Why can't ghosts and god NOT be proven?
Well, first, because they're not real but let's suppose for a moment that they are and someone offered hi-res photographic evidence for it, let's say in the form of a translucent but recognizable human figure of, say, Elvis or, in the case of God, a gigantic face in the sky. These things would simply be dismissed as CGI or a double exposure, or Photoshop trickery. There's so many ways to disregard photographic evidence for the "paranormal" now that it doesn't stand a chance even if these things did exist.Even if the Red Sea were parted today, I'd still assume it was some kind of geologic anomaly rather than god's supposed "magic."
So what would be acceptable evidence?
Hard to say. For me, it would have to be something that is truly impossible like, regenerating a lost limb or maybe something monumentally amazing but also kind of stupid like a volcano erupting in an enormous explosion of Skittles. Even then, I'd still question it before I'd accept it as something genuinely miraculous since "miracles" aren't real either.
I guess there's not a whole lot that would convince me and anything that might would be so impossible as to be ridiculous to speculate on.
What would pass as proof for you?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.My theory logically states that each electron creates an individual story based on the particle behavior so a ghost can be real for those individuals who think it is. We create the Universe so it is what we begin to make personal sense of. This idea should make more beliefs tolerable and elastic rather than ridiculed (which creates backlash) but it takes a century, or two, to change a mass belief. We likely don't have that much time but, if we do, it's because we are writing this illusion and created tech's which "saved us." Jesus and his dad will likely be said to have inspired those tech's (as they inspired our nation to form and create them).
rainmanjr
Level 8
Feb 5, 2023
0
Like someone said. If god wanted to prove his existence to me, then if he was all powerful and all knowing, then he would know how to prove his existence to me.
( We are though talking about the Christian god here. Odin and Zeus would not perhaps be able too, since they were not all powerful. )
Which means, either, god is selective, (perhaps racist sexist) in who it choses to show itself to, it prefers to remain hidden and all human gods are impostors, or it does not exist.
Fernapple
Level 9
Feb 4, 2023
2
It occurs to me, while reading your comment, that assigning god as a male (women like to ask if god is a she) is proven by being Jesus' dad. By fucking Mary (or causing her egg to be fertilized in some manner) god declared himself male. So, I can stop saying Thou to avoid gender. Odin and the original Z proved their existence by coming down from their mountain and fucking everyone (creating problematic offspring).
Proof for the existence of a god or for a ghost would have to be the same as proof for anything else, testable, repeatable evidence that contributes to the overall body of scientific knowledge.
The problem of course is that "God(s)" require faith and faith is the very antithesis of knowledge.
Thus according to theology this means that the prerequisite unknowability of a god means he she or it cannot be proven, for proof is knowledge and knowledge counters faith.
A god who is able to be proven to exist is by definition knowable and so is no longer definable as a god and so MUST be a false god, the ultimate blasphemy.
The same therefore would be, presumably the same for any lesser spirit such as the ghost of a deceased person. Once you can prove they exist, they cease to be so.
Conclusion... Theology is a steaming pile of horse shit
LenHazell53
Level 9
Feb 4, 2023
4
The only problem with being so scientifically pragmatic about this is we're talking about a "miracle" -- something ostensibly beyond science and physics so if it were testable and repeatable, then by definition, it's not a miracle and wouldn't be convincing.
Also, I concur with your conclusion.
Also. Why does god see any value in faith ?
@Fernapple Faith demonstrates, according to theology, a willingness trust in the word of god as put forth in the holy scrip, and a wish to trust in testimony either directly from god, or indirectly via an intercessory priest and obey unconditionally.
In reality faith is valued by by churches, churchmen and the priesthood because it demonstrates the gullibility of the faithful and their willingness to part with their money for the sake of the wellbeing of their imaginary immortal souls.
@LenHazell53 Well put. It may indeed be just, that the churchmen see requiring faith as simply a way to block difficult questions, the cynic in me says. Thank you for answering, the question was largely rhetorical but good answer.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.