I keep reading on here from, I assume agnostics and/or atheists, that if they are shown proof, then they will believe in God, too. No, you won't. If we have proof of something, there is nothing left to believe in because there is PROOF. No one has to believe anything that's already proven. I don't know why it irks me so, but it does.
Is it too much to ask? It would really mean a lot.
2007-05-10 05:29:03 · 12 answers · asked by randyken 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't "believe" in gravity because I don't have to. When I drop a cup, I see gravity. There is nothing to be "believed" in. Ironic that you chose gravity, BTW. What is gravity? A force, sure, what is it? Why is it?
2007-05-10 05:37:49 · update #1
So you're saying that the Bible isn't true.... 'cause otherwise you wouldn't require faith.
Good argument. Really nice.
And to Terisina: God also created periods to break up run-on sentences. Please don't waste His gifts.
2007-05-10 05:34:56 · answer #1 · answered by coqueto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we can all change. I think hon, that we're speaking two different languages. You see believing in something with no proof as a "value." You see that level of faith as a good thing. Part of what Atheists are saying when they demand proof is that, believing in something with no evidence at all isn't rational OR a good way to go through life. You don't believe in OTHER things with no evidence, do you? Such as, I believe I've got a million in the bank, despite any evidence. I believe Johnny Depp has a crush on me, tho I have no proof of this. We believe in things based on proof. Thats how we know everything. We know our family loves us, because we can see proof of it. We believe our Doctor is a real doctor, because we see evidence of that.
What we're saying, when we say that, is 'Why do you apply proof to every other corner of your mind, but leave it out of the god-pocket?"
2007-05-10 12:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe in many things that are proven. I assume you are referring to having faith in something, as faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for and the evident demonstration of realities not yet realized. (Heb 1:1-11)
2007-05-10 12:34:55 · answer #3 · answered by Carol D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand what you're saying. But the statement is made in contrast to 'not believing', so that's why it's said that way.
You can 'believe' in things that are inarguably true. I 'believe' that the sun rises in the East, for example. Because the only alternative to 'believing' is 'not believing', and that's not true for me either.
2007-05-10 12:33:05 · answer #4 · answered by XYZ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So .... gravity has been "proven" yet you don't have to believe in it?
Please clarify.
Okay dude, you are using the word "believe" in place of have faith in. Two different things!
2007-05-10 12:32:31 · answer #5 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is you who should change your wording. Proof does not change belief. You flip a coin, I believe it's heads. You show me the coin is heads up. Should I suddenly change my mind? Blind faith will survive disproof. If you showed me tails, I could still believe by making up lies and excuses.
2007-05-10 12:36:27 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Er, I believe things that have been proven. Why wouldn't I?
2007-05-10 12:33:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your twisting words. Having a belief(faith) and believing are two different things.
I believe there is no god. You have a belief that there is one...
2007-05-10 12:34:49 · answer #8 · answered by vinster82 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ok as long as the other camp will use believing in their proper meaning that is : not knowing for sure.
2007-05-10 12:36:14 · answer #9 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God proved to the world that there was life after death when His Son defeated death. You either believe it or don't.
2007-05-10 12:34:28 · answer #10 · answered by Handy man 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