The staticity of religion is based off of the obviously true idea that what is truly true does not change. The laws of physics do not change just because scientists learn more about them, for example.
Would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity? After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the late and great Carl Sagan said.
It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not.
I disagree with your Sagan. Disproving is far more important a task than proving. Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven, while a more "realistic" claim requires more evidence to disprove, and so should be harder to disprove. If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth. That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth.
"It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not."
Adherents of literally any religion could claim that about their particular God (and they do). Also, Stephen Hawking said something along the lines of that the universe could have arisen simply through the laws of physics.
"Disproving is far more important a task than proving."
That's laughable. The burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. If it was on people to disprove claims, humanity would believe in all kinds of wacky shit (much more than it already does).
"Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven"
Sometimes certain people just won't accept it when their extraordinary claim is disproven. Think of Flat Earthers, for example.
"If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth."
Yes. However, unless something is demonstrated to exist (with evidence), believing that it DOES exist just isn't reasonable. Like I said, the burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. Believing something without any evidence is simply ppue gullability, as it's impossible to discern things then. For example, there's a lack of evidence againsst pixies, leprechauns, etc. , but I won't believe in those things without evidence.
"That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth."
Very weird. Also, I'm afraid you still haven't demonstrated how Christianity, especially your version, is the truth. It isn't reasonable in the least to want people to believe without providing any evidence whatsoever.
The question remains: would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?
Religion is frustrating
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
No doubt, but religion is pretty much static, while science is constantly evolving and improving.
--
Pilum
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you've basically switched from one belief system to another.
--
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Humans like consistancy. Religion is pretty static and thus gives a more stable and certain outlook on life.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The staticity of religion is based off of the obviously true idea that what is truly true does not change. The laws of physics do not change just because scientists learn more about them, for example.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity? After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the late and great Carl Sagan said.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not.
I disagree with your Sagan. Disproving is far more important a task than proving. Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven, while a more "realistic" claim requires more evidence to disprove, and so should be harder to disprove. If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth. That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
"It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not."
Adherents of literally any religion could claim that about their particular God (and they do). Also, Stephen Hawking said something along the lines of that the universe could have arisen simply through the laws of physics.
"Disproving is far more important a task than proving."
That's laughable. The burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. If it was on people to disprove claims, humanity would believe in all kinds of wacky shit (much more than it already does).
"Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven"
Sometimes certain people just won't accept it when their extraordinary claim is disproven. Think of Flat Earthers, for example.
"If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth."
Yes. However, unless something is demonstrated to exist (with evidence), believing that it DOES exist just isn't reasonable. Like I said, the burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. Believing something without any evidence is simply ppue gullability, as it's impossible to discern things then. For example, there's a lack of evidence againsst pixies, leprechauns, etc. , but I won't believe in those things without evidence.
"That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth."
Very weird. Also, I'm afraid you still haven't demonstrated how Christianity, especially your version, is the truth. It isn't reasonable in the least to want people to believe without providing any evidence whatsoever.
The question remains: would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/science-is-not-religion_b_3870282