Can science prove God ?

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems to me the right amount of religious and atheistic tolerance would be helpful, just as the acceptance of some of the worst aspects would not be.

My wife is of an evangelical persuasion. But her politics are social democrat so we get on fine providing we avoid talking about evolution. Coexistence at the individual level need not be problematic. It's at the institutional level where the real damage is done.

And the 28th vote was the first 'don't know'. That's interesting in itself.

Edited December 11, 2023 by sethoflagos
addition

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

(attending church takes precedent over kindness to someone of another faith, for instance).

I've not heard that before. Can you tell me where you got that info?

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

My wife is of an evangelical persuasion. But her politics are social democrat so we get on fine providing we avoid talking about evolution. Coexistence at the individual level need not be problematic. It's at the institutional level where the real damage is done.

And the individual level we can see people interacting many different ways with a religious framework.  My wife is Catholic, and derives great spiritual value and comfort from that without taking on some of the more dogmatic and intolerant baggage that some of that faith might do.  Her experience is such that I am unable to dismiss the value of a spiritual practice for some people, even if it differs from my own (more buddhistic, with a small B) or I see some members of a group acting badly and without compassion.  For her, it's a path of compassion, patience with others, tolerance, and support of personal freedoms (including, yes, medical freedoms for women) in life.  The ugliness and manipulations of organized heirarchical religions that alienate @Phi for All and many others here is something I understand, while at the same time recognizing that some people are adept as "taking the best and leaving the rest" in their religious practice.  

So I find myself falling short of the Hitchens position - religion poisons a lot of life, in a lot of places, but it doesn't poison everything.  For some people, their religious practice is a way to codify and issue self-reminders to love, care, show compassion, withold harsh judgments and work for peace.  For every religious nut who wants to send women back to the middle ages or squash LGBT folks or violently smite their enemies, there is a religious person who hasn't forgotten what great teachers like Jesus and Gautama taught.  And are better people for it.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I've not heard that before. Can you tell me where you got that info?

Not a canonical practice that I know of, but there are many verses in the Bible stressing the importance of going to church for various reasons, and there are also many verses condemning those who seek to pollute the Word by worshipping false gods and ideas. The fact that there are other verses that claim we're all the same and the god loves us all equally means these religions are attracting both good and evil people, and giving them all ways to justify all their actions.

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

but there are many verses in the Bible stressing the importance of going to church

Are you sure this is right? Admittedly I don’t know so much about the history of Christianity, but I’m pretty sure there weren’t any churches at the time these texts were written…

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Are you sure this is right? Admittedly I don’t know so much about the history of Christianity, but I’m pretty sure there weren’t any churches at the time these texts were written…

Paul wrote several letters to various churches at the time, and those ended up as books in the Bible. Galatians, Corinthians 1&2, Ephesians, Romans, etc, all pretty much start with "To the churches of X..."

And some of what Paul wrote was about the importance of going to church:

Quote

1 Corinthians 16: 1-2   

Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do.

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

A few more gems:

Quote

1 Corinthians 14:35

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Quote

Colossians 1:18

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Quote

Ephesians 5:23

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

More vertical morality, misogyny, and fear for profit. I think science can show that the Abrahamic religions are holding us back big time.

[iNow]

A simpler stance IMO is that the good things which are generally attributed to religious practice (sense of belonging, community, recognition of ideals higher than oneself, support mechanisms for dealing with loss and pain, etc.) don't themselves require religion as a prerequisite.

All of those things can equally be derived from other social communities and groupings like sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans, etc. People can come together and lend one another support and comfort and grace in nearly any other social setting. Religion need not ever enter the equation.

Ergo, the negative aspects of religion become amplified and more relevant to discussions like these since the negatives don't equally spread across all social / tribal groupings. 

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Are you sure this is right? Admittedly I don’t know so much about the history of Christianity, but I’m pretty sure there weren’t any churches at the time these texts were written…

Paul died around 65 AD

The first Christian Emperor converted 312 AD.
This was the start of the Holy Roman Church.

