RE: Why Religious Proof Or Disproof Is Unimportant
October 31, 2013 at 11:36 am
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2013 at 11:41 am by Walking Void.)
I wish there were more theoretical theists than adamant theists. The theorists are people who would use logical reasoning to fit in a possible god figure, if able, but never forges the validity of such a god existing. Just like math, we propose different theories on solving patterns, then expand that beyond measurements. Before long You have abstraction that is no longer applied.
Tl;dr- theoretical theists try to work a god into real equations or expressions, but never declare any statements on the matter.
The adamants are the common group of theists that regardless of their intelligence, make illogical claims and push them. Why? Because it bears some sort of relevance. What relevance? It is not known, but still important. We might know what relevance it bears to to head of state (like the church), but the followers are simply loyal companions.
Tl;dr- adamants say god(s ) exist(s), regardless of logic.
TL;DR - Why can theists not hypothesize and attempt to solve how a god exists WITH UNCERTAINTY instead of null-claiming that existence with CERTAINTY?
Tl;dr- theoretical theists try to work a god into real equations or expressions, but never declare any statements on the matter.
The adamants are the common group of theists that regardless of their intelligence, make illogical claims and push them. Why? Because it bears some sort of relevance. What relevance? It is not known, but still important. We might know what relevance it bears to to head of state (like the church), but the followers are simply loyal companions.
Tl;dr- adamants say god(s ) exist(s), regardless of logic.
TL;DR - Why can theists not hypothesize and attempt to solve how a god exists WITH UNCERTAINTY instead of null-claiming that existence with CERTAINTY?
