There are many proofs that God exists as well, from Aristotle on. But both the proofs and non-proofs are pointless in my opinion.
I have a friend named Brent. He’s pretty tall, balding and has huge feet. Let’s say we had a disagreement whether Brent exists. I could tell you about him, I could talk about how I met him, etc, but none of these are proofs.
I could prove that there is the possibility that Brent exists, but that isn’t proof he does, in fact, exist. For instance, because I could imagine Brent doesn’t mean that he does, in fact, exist. It just means that it is possible he exists. I could even point to his children that say he exists and fathered them, but that isn’t proof, in and of itself.
My only proof is that I have met Brent, experienced his personality, saw him and I can show the gifts he gave me. None of this is proof for anyone else that he exists, but it is more than sufficient for me, because I am the one with a relationship with him.
You can see where I’m going with this. If God exists, the only real proof for God is experiencing God personally. I think the agruments for the existance/non-existance of God is just silly. Either you know him or you dont.
If you want to know someone, you go up, attempt to approach them and see what happens after that. It’s the same with God. No one can intellectualize someone into belief. But I can introduce you to Brent, and after you meet him, you’d know what I was talking about.
Steve K
1 comment:
so unless we can meet god we can't intellectualise him into being. Any God that exists will be less than God - because God is beyond exixtance
Post a Comment