 

Prior to that I understand that Christians were persecuted on and off by the Roman Empire and survived as widely distributed small groups, I suppose you could call 'churches'.
I also understand that those early Christians are described in sociological terms as 'primitive communists' , rather like some small isolated sects to this day.

 

I also note, addressing the thread title, that even up to the end of the 19th century, most geologists were spurred on in an effort to scientifically prove God. An endeavour in which they discovered many things but spectacularly failed in their stated objective.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

I think calling it Utopia is misguided. If we can have a society where we don't stupidly ignore the worst pressures and stresses so an elite can have more than others, it's not going to be perfect for everyone, but hopefully it can have far fewer people barely clinging to their existence and also far fewer people buying shadow yachts with servants and toys trailing the main yacht. 

 

You used the term "heaven on Earth" which is essentially utopia by most definitions...or at least much closer to it than what you describe here which is much closer to what I thought was plausible with or without religion.. So I think we can at least agree that there is plenty of  room for practical improvements. You can certainly point at religious faith being part of the problem when corrupted in certain manners but removal certainly doesn't guarantee success.

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

Really? The first four are about their god being jealous. The fifth assumes your parents knew exactly what they were doing, and helps set up the vertical morality the church wants. The rest all focus on negative aspects of our existence, rather than a more positive, uplifting, I don't know... spiritual stance. We're commanded not to kill instead of being commanded to honor life. We're commanded not to steal rather than being commanded to respect the property of others. Modern psychology has a LOT to say about focusing on the negative, none of it good.

Yeah. I don't believe they are that bad. Some of them to a "fill in the details" extent are incorporated in some of our better laws. Our laws don't force you to abide by them all.

To be tolerant of them you need to look at them in a historical sense (not that I'm any biblical scholar). The concepts, and similar ones prior and in other religions, helped societies and individuals survive. They were "fitter" in that sense than having none.

Modern psychology may have some paths to improvement but is far from a hard science. Much of it doesn't lend itself well to scientific method and especially where it doesn't it certainly gets strong doses of human nature, both good and bad. In any event any advantages of any advancements were not  available back when the Ten Commandments were carved in stone. Also Moses would have broken his back carrying down all the tablets you would need for your caveats and improvements...😇😀

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

I think removing the concept that there are people who are more worthy than you will have a dramatic effect on our humanity. If the only help we can expect is from each other, I think others will have much more value. I also think bad human nature will no longer have a pious place to hide.

 

Unfortunately even if you removed every religion from the face of the Earth doesn't take that with it. We're kind of stuck with it in that without eradicating it from our DNA it would be back in a heartbeat if you could get rid of it from religions...

22 hours ago, iNow said:

 

All of those things can equally be derived from other social communities and groupings like sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans, etc. People can come together and lend one another support and comfort and grace in nearly any other social setting. Religion need not ever enter the equation.

...continuing from above...sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans etc.

Not to mention political parties...

...or science forums...(though admittedly many don't have it formalised in negative and positive reputation points...😄)

Edited December 13, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You used the term "heaven on Earth" which is essentially utopia by most definitions.

I think not, it's a conflation.

"heaven on Earth" is perfectly possible to achieve, for an individual; utopia is impossible because, there's always one... 

21 hours ago, iNow said:

A simpler stance IMO is that the good things which are generally attributed to religious practice (sense of belonging, community, recognition of ideals higher than oneself, support mechanisms for dealing with loss and pain, etc.) don't themselves require religion as a prerequisite.

All of those things can equally be derived from other social communities and groupings like sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans, etc. People can come together and lend one another support and comfort and grace in nearly any other social setting. Religion need not ever enter the equation.

Ergo, the negative aspects of religion become amplified and more relevant to discussions like these since the negatives don't equally spread across all social / tribal groupings. 

