It shouldn't matter if the existence of God can be proven or not. It is all based on faith.

Asked by: liltankjj
  • Faith is the overlooked stipulation here.

    How can someone prove something they believe in due to personal evidence? There is no way I can expect someone to relate to every experience I've had. So how can I possibly expect to prove something based off of that same experience? God’s existence is based on someone’s personal relationship and those that share similar relationships.

  • Its the strength of believe

    The GOD is the power we get from the beilef. It is the peace of mind we get when we have no hope but still can think there is still one hope and that is GOD. It doesn't matter if we can prove existance of GOD or not, until someone is not shattering your faith.

  • Pascal's Wager is an argument for the benefits of believing in the existence of God.

    The argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise. Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

    Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

    Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.

    The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
    1.God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
    2.A Game is being played... Where heads or tails will turn up.
    3.You must wager (it is not optional).
    4.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
    5.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
    6.But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

    Pascal asks the reader to analyze mankind's position, where our actions can be enormously consequential but our understanding of those consequences is flawed. While we can discern a great deal through reason, we are ultimately forced to gamble. Pascal cites a number of distinct areas of uncertainty in human life.

  • Proof of God.

    #. What is the proof of God? Direct perception, Pratyaksha. The proof of this wall is that I perceive it. God has been perceived by all who want to perceive Him. But this perception is no sense perception at all; it is supersensuous, superconscious.

    #. We have to sense God to be convinced that there is a God. We must sense the facts of religion to know that they are facts. Nothing else, and no amount of reasoning, but our own perceptions can make these things real to us, can make my belief firm as a rock.

    #. Truth has such a face that anyone who sees that face becomes convinced. The sun does not require any torch to show it; the sun is self-effulgent. If truth requires evidence, what will evidence that evidence?

    #. The Hindu does not want to live upon words and theories. If there are existences beyond the ordinary sensuous existence, he wants to come face to face with them. If there is a soul in him which is not matter, if there is an all-merciful universal soul, he will go to Him direct. He must see Him, and that alone can destroy all doubts. So the best proof a Hindu sage gives about the soul, about God is--- "I have seen the soul; I have seen God."

  • This is a Modern Perception.

    At least biblically speaking, faith is best translated into, "TRUST IN GOD", not anti-intellectually nonsense about denying evidence because of what you would like to believe is true. This idea of faith being blind results largely from Kierkegaard, but there is very good evidence for God's existence, even if proving may not quite be within grasp. We are not confined to personal accounts and anecdotes.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.