Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
so you don't claim to know something but you do claim to know something? no, it's not the same thing, it's a flat-out contradiction.
still, i essentially see what you're saying. as kierkegaard put it, there is no room for faith without doubt.
what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind? it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world is God's signature. as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?" why do things want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.
here's my suggestion, stop paying attention to fundamentalists, start reading Kierkegaard or Pascal.
even Schopenhauer, just to get over the stifling spirit of positivism. if the only connections you look for in life are factual connections, you won't get very far. in fact, nobody does this. everyone assumes, extrapolates, uses analogies and metaphors to understand things in general, in abstract.
|
I'm aware that it's a contradiction.
But I'm inclined to believe there is a god and that's not something I can do anything about.
However I don't claim there to be any factual evidence for his existance. I guess you could call it faith, even though I'm not a spiritual person by any means.