English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Here is a common analogy that still gets used:

"I do not need proof of God anymore then I need proof of air.I can't see either and yet know that both exist"

This analogy is used by replacing "air" with virtually anything from the human brain to a blackhole.These analogy's are so useless since they always rely on two things that fail.
1.both can't be seen thus can't be proved
2.one exists thus the other must as well

The reason these two examples fail is because much of what is used in these kind of analogy's can be proved and/or seen whilst God can not be.These analogy's also can be used to argue for any God or any other invisble force no matter how obviously made up might be (example: tooth fairy).

So, why oh why are these analogy's still used?Are there still people out there who think these analogy's actually work at making a point other then that the person trying to make the point has nothing better to go on?

2007-12-05 03:07:01 · 11 answers · asked by Demopublican 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

dewcoon,

Yes.You're right.I missed that third part.So, you can "feel" and "see" the affects of God and that is also true of air.Right?Well, can you change the composition of God or create an artificial God that works just as well?You can with air.

2007-12-05 03:24:09 · update #1

11 answers

They still use these analogies because they don't have a better argument to put forward

2007-12-05 03:11:22 · answer #1 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 3 3

DemoPublican, I think you misintepret the analogy. I don't think I would say the phrase like you quoted, but I have heard the analogy used.

"1.both can't be seen thus can't be proved":

Air is not seen, like God, but that analogy that is actually part of the origin of the word "spirit" itself, meaning wind. It means you can't see it, but you see it's effects. The intention of the analogy isn't to demonstrate it can't be proved. It just means since something is not seen, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

"2.one exists thus the other must as well":

The air analogy is only an analogy which is meant to demonstrate something. It is not a logical conclusion that one exists, the other must exist. It is a demonstration of how a thing can exist, although it can't be seen.

Analogies are used when speaking about God because we cannot fully understand the infinite. Also, I believe they must be used for some theology to be understandable. They are often simplier to use then walking through concepts using abstract terms. Most people aren't that versed in those philosophical and theological terms. The same can be said of parables which can help bring insight to the ordinary layman.

"Well, can you change the composition of God or create an artificial God that works just as well?You can with air."

The analogy, as with any analogy, is not perfect. God is like air only in some senses. It is not intended to be an perfect analogy.

2007-12-05 03:33:41 · answer #2 · answered by Ed H 4 · 0 0

The reason the analogy is still uses is because it is a good one. You just missed point number 3 of the analogy.

3. while we can not see air, we know it exist because we can see the affect of it all around us, and can breath it. In the same way I know God exist because I can see the affect in answered prayer, miracles, changed lives, etc every day. And i can "breath" from his presence, wisdom, guidance, etc whenever I need and see it affect.

That is one of the problems with any analogue. You think about it too long and there is always some way that you can make it fail.

2007-12-05 03:18:15 · answer #3 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0 1

Yes these actually do work. Sometimes you may have to use different ones but the serve the purpose. By the way, a reality is something that is real whether you chose to believe in it or not. Just because you refuse to accept the eality of something does not mean it does not exsist.

There are many tangible proofs and evidences for the exsistence of God and An Almighty God, at that. If you just chose to not acknowledge it or cast it aside it is still your own personal decision. it's okay. We still love ya', and so does He.

God Bless you and guide you into His Truth

2007-12-05 03:24:04 · answer #4 · answered by xgarmstrong 3 · 0 0

IF there is no space/time then there is no relativity, to have relativity there has to be a here, a there and the space in between. God cannot know Him/Her self as good if there is no bad. God experiences Itself through the realm of the relative. There is a story of two spirits planning to come here, the one wants to know what it is like to forgive, the other says I'll do something that you can forgive me for. Hypothetically, it is not possible. In reality, evil does not exist, we are inherently good, no one does anything wrong considering their picture of the world. It is explained very well in the Conversations with God series, where God answers many many questions about things we would want to ask.

2016-04-07 10:31:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

you are the judge on this one

i come to your court and say, I have proof of the existance of God, and I lay out a systematic array of evidence, supported by documentation and experiementation.

you listen carefully to my presentation and recess: you return and say, i have studied (which you would have) your evidence and my staff has verified your sources and experimentation, however, i will not allow this evidence into my court for the superior court of ?? has rules no evidence for god can exist in thisguy vs: thatguy year of ruling.

in effect, if the evidence does exist, in many cases people just won't hear it for the common pronouncement is you can't prove god.

given that firewall, why would a christian honestly waste the time to present what you won't hear anyway?

again, remember, each person is thier own court, weighing what will and will not be accepted.

2007-12-05 03:53:51 · answer #6 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0 0

To borrow your word, the practice of making analogies based on a 2,000 year old understanding of science is analagous to relying primarily on a 2,000 year old book for wisdom, social commentary, moral insight, and literary inspiration.

2007-12-05 06:48:17 · answer #7 · answered by nora22000 7 · 0 0

You probably got this from a website, but I'll bite:

I don't need proof of God because of my faith in Him. Hebrews said faith is the evidence of things not seen. I have allot of faith in a lot of things. God is included in this. They do work, but only to an extent. I don't need proof, it's not like God makes my life any worse, if He didn't exist. Atheists though, man oh man, I WISH they didn't exist.

2007-12-05 03:12:57 · answer #8 · answered by tcjstn 4 · 0 2

a well placed analogy is one of the ways to enrich our dying language.

I like metaphors , similes, and word pictures too.

even when im not discussing religion, i sometimes HAVE TO use analogies to get my point across, or to understand another's view...

2007-12-05 03:13:04 · answer #9 · answered by 2009 time to shine 4 · 1 0

I would like to see some of these Joker when you take the air away what happens! is the god gonna jump in and give them gills or something other so they don't die?

2007-12-05 03:13:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers