Question:The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. How do you differentiate? Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Wouldn't you agree that God is an extraordinary claim?
Answer:
1.) Thanks for your question! Things invisible can be revealed through senses and observation other than vision. Example, we cannot see the wind, but through other senses and observation we know it exists. For evidence that points to the existence of God, please see my previous post titled "Does God Exist?".
2.) The non-existent does not exist, therefor cannot be acknowledged in any way.
3.) Carl Sagan -
In reply to a direct question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan gave a direct answer: "I'm agnostic." Sagan argued that the idea of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to disprove unless we obtained conceivable scientific discovery of an infinitely old universe. As most scientists in Astronomy & Astrophysics agree, the universe is finite & had a beginning. So, according to Sagan's own words, it is very difficult to disprove that there is a Creator of the universe.
I also agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that the universe popped into existence uncaused & out of nothing seems to be a far out extraordinary claim to me. I propose that this requires some serious extraordinary evidence.
Thanks,
Chad Dulaney
1 comments:
You seem to have missed the point of the question a bit. In the comparison of the "invisible" with the non-existent, it doesn't mean literally invisible, because it is obvious that just because you can't see something doesn't mean you can't detect it with other senses or instruments. The comparison is between something that gives no (or precious little) evidence of its existence and the non-existent, the implication being that God is such a thing.
Some believers acknowledge that God does not give definitive evidence of His existence. Their reasoning is often along the lines of "God wants you to believe He exists by faith, not by obvious knowledge" or simply "Proof denies Faith".
The question above is really directed toward these kinds of believers, since obvious proof of God makes the question moot. You are, apparently, not one of those believers, but one who believes that there is reasonable proof of God's existence.
I'm glad you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have come across many people who dispute that plainly obvious bit of reasoning.
Post a Comment