back
2 comments
Agreed on your first sentence. That's another way to think about what I said.

As to the rest, it's your prerogative to place the burden of proof wherever you'd like. Though it's not necessarily the case that a hypothetical God would agree with you about your standards for proof.

To think a God would be unfair to not provide clear proof about miracles, etc. is a fair point, but it's not a rational or scientific one.

It's not irrational. The absence of proof results in what is known as faith.

In security, you can't prove something is secure, because you can't prove a negative.

You can have reasonable faith that something is secure. We don't call that irrational thoