If stated objectively as a truth, how one can, assert beyond all doubt to know there is no objective truth? If a person makes such an assertion, it does not seem to make sense to me, to state objectively, that something does not exist objectively. I can accept the assertion; they do not know if there is an objective truth, based upon what that person believes to be true. Hence, if a person believes something to be true it cannot be stated objectively, and/or beyond all doubt or question, that would be “Faith,” defined in www.dictionary.com as “belief that is not based on proof.”
As created, contingent beings, it is impossible to have complete and full knowledge of all that exists; hence, much of our existence is based upon faith of what exists or thought to exist, without being able to know beyond all doubt. As in the case with time and love as examples, how can human beings prove time exists, yet we understand it to be a concept universally accepted, trusted and adhered to without thought. Does it not take faith and trust, to plan our lives, appointments and schedules, based upon the time of day, week or month? How can we prove what love is or know someone loves us? These are concepts, which we believe to some degree of certainty but impossible to know beyond all/any doubt and/or be proven scientifically. Yet we plan and live our lives based upon concepts that cannot be seen or proven, to exist, beyond all doubt. “Trust” defined in www.dictionary.com as “confident expectation of something; hope.”
Created and contingent, human beings have no choice but to take certain things upon faith and trust. How can anyone state factually whether something or someone exists, if they do not experience something or someone directly? Do we simply disregard what we experience from one day to the next, as it is impossible to prove beyond all doubt or question what took place the previous day, week or month? It would be absurd to disregard history and state, “because, I did not experience something or someone directly, it did not or does not exist.” We would have to start each day over as if the previous day did not exist or ever happen. The knowledge that humanity obtains today can only be based upon the knowledge of what past generations obtained and so on, back to the first recorded history. It is impossible to not use or look at history in order to obtain future knowledge. Human beings are created and contingent, unable to obtain full and complete knowledge of all that existed, exists and will exist, regardless of the knowledge we obtain in our lifetime. We take it on faith, things that cannot be proven beyond all doubt, what has been handed down to us through history, is true, or at least to some degree true, but it is impossible to know beyond all doubt that it is true. Human beings simply do not nor cannot exist throughout time to witness firsthand all that has existed, exists now and will exist. Based upon this, it would make sense to assert, because they have not seen or witnessed something directly, they “believe” something to be true, although not knowing beyond all doubt.
If we accept, ideas and concepts that exist in our minds without being able to use scientific methods to prove their existence, such as “time” and “love,” it seems to me, weak at best to assert beyond all doubt, God does not exist, because it cannot be scientifically proven. Does it makes logical sense to state, if something or someone cannot be seen or experienced directly, and cannot be scientifically proven, hence that something or someone does not exist? It would make more sense to me, to assert, not knowing if God exists nor care, and choose to live their life accordingly, rather than to assert God does not exist and knowing it because God cannot be seen, heard, touched or scientifically proven to exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment