I believe in God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cadellin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cadellin

Guest
It has been said that you shouldn’t hold a belief you can’t prove. It seems to me that if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a belief but knowledge. Belief is something you accept as true without being able to prove it, at least to the satisfaction of others. Knowledge is something that can be demonstrated to be true to the satisfaction of others.
 
Cadellin said:
It has been said that you shouldn’t hold a belief you can’t prove.
Click to expand...
What standard of proof is attached to this maxim?
It seems to me that if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a belief but knowledge.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that where God is concerned, “believe” and “know” are used interchangeably by Christians.
Belief is something you accept as true without being able to prove it, at least to the satisfaction of others. Knowledge is something that can be demonstrated to be true to the satisfaction of others.
Click to expand...
Well, the application of these sentences depends on your answer to my first question. 😉
 
Cadellin said:
It has been said that you shouldn’t hold a belief you can’t prove. It seems to me that if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a belief but knowledge. Belief is something you accept as true without being able to prove it, at least to the satisfaction of others. Knowledge is something that can be demonstrated to be true to the satisfaction of others.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound cute, but is the statement, "you shouldn’t hold a belief you can’t prove", proven?

What I’m getting at is that if all knowledge must be proven, then either the proofs go on forever, or they come full circle, or they stop.
  • If they go on forever, then nothing is really proven.
  • If they are circular, nothing is proven.
  • If they stop, then the place where they stop is something that is so obviously true that it needs no proof.
So if we know anything, there must be a first thing that is obviously true without need for a proof. Now if something is obvious, would that be a belief, or would it be knowledge? Because there’s your starting point, and if it is belief, then everything is belief, but if it is knowledge, then some knowledge can be unproven.

(By the way, this is Logic 101 and it is a very good question.)
 
Others may give a more philosophical response. I’ll try a simple common sense approach.

What’s the difference between Jesus Christ and George Washington or any other historical figure long ago?

All we have are REPORTS about them. We honor George because what he reportedly said and did make excellent sense to us. We therefore believe in George.

To say one is free to NOT believe in God and His Son Christ, one would have to prove that the reports in the Bible - are false. One would also have to prove that the miracles done in Christ’s name are also false.

No other historical figure has ever been foretold. Christ fulfilled every prediction of how we would know that the Son of God was with us. Everything Christ taught is good for mankind. No man taught all what Christ taught before Christ. Chirst therefore is a good man. As a good man, he would not lie. He said He was the Son of God. He performed miracles no man could.

One is free to reject reliable reports. A personal rejection does not make reports wrong.
 
Cadellin said:
It seems to me that if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a belief but knowledge… Belief is something you accept as true without being able to prove it, at least to the satisfaction of others.
Click to expand...
To believe something is to accept it as true. A belief may be rational (based on compelling evidence or proof) or irrational. The common word for what you’re describing is faith.

American Heritage:
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
American Heritage:
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Click to expand...
The definition from American Heritage is wrong (and who wrote it is a bigot).

Faith might not always rest on material evidence, but this does not mean that faith is equal to irrational belief or belief that is unsupported by proofs.
 
The definition from American Heritage is wrong (and who wrote it is a bigot).
Click to expand...
What a strong reaction to a a dictionary definition!

You (a) assert they are wrong without any supporting evidence and (b) attack their character (argument ad hominem), when I doubt you know enough if anything about the author(s) of that particular entry to judge them.
Faith might not always rest on material evidence, but this does not mean that faith is equal to irrational belief or belief that is unsupported by proofs.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard Faith used to describe something that could be proven. If 3x = 21, then x= 7… we generally do not say, “Have faith that x=7”. But if you wish to posit your own definition, or one from an alternate source, that makes faith includes things that can be proven, you may of course do so without maligning the dictionary’s editors.
 
"Cadellin:
It has been said that you shouldn’t hold a belief you can’t prove.
Click to expand...
promethius said:
If that statement were true, there would be no atheists.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anyone in the modern day who says, “You should’t hold a belief you can’t prove”. Most people are content with strong evidence in the absence of proof… One should be suspicious when people use vague constructions such as “It has been said” instead of stating who said it. From the beginning, it’s a strawman argument.
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
I don’t know anyone in the modern day who says, “You should’t hold a belief you can’t prove”. Most people simply demand strong evidence. One should be suspicious when people use vague constructions such as “It has been said” instead of stating who said it. From the beginning, it’s a strawman argument.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
You … (b) attack their character (argument ad hominem), when I doubt you know enough if anything about the author(s) of that particular entry to judge them.
Click to expand...
Not to be off-topic, but this is not an argument ad hominem, because the statement “the author is a bigot” is a conclusion, not a premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top