Hacker News Reader

Comment by Scubabear68 | Hacker News Reader

I think the very definition of Christianity is that you are accepting the creed on faith. There really aren’t any claims you can verify or falsify until after you die (or during the special time of the Rapture).

View on HN

This is false. There are thorough proofs (or, to avoid the success-word, attempts at proof) for God's existence. They are ignored or misunderstood by the popular atheists like Dawkins and Dennett. They are impossible to summarise in a combox or pithy comment but the information is out there if you care to look. [0]

There are also miracles with thousands of witnesses, most notably that at Fatima. The witnesses included not just Catholics, but also Protestants, atheists and those of other religions. https://www.basicincome.com/bp/files/Meet_the_Witnesses.pdf

[0] See Edward Feser's Five Proofs

Personal revelation requires no faith. Such evidence might then rationally lead to belief, like any other anecdotal conviction. That it provides little external evidence is just unfortunate for the rest of us.

That's not the definition of Christianity. Catholicism has a long philosophical tradition discussing the existence of God, and that tradition is far from refuted.

It is literally impossible to prove that god does not exist. It is not a disprovable statement.

I also can't prove Ra, Zeus, Thor, Unicorns, Ghosts, or Superman don't exist.

Well, there are some atheists that argue that God's omnibenevolence is incompatible with the evils in the world, meaning God cannot exist (or at least, is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent, and if these are part of the definition of God, then God insofar as the term refers to something with at least these two properties, does not exist). Theists have responses to this argument, but the point is that the subject matter is something that can be rationally discussed.

Sure, I've engaged in similar discussions in philosophy classes, but this was always about whether a specific definition of "god" could exist and lead to discussion like "can God make a rock so heavy even they can't lift it".

It never has lead to a point that proves God exists or not. Unless philosophy has moved way beyond my readings and I missed it.

I think you misunderstand.

There are no physical proofs available that Christian it is right. As I say, it is all based on faith and belief.

Several other religions also have long philosophical traditions that are equally plausible - or not - and for which no physical proof exists.

Mathematical proofs need no physical evidence. They're saying something similar is accepted by some Christians. That's an internally consistent viewpoint. Us skeptics simply misunderstand their irrefutable logical proof.

Math is a tool used to describe the universe, not the universe itself.

The map is not the territory.

Thank you for saying this. This is very true and a perspective that is all too relevant to this discussion and many others.

You appear to be shadowboxing an argument where no arguments were made. If anything in my observational comment strikes you as remotely controversial or contradictory to yours, something has gone awry.

Discussing, not doubting (Except as an exercise to criticize skepticism).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com