It may be a waste of time, but I keep hearing the ol’ “it’s not for me to prove God doesn’t exist, YOU have to prove He exists” burden of proof shift. So, I’ll try my best to get rid of this excuse so that proper conversation can take place.
First things first, though.
A scientific proof is different than a philosophical proof.
When people say “prove that God exists” or that “pink unicorns don’t exist” there tends to be a scientific proof undertone that doesn’t really belong.
Science can’t prove things that aren’t physical.
So, no science hasn’t proven that God doesn’t exist o that He does exist. It can’t. Assuming God exists, He cannot be a physical being. C.S. Lewis put it this way: it’s like expecting the architect of a building to be a wall inside that building. Since God isn’t a part of the physical realm, science cannot prove or disprove God.
Last thing before we continue: Science is not the only way to obtain truth. We can be certain - absolutely certain - of things in philosophy; it’s called an apodictic certainty. Really. It’s important to note that philosophy CAN be use to prove things that aren’t physical. Like God or unicorns.
Let’s take pink unicorns, for example. I use it deliberately, since I’ve literally read: “You can’t prove that pink unicorns don’t exist.”
Well, I’m about to try it anyway. But first you should know that I mean the classical view of a unicorn - what a person first thinks about when they hear the word “unicorn.” I do not mean a rhinoceros, or a one-horned anything or an altered common horse.
Allow me defend the premises:
Premise 1: Intentionally fictional things and/or characters don’t exist.
When a character or something is made with the intention of being intentionally fictional, that something is not real - even though it may be based on true events and/or characters. Santa Claus, for example, is an intentionally fictional character that we stop believing in because people don’t believe in intentionally fictional characters, even if they make them feel good about themselves.
Premise 2: Pink unicorns are intentionally fictional things and/or characters.
This is pretty self-evident since the only time the term pink unicorn is thrown around is as a mockery of Christianity and it’s something that is usually made up on the spot, with the clear intention of making it fictional.
The conclusion flows inevitably: Pink unicorns don’t exists.
There you have it. Anytime someone asks for prove that pink unicorn don’t exist, do just that.
Have a great day everyone!
Hey, there, Anon!
There’s a link with all the stuff you need to know about me. Click away, kiddo.
As for denominations, there’s Three Doctrinal levels we need to understand:
The Essential Doctrine
The Secondary Doctrines
The Tertiary Doctrines
It’s important to understand that the Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines both “live” within the Essential Doctrine. In other words, when we talk about the last two Doctrines, we’ll be assuming that we’re talking about people/churches that have already accepted the Essential Doctrine as true.
With me, still? Awesome.
My little niece, who’s had to pee almost since the movie “Frozen” started, finally got up and went to the bathroom after Elsa’s big number.
And she’s singing: “Let it flow! Let it flow…”
The reason behind the low self-esteem of every Mildred in their late 20’s, early 30’s.
Really funny stuff from Minimumble.com! Go check it out!
This argument is an internet sensation, but I find it utterly unconvincing for a few reasons:
1. This objection assumes that God has never healed an amputee. However, how can one know that God has never healed any amputee ever in human history?
2. It is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for not healing amputees. Since this is at the very least possible, this objection fails.
As philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out, it is possible that:
“God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know He’s there and yet hiding His presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore Him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.”
3. Even if God has never healed an amputee at any moment in human history it still does not follow that He doesn’t exist. One still must deal with the positive evidence that suggests God does exist.
4. I believe the person making this objection is operating under a false assumption. Let us imagine that an amputee prays to be healed and wakes up the next morning with their once missing limb fully in tact. I could easily imagine those who would still search for a naturalistic explanation for how the limb returned in spite of the evidence that a miracle had occurred. This objection assumes that the problem is intellectual. However, it could be that the objector is suppressing the truth simply because they do not want to be accountable to God. In other words, it could be that their problem with God is not an intellectual one, but a moral one.
(*) rights not owned, original source here.
Someone submitted a link to this article - it is EYE-OPENING, to say the least. A MUST READ. [Click on the link above]
If you support homosexuality, it’s VERY, VERY likely that you’re the victim of an incredibly clever psychological marketing ploy by homosexual activists that’s been YEARS in the making.
==> "It’s not about rights. It’s about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their ‘lifestyle’ without having to be disturbed by reality."
==> “But this is not about truth. It’s about manipulation.”
It’s happening. We’re beginning our way down the predicted slippery slope…
It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.