An exaggerated sense of self-importance fails to take into account evidence that runs contrary to the in vogue narration and can be missed by most for generations. Hence to claim one's lack of belief in God is down to the "absence" of evidence is a ruse and a clear attempt to hide the irrational reactionary conviction to the belief in the Creator.
Needless to say, the already published evidence on offer cut across domains. Which includes rock solid ontological arguments, backed by irrefutable mathematics to quantum mechanics on one hand and verifiable empirical data on the other. The very notion of a God, like all notions that are beyond our sensory reach necessitates defining individual believability thresholds. Failure to define and be able to defend the demand is the first obstacle. Hiding behind a distorted burden of proof, devoid of context and social standards, is proof enough of not willing to understand the premise. To be a slave to a school boy "you first" method to grasp the reality of God is illogical as opposed to letting God's unique reality determine what methods are appropriate for successfully verifying it. Hence some measure of the sufficiency of the evidence must be agreed upon beforehand if one were to get anywhere in the God debate.
Furthermore, refusing to draw logical and rational conclusions from the available data and conveniently resorting to "we don't know what it means but it is not proof of God" is very strange to say the least. In the same way that the "we" implies "you" and "everybody" in such claims. To assume that one’s knowing or not knowing equates with the knowing and not knowing of another is even stranger and assuming too much. The open-ended demands for proofs and to some extent even evidence when not sufficiently defined is a nonstarter in the God debate. Merely throwing around words like scientific, empirical even logic doesn't add anything to the mix.
The "do more" strategy focuses on swooping in any and all evidence and insist that the evidence presented does not point to God, more often than not while admitting to not understanding it is obviously problematic. In other words, it is nothing but merely reiterating the illogical anything but God (ABG) conviction, this is the second obstacle.
An exaggerated sense of self-importance leads to "believing" that one will be able to instantly recognize the "proof" of the existence of God with what one already happens to know. Similarly most expect that this evidence should be a neat five liner and preferably in a mono-layered text format in one's mother tongue.
Unwillingness to unlearn is the third and ultimate obstacle.
Needless to say, the already published evidence on offer cut across domains. Which includes rock solid ontological arguments, backed by irrefutable mathematics to quantum mechanics on one hand and verifiable empirical data on the other. The very notion of a God, like all notions that are beyond our sensory reach necessitates defining individual believability thresholds. Failure to define and be able to defend the demand is the first obstacle. Hiding behind a distorted burden of proof, devoid of context and social standards, is proof enough of not willing to understand the premise. To be a slave to a school boy "you first" method to grasp the reality of God is illogical as opposed to letting God's unique reality determine what methods are appropriate for successfully verifying it. Hence some measure of the sufficiency of the evidence must be agreed upon beforehand if one were to get anywhere in the God debate.
Furthermore, refusing to draw logical and rational conclusions from the available data and conveniently resorting to "we don't know what it means but it is not proof of God" is very strange to say the least. In the same way that the "we" implies "you" and "everybody" in such claims. To assume that one’s knowing or not knowing equates with the knowing and not knowing of another is even stranger and assuming too much. The open-ended demands for proofs and to some extent even evidence when not sufficiently defined is a nonstarter in the God debate. Merely throwing around words like scientific, empirical even logic doesn't add anything to the mix.
The "do more" strategy focuses on swooping in any and all evidence and insist that the evidence presented does not point to God, more often than not while admitting to not understanding it is obviously problematic. In other words, it is nothing but merely reiterating the illogical anything but God (ABG) conviction, this is the second obstacle.
An exaggerated sense of self-importance leads to "believing" that one will be able to instantly recognize the "proof" of the existence of God with what one already happens to know. Similarly most expect that this evidence should be a neat five liner and preferably in a mono-layered text format in one's mother tongue.
Unwillingness to unlearn is the third and ultimate obstacle.
No comments:
Post a Comment