Maybe, but maybe religion started with the exact same message, but politicians got confused. 🤒 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You used the term "heaven on Earth" which is essentially utopia by most definitions...or at least much closer to it than what you describe here which is much closer to what I thought was plausible with or without religion.. So I think we can at least agree that there is plenty of  room for practical improvements. You can certainly point at religious faith being part of the problem when corrupted in certain manners but removal certainly doesn't guarantee success.

I was making the distinction @dimreepr mentions. I may be wrong, but Utopia always seemed focused on being the best place for everybody, like there's one size that can fit all. I think of "Heaven on Earth" as a place where the opportunities for prosperity are supported so each person can find their own ideals. Abrahamic religions don't even come close to that concept.

Also, I'm willing to support my assertions to the best of my abilities, but please understand I'm not talking about the "guaranteed success" of them. It does occur to me that if something fails to do what it's supposed to do after thousands of years, throwing it out seems valid. Maybe we take the halo off the baby and then throw out the bathwater?

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yeah. I don't believe they are that bad. Some of them to a "fill in the details" extent are incorporated in some of our better laws. Our laws don't force you to abide by them all.

I get that you're OK with only half of them being applicable to everyone. I hope you still feel that way when they figure out how to monitor how covetous you are.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To be tolerant of them you need to look at them in a historical sense (not that I'm any biblical scholar). The concepts, and similar ones prior and in other religions, helped societies and individuals survive. They were "fitter" in that sense than having none.

I'm done tolerating such bullshit. Just because those religions provided a way for conquerors to subjugate and oppress doesn't mean we need to keep allowing them to interpret their god's will any way they please. This is today, and we should be using our brains instead of this stupid faith in ancient religions. 

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately even if you removed every religion from the face of the Earth doesn't take that with it. We're kind of stuck with it in that without eradicating it from our DNA it would be back in a heartbeat if you could get rid of it from religions...

Stuck with it in our DNA? Citation, please.

I think this behavior is exactly the kind of thing that can be overcome with intelligence. Better education, more emphasis on science and less on beliefs from the Bronze and Iron Ages. But it will be difficult because there are many who think like you do, and believe it's inevitable that we'll always think only like other animals. 

[TheVat]

Apparently this company gets involved if we don't ask....

https://www.curicaltech.com/

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm done tolerating such bullshit. Just because those religions provided a way for conquerors to subjugate and oppress doesn't mean we need to keep allowing them to interpret their god's will any way they please. This is today, and we should be using our brains instead of this stupid faith in ancient religions. 

I think this discussion could benefit from a dichotomy between religion as a hierarchical dogmatic system of population control and as a personal spiritual practice.   I see considerable difference from a Zen practice seeking inner peace and enlightenment, and a power broker banging a Bible or a Quran.  I know scientists with first rate brains whose spiritual practice may embrace something like the former while rejecting the latter.  

Religion may not be hardwired (though a tendency to believe in unseen things may lurk in our wiring, as Sagan noted, in Dragons of Eden), but a desire to understand oneself as part of something larger, as connected to all life, may be somewhat baked in, both genetically and memetically.  

I think it's possible humanity can embrace reason and science without discarding spiritual acts like meditation, contemplation, and some seeking after metaphysical questions.   Any utopia that discards all such activity would seem to risk a totalitarian cliff edge.

 

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think this discussion could benefit from a dichotomy between religion as a hierarchical dogmatic system of population control and as a personal spiritual practice.   I see considerable difference from a Zen practice seeking inner peace and enlightenment, and a power broker banging a Bible or a Quran.  I know scientists with first rate brains whose spiritual practice may embrace something like the former while rejecting the latter. 

No offense, but this has already been done by targeting the Abrahamic religions, and the practices you mention aren't really applicable to a thread about god. Defending spirituality in this instance gives a lot of leverage to the Bible thumpers and the SoMuchHolierThanThou folks. Thanks, but no thanks.

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Religion may not be hardwired (though a tendency to believe in unseen things may lurk in our wiring, as Sagan noted, in Dragons of Eden), but a desire to understand oneself as part of something larger, as connected to all life, may be somewhat baked in, both genetically and memetically.  

Of course it's not hardwired. The tendency to explain the unseen may have started in superstition, but we don't have to continue to placate the ignorant in this regard. We are distinct among species in our reasoning power, and for too long the Abrahamic religions have been the law of the land despite all the problems they've created. We've let those in power decide how to interpret the word of imaginary beings, and then lie to us about how it's necessary in order to understand oneself. 

Our desire to be part of something larger is mostly snuffed by the Abrahamic religions. They've taught us that only a few can be right, the rest wrong, and the last thing you should do is find empathy and common ground with such heathens. We may find small groups, but we'll never unite as a species if Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their way. I, for one, am terrified that we're exploring space without being united as a planet, and these religions couldn't care less, since they all seem to give up on Earth in favor of their heavens.

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think it's possible humanity can embrace reason and science without discarding spiritual acts like meditation, contemplation, and some seeking after metaphysical questions.   Any utopia that discards all such activity would seem to risk a totalitarian cliff edge.

Ack! Sorry, choking from all the straw!

[J.C.MacSwell]

I didn't say that. I said some of them were the basis of some of our better laws.

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

Also, I'm willing to support my assertions to the best of my abilities, but please understand I'm not talking about the "guaranteed success" of them.

I did mention guaranteed success, but wasn't claiming you were suggesting any guarantee, just a strong belief that without religions alone man was capable of "heaven on Earth", which you now have explained means something considerably less to you than utopia.

On 12/10/2023 at 7:13 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you really believe we are capable of that just through elimination of religious beliefs?

 

On 12/10/2023 at 7:28 PM, Phi for All said:

I do. I think religion is the single most dangerous, evil, superstitious, dehumanizing practice we have ever allowed to be perpetrated on decent humans, and I think the vertical morality it engenders has held us back for millenia. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions alone have stunted our growth as moral intellectuals, and that without them we'd have a much firmer grasp of the importance of this very thin band of atmosphere that holds every bit of life we know about.

 

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I get that you're OK with only half of them being applicable to everyone. I hope you still feel that way when they figure out how to monitor how covetous you are.

 

I didn't say that. I said some of them were the basis of some of our better laws. That's hardly the same thing.

 

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm done tolerating such bullshit. Just because those religions provided a way for conquerors to subjugate and oppress doesn't mean we need to keep allowing them to interpret their god's will any way they please. 

If you are going to oppress and control peoples freedom of thought you might need to set up an oppressive hierarchy to do so...the very thing you are speaking against. I think it might be better to just focus on any resulting negative actions rather than ban religions entirely, which you seem to be in favour of.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Stuck with it in our DNA? Citation, please.

I think this behavior is exactly the kind of thing that can be overcome with intelligence. Better education, more emphasis on science and less on beliefs from the Bronze and Iron Ages. But it will be difficult because there are many who think like you do, and believe it's inevitable that we'll always think only like other animals. 

Any consistent human tendency, both good bad or both, obviously is allowed to manifest from some capability that is supported by our DNA. You might think the concept that some people are more worthy than others stems only from religion, without which no negative hierarchies would naturally arise but they are everywhere, some necessary and some not, and over time they tend to get abused by those in power. 

One of my examples was this forum. It certainly requires a hierarchy, and it's mostly good, but it's there. (I don't know which religious zealot among your staff set it up...but I'm sure you will turf them when you find them given your new found intolerance...that or maybe it's just inherent in human nature...😄)

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you are going to oppress and control peoples freedom of thought you might need to set up an oppressive hierarchy to do so...the very thing you are speaking against. I think it might be better to just focus on any resulting negative actions rather than ban religions entirely, which you seem to be in favour of.

It is a bit of a paradox. The only group of folks I find intolerable are those that can't tolerate whole groups of people. But I don't need to set up your oppressive hierarchy. I don't need to ban religions entirely. That's just more straw.

