Silly games

Most secularists always seem to try to refute GOD on the basis of scriptural inconsistencies and the obscure nature of the historicity of the documents contained therein; this forces the adherents of these religions to safe their conceptual GOD by bending à la Einstein religious text to such extent that it can resuscitate their dubious claims in intellectual zombies.

In addition to that there’re the hardened atheists that falsely sustain that the burden of proof lays by those that make a claim, that’s to say, by those that make a statement concerning the validity of whatever what; however, may it be clear that given proof applies to anyone making a claim, no matter what that claim might be. Given that we all nolens volens  in one way or the other claim something about the factuality of GOD demands that we should all give weight to the truth potential of our claims or position – e.g. if someone claims that there is no money in the safe than he, just as the one that is claiming the opposite or the one claiming that he has no mean of knowing it, should proof or outline the validity of their claim  if asked for.

The agnostic Bertrand Russell, in his script ‘introduction to sceptical Essays’, writes; I quote:

“I wish to propose for the reader’s favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”

With all the above in view the questions boil-down to this:

  • Should we keep on engaging ourselves with pure philosophical debates that are nothing more than an exercise in sophistical conceptualism on academic level because there are assumingly no testable grounds out there that can give substantial weight to the truth potential of the factuality of GOD?
  • Must we blindly accept, as secularists do, that there is no GOD, no universal guiding principle, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no freewill and no ultimate meaning in life?
  • Ought we openly to confess, as some of our church fathers preach aloud, that faith and not reason is our only resort?
  • Is there really no GOD because of all the bad that wanders across the face of Earth, or is GOD fictional since the whole concept of religion and church is based on stories, bloodshed and indoctrination?

The short answer to these questions is evidently ‘NO’. Only a fool would claim that there is no light because of all the darkness that encloses space.

It seems to us that we have all kind of correction glasses, binoculars, microscopes and telescopes that enable us to see the far and small alike; yet, none of them allows us to see human stupidity!

Both, adherents of secular and sacred religions, miss the whole point.

The focus should not be on validating or debunking the God of scripture but on the truth potential of the factuality of GOD conform MUTCAG, and from thereupon proceed to see with what GOD we’re actually dealing with – if any.

Godincilogy is a good tool in this regard.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish