DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**avaiftBoara** · 09-24-2009, 12:21 AM

so is proving god's existence, do you not agree? my point is, it's really a choice, it's not something that can be answered. saying there is a God or higher power is no more illogical than saying there isn't. As William James pointed out, you're better off believing in something than believing in nothing since there's no upside to believing in nothing.

I agree that it's impossible to prove God's existence, BUT
there's a big difference between a believer saying, "I just saw a vision of Mary in the evening sky" and a nonbeliever saying, "I was in my study this evening and, well, I didn't see God around."
Believers require no proof, and they can always insist that nonbelievers just haven't seen the light yet.

True, it's a choice, but what if I said I had a bottle of magic WD-40 in my possession that cures blindess and speaks seven languages, but that I can't prove it because it stubbornly insists on working in mysterious ways. Would you then say that believing and disbelieving in the WD-40 are equally logical/illogical?

As for the William James thing, check out Pascal's Wager. There's a wikipedia page on it that sets out some of the logical problems with that same supposition as James'.

09-24-2009, 12:21 AM	#12
avaiftBoara Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	so is proving god's existence, do you not agree? my point is, it's really a choice, it's not something that can be answered. saying there is a God or higher power is no more illogical than saying there isn't. As William James pointed out, you're better off believing in something than believing in nothing since there's no upside to believing in nothing. I agree that it's impossible to prove God's existence, BUT there's a big difference between a believer saying, "I just saw a vision of Mary in the evening sky" and a nonbeliever saying, "I was in my study this evening and, well, I didn't see God around." Believers require no proof, and they can always insist that nonbelievers just haven't seen the light yet. True, it's a choice, but what if I said I had a bottle of magic WD-40 in my possession that cures blindess and speaks seven languages, but that I can't prove it because it stubbornly insists on working in mysterious ways. Would you then say that believing and disbelieving in the WD-40 are equally logical/illogical? As for the William James thing, check out Pascal's Wager. There's a wikipedia page on it that sets out some of the logical problems with that same supposition as James'.
	Quote