I want to remove the toxic influence of the Abrahamic religions from our governance. Do I need to ban them to do that, or can I just enforce what the US Constitution says about separating church from state? I don't need to remove the churches as long as I can get the transparency I need to keep them from molesting children, again a crime we already have provisions for. I don't need to ban the teachings as long as those who use it for violence can be dealt with by the law, which has been difficult in the past.

I don't need to emulate these religions with an oppressive hierarchy. Instead, I'd really like to move forward with some relief for all the people Jesus is supposedly weeping for, and maybe work on alleviation of suffering instead of embracing it as part of our sinful heritage. I'd like to remove the oppressive hierarchies Judaism and Islam inflict on those outside their faiths, too. I should be able to do that again by simply enforcing existing laws against the promotion of human suffering. Keep your religion, but stop using it as a shield to keep harming others.

It's tiring trying to see the trees through the forest of strawmen, but ultimately I think it's time to admit we have shackles on all of us, put there by the Abrahamic religions, and kept in place with our own minds thousands of years after the original con was engineered. It's embarrassing, I know, but we should be smart enough to rise above it. Science can show us we should just bookmark this fiasco and move ahead with educating ourselves in the natural world. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It is a bit of a paradox. The only group of folks I find intolerable are those that can't tolerate whole groups of people. But I don't need to set up your oppressive hierarchy. I don't need to ban religions entirely. That's just more straw.

I want to remove the toxic influence of the Abrahamic religions from our governance. Do I need to ban them to do that, or can I just enforce what the US Constitution says about separating church from state? I don't need to remove the churches as long as I can get the transparency I need to keep them from molesting children, again a crime we already have provisions for. I don't need to ban the teachings as long as those who use it for violence can be dealt with by the law, which has been difficult in the past.

I don't need to emulate these religions with an oppressive hierarchy. Instead, I'd really like to move forward with some relief for all the people Jesus is supposedly weeping for, and maybe work on alleviation of suffering instead of embracing it as part of our sinful heritage. I'd like to remove the oppressive hierarchies Judaism and Islam inflict on those outside their faiths, too. I should be able to do that again by simply enforcing existing laws against the promotion of human suffering. Keep your religion, but stop using it as a shield to keep harming others.

It's tiring trying to see the trees through the forest of strawmen, but ultimately I think it's time to admit we have shackles on all of us, put there by the Abrahamic religions, and kept in place with our own minds thousands of years after the original con was engineered. It's embarrassing, I know, but we should be smart enough to rise above it. Science can show us we should just bookmark this fiasco and move ahead with educating ourselves in the natural world. 

I am certainly onboard with that. +1

[iNow]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not to mention political parties

QFT. Quite right 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't need to emulate these religions with an oppressive hierarchy. Instead, I'd really like to move forward with some relief for all the people Jesus is supposedly weeping for, and maybe work on alleviation of suffering instead of embracing it as part of our sinful heritage. I'd like to remove the oppressive hierarchies Judaism and Islam inflict on those outside their faiths, too. I should be able to do that again by simply enforcing existing laws against the promotion of human suffering. Keep your religion, but stop using it as a shield to keep harming others.

I think we agree on this.  

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's tiring trying to see the trees through the forest of strawmen, but ultimately I think it's time to admit we have shackles on all of us, put there by the Abrahamic religions, and kept in place with our own minds thousands of years after the original con was engineered.

Having friends and a spouse who gain something from their Abrahamic practices, I will offer my observation that not everyone is shackled.  Individual people aren't binary where either they attend church and wear cognitive shackles or they are enlightened freethinkers soaring grandly over the intellectual landscape.   The problem with stereotyping believers is that not everyone who attends a service has signed on to every page of dogmatic boilerplate.  Stereotypes can also be strawmen.  I fear a hypocritical douche like Mike Johnson, but I didn't fear a Daniel Berrigan or a Thomas Merton.  

