Silly games

Get real!

Naturalist and atheist alike always seem to try to refute GOD mainly based on:

  1. scriptural inconsistencies;
  2. the obscure nature of the historicity of the documents contained therein, and
  3. misconduct of religious powers.

Yet, 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?

Of course not!
Only a fool would claim that there is no light because of all the darkness that encloses space.

Who must catch the mouse?

Other people falsely sustain that the burden of proof lays by those that make a claim.
However, may it be clear that given weight to the truthfulness of a claim applies to anyone making a claim, no matter what that claim might be.

Let us give you an example to make this more apparent:

  • e.g. if someone claims that there is no money in the safe then he, just as the one that is claiming the opposite or the one claiming that he has no mean of knowing it, should give substantial weight to the truthfulness of that claim if asked for.

Thus, both – i.e. believer and non-believer – must always give substantial weight to their claim if such is asked for!

 

Stop using double standards!

Another tactic is to demand that claims regarding GOD must be subjectable to the scientific method.

Nevertheless, if this is the only way we can give weight the truth potential of whatever what then many knowable and self-evident things that can be known with great certainty cannot be validated.

Here is an example that makes that point clear:

  • If someone before 1960 (let’s call him Willy) concluded that his grandfather’s, grand, grand, grand, grand, grandfather (let’s call him Johny) ever existed then nobody with a good taste of commonsense doubted in the validity of Willy’s claim.

Even though we could always come-up with an absurdity to deny Willy’s claim, scientist and non-scientist alike, in the days back then, did not doubt in the truthfulness of such claim since we’re the irreproducible produced proof that can all individual, collective and planetary observe that humans come from other humans.

However, may it be clear that from the hard-scientific point of view no evidence was given by Willy that could validate his claim by means of the scientific method.
So, did we have to weight till the DNA structure was discovered and well enough understood before we could give substantial weight to the truth potential of Willy’s claim?

Of course not!

Nevertheless, what the discovery of the DNA structure, among other things, has done is demonstrating us irrevocably that when hypotheses are based on observable facts, known things and good commonsense related reasoning then, in general, substantial weight might always be given to the truth potential of its derived conclusions.

The same hold true for given weight to the truth potential of GOD’S factuality; we just have to learn what to look for GOD.