I find this a lot in discussing God. “Can you prove to me that God exists?” If I say “no,” I am dismissed because most of our society has bought the lie that only things that can be verified scientifically are valid. But you cannot prove scientifically that you were in bed last night, nor can you prove scientifically that love is real. We are however the poorer if we live our lives as if things that cannot be proved scientifically are false. And actually nobody does. We all act in faith in something, or we would not get on a bus or a plane! If I say “yes” (to the above question), and give one of the classical proofs of God's existence, I am met with such statements as “all truth is relative.” I do need to say though, that in my experience that line is only brought out when the other person is starting to loose the argument!
Most questions by skeptics involving God, have some hidden presupposition. The last question above assumes (and assumes wrongly) that scientific proof is the only valid proof. If this were the case many criminals would go free who should not go free. What I am saying is that the testimony of a witnesses is held up in court as a valid “proof.” It does need to be examined and tested, and this involves the character of the witness. This by the way, is one way we can find God, through the testimony of credible witnesses. Perhaps you don't know any. In my book that would be a valid excuse. But hey, I'm not God (ask my kids :)).
Can anything be "prove[n] scientifically"?
ReplyDelete