[Phi for All]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Having friends and a spouse who gain something from their Abrahamic practices, I will offer my observation that not everyone is shackled.  Individual people aren't binary where either they attend church and wear cognitive shackles or they are enlightened freethinkers soaring grandly over the intellectual landscape.   The problem with stereotyping believers is that not everyone who attends a service has signed on to every page of dogmatic boilerplate.  Stereotypes can also be strawmen.  I fear a hypocritical douche like Mike Johnson, but I didn't fear a Daniel Berrigan or a Thomas Merton.  

I haven't stereotyped any believers, unless by mistake. My gripe is with the premise of the Abrahamic religions, and I realize there are those who benefit from the spirit of the teachings, but I also realize folks like that (your friends and spouse who aren't natural persecutors) would most likely gravitate to something less rooted in sin, judgement, and penitence. I think all those folks would be more with less religion.

[AIkonoklazt]

Been saying this same in various banter with friends and colleagues through the decades:

"Extremists get all the airtime."

The loudest and the most attention-grubbing are almost uniformly the worst examples that the entire collective baskets could serve up. See it all the time on the news- After all, which is going to sell more, an outrageous headline or some boring one about some people with modicum of common decency and sense? How many examples of "quiet activism" gets into the public eye?

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 I think all those folks would be more with less religion.

Think someone said somethin' about that somewhere about the Pharisees, which then sorta kinda eventually got him mobbed

https://famous-trials.com/jesustrial/1042-home

(not the biggest offense but surely didn't help)

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think we agree on this.  

Having friends and a spouse who gain something from their Abrahamic practices, I will offer my observation that not everyone is shackled.  Individual people aren't binary where either they attend church and wear cognitive shackles or they are enlightened freethinkers soaring grandly over the intellectual landscape.   The problem with stereotyping believers is that not everyone who attends a service has signed on to every page of dogmatic boilerplate.  Stereotypes can also be strawmen.  I fear a hypocritical douche like Mike Johnson, but I didn't fear a Daniel Berrigan or a Thomas Merton.  

I think I probably could have best left that last paragraph out on my praise of Phi's post...but overall I think his post was a little more tolerant and achievable of progress than some previous.

Tolerance where possible, and working toward achievable progress, I think are two of the keys for humanity needed right now.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The tendency to explain the unseen may have started in superstition, but we don't have to continue to placate the ignorant in this regard.

Indeed, but when the bathwater is dirty it's hard to see the baby; religion still addresses the things we are yet ignorant of, the human condition and why the placebo affect is effective etc. 

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but when the bathwater is dirty it's hard to see the baby; religion still addresses the things we are yet ignorant of, the human condition and why the placebo affect is effective etc. 

"Addresses"? Religion perpetuates that ignorance, nurtures it, manipulates it. It gives us supernatural answers that are later explained by reason and science. Please do me a favor and spare me all the things you think we don't know that religion can "address". It's a list that's bound to be just as ignorant, since by definition you're just wishfully hoping religion still helps. 

And btw, it's never hard to see the baby unless the bathwater you're trying to throw out is THAT filthy.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I guess this comes down to the fact that Science can't answer questions that Religion claims to answer. So if you are pondering the unknowable, Religion has something to offer where science does not.

Edited December 14, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[mar_mar]

I think people lose faith, when they suppose God to to be Wizard, who performs wishes. It's a bit infant attitude.

Also in the soviet union they removed God from the society, priests were persecuted, and there was a propaganda of atheism.

And this is the shortest way to impose the necessary ideology on people, or some belief. Belief in who/what ever.

And sometimes it looks like atheists want to be convinced. It looks like give me some proof for me to believe. Well, if you don't believe, nobody calls you to believe. Ultimately we recognize true freedom via faith: you believe or you don't believe. It's only your choice.

And there can be no proof of God, because it contradicts to faith: you can come to God in a free will only.

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by mar_mar