to believe as you do, or they are not. Anything else is not trusting God.

AP just leaves it as having real knowledge in the existence of a God. That is, a personal life experience that convinces one of the existence, or an undeniable, unexplainable beleif in the existence of a God. Making it real to that person, a belief that cannot be proven or disproven or denied by another. Thus it is a subjective maxim. If that beleif was capable of being proven or disproven, by another, then it could be considered a truth or fallacy. Then the maxim as to whether a God exists would lend itself into being a practical law.

In either event, having no reason for a belief is having no reason to beleive. So long as you have a reason, you are better off than most.

I don't know how many of you have ever read the book "The Power of One" But it has the best quote I've ever read about the nature of spirituality and it's logical place in the world.


" A stretcher bearer I was with at the battle of Dundee told me that he'd once gotten hit by a Mauser bullet in the heart, only he was carrying a Bible in his tunic pocket and the Bible saved his life. He told me that ever since he'd always carried a Bible into battle with him and he felt perfectly safe because God was in his breast pocket. We were out looking for a sergeant of the Worcesters and three troopers who were wounded while out on a reconnaissance and were said to be holed up in a dry donga. In truth, I think my partner felt perfectly safe because the Boer Mausers were estimated by the British artillery to be accurate to 800 yards and we were at least 1200 yards from enemy lines. Alas, nobody bothered to tell the Boers about the short comings of their brand-new German rifle, and a Mauser bullet hit him straight between the eyes. Which goes to prove, you can always depend on British Army information not to be accurate, the Boers to be deadly accurate, the Bible to be good for matters of the heart, but hopeless for those of the head, and finally, that God is in nobody's pocket."

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and any other believers in a Supreme Being and ultimate creator who engage in debates to "prove" the existence of that deity are fools. They are fools because by merely engaging in the debate they are accepting the premise that their belief in god is based upon verifiable factual data. They are entering into the world of science and reason, which is not the world of religion. To do so they must accept the basic premise of science, that the proof of a theory is dependent upon evidence that can be independently corroborated, knowing that further data may one day overturn that theory. Science is not about ultimate truths, but rather truth as we comprehend it now.

Those arguing for a "proof" of God would do well to keep in mind that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but rather certainty. Belief in god is just that - a belief, based upon faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Believers show their lack of faith by entering into such a discussion.

Rationalists, humanists, atheists, and scientists would also do well to stop wasting their time applying the scientific method to an idea that exists beyond the boundaries of science. Logic and reason are powerful tools, but as a wise Vulcan once said, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." The scientific method cannot create a painting to rival Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring, craft a play on par with Shakespeare's Hamlet, compose a song to compare with Willie Dixon's Hoochie Coochie Man, nor comprehend a person's faith in God.

Isn't quite possible that on some level god is a scientific thing. He/She may not be made up of atoms but may be made of something undiscovered. Also religious debates can lead to greater understanding of boht religions and greater faith.

As for proof of religion, why not try? Faith is a good thing- but from what I understand of the bible Jesus performed a few miracles as proof of god, as did Moses and a few others, and I am sure the same goes for other religions....

I suppose in an infinite universe everything possible must happen infinite times. So either there is a god and the universe is infinite or there is a god and the universe is finite or there isn't a god and the universe is finite.

True... but a creator type god would have to have been around since before the infinite space and time that define our universe. So no laws in our universe would need apply to such a being- making it impossible to disprove the beings existence.

As for proof of religion, why not try? Faith is a good thing- but from what I understand of the bible Jesus performed a few miracles as proof of god, as did Moses and a few others, and I am sure the same goes for other religions....

True... but a creator type god would have to have been around since before the infinite space and time that define our universe. So no laws in our universe would need apply to such a being- making it impossible to disprove the beings existence.

Which brings us full circle back to faith being the determinant.

I'm not going to argue this here, but for the purposes of the current argument:
And yes, there is a lot more than just this, I've heard all the arguments, I've heard every side...This is just the very bassline stuff that I start with.


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.
Thus:
Atheism is a religion

Fair enough. I use the OED, which uses definitions for "religion" such as

"Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this."

or

"Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."

Neither of which apply to atheism, so that's where I was drawing my point from.

I guess it just depends on which dictionary you use!

Guess the purpose of trying to prove your religion is the fact that non-members of your faith are always trying to say "prove it" atheists are the biggest culprit. The argumetns are childish though.

Words are only used to describe our surroundings and words mean different things to different people.

You got out a dictionary and proved that atheism is an religion. Although it has no god and its not organized and has no chruch or doctrine of laws or anything like that. Its only a word used to describe the people who don't belive in a god. But sure its a religion.

I think that Jesus is a plagerized copy of Horus of Krshna, the simialrites are quite uncanny.

Religious debates can lead to greater understanding of boht religions and greater faith.

I disagree. Religious discussions, especially accompanied by actual listening on the part of all parties involved, certainly can lead to greater understanding of religion and faith. However, debates about the existence of god are pointless for the reasons I pointed out earlier, as well as the fact that such debates rarely are participated in by people willing to listen.

As an intellectual exercise proof of the existence or non-existence of god can be fun, but all the really good arguments have already been taken by Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Pascal, and Nietzsche.