Wow, that’s a bloody enormous and utterly silly question.
(Thought I’d tackle a really small subject today !!!).
Why the argument? What’s the point?
Creationists versus worm-fooders!
This has been discussed and debated since time immemorial, or in other words, since God was a boy !!! Or wasn’t. I can totally understand why some people believe in ‘God’ (whatever that is), and I can totally understand why some people don’t. I don’t have an issue with either angle.
I know what I believe in (and don’t), and that’s enough.
Some people say, “There IS a God – I believe in him”.
Others say (contemptuously), “There’s no God; no such thing.”
Fine. To both parties, I say, “Prove it!”
“Go on – prove it”.
“But I can’t”, they both stammer in unicen.
In fact that’s not quite right. The first says something about having “faith”, which means that proof is unnecessary. That’s the whole idea of faith… it’s belief… it’s not saying that you know something absolutely.
The second says that he doesn’t have to prove that there isn’t a God – he isn’t responsible for proving that something IS NOT. He goes on to say that the onus of proof is upon the believer and not the non-believer.
He continues that it’s inane to be expected to prove the non-existence of a phenomena. (He’s pretty bolshie, and his face is getting redder and redder as he speaks).
No, it isn’t. The onus is not upon the believer any more or less than on the non-believer.
The onus of “proof” is a moot point – it cannot be proven for or against. Any discussion is acadaemic.
That’s how absurd the entire debate is. It is unprovable in either direction.
It’s pointless. The argument is a waste of time. “Aha”, you say, “But is there such a thing as time”….
Oh Lord !!!
Recently I’ve been reading David Lodge, although it’s “not the sort of thing I’d usually read”… I’m really enjoying his writing… very dry humour, and super intelligent writing.
Just finished his novel Paradise News based in Hawaii.
This quote is from the last page, and although there are lots of Lodge’s own writing well worth quoting, here he is quoting someone else, the Basque existentialist philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno, from The Tragic Sense of Life….
“In the most secret recess of the spirit of the man who believes that death will put an end to his personal consciousness, and even to his memory forever, in that inner recess even without his knowing it perhaps, a shadow hovers, a vague shadow lurks, a shadow of a shadow of uncertainty, and while he tells himself: ‘There is nothing for it but to live this passing life, for there is no other!’ at the same time he hears, in this most secret recess, his own doubt murmur: ‘Who knows?’… He is not sure he hears aright, but he hears. Likewise, in some recess of the soul of the true believer who has faith in the future life, a muffled voice, the voice of uncertainty, murmurs in his spirit’s ear: ‘Who knows?’… Perhaps these voices are no louder than the buzzing of mosquitoes when the wind roars through the trees in the woods; we scarcely make out the humming, and yet mingled with the roar of the storm, it can be heard. How, without this uncertainty, could we ever live?”
When Phillip Nitschke, AKA “Dr Death” – The Australian Physician and author, whose research is in the field of Euthanasia Medicine and painless death – was interviewed on Australian TV, he said (I’m paraphrasing) that he did not believe in a soul, or spirit, or an afterlife. His rationale was that he is a scientist… in other words, how could he believe in something which was not scientifically proven or provable. He immediately followed this answer by saying that he had, however, had inexplicable experiences in his work that he was unable to rationalise. He did not go into what those experiences were.
I too have had “inexplicable” experiences, which I do not TRY to rationalise… I know that they come from a place that I cannot pin down in rational terms… this does not make them any less “real”.
So yeah, who knows… not I, that IS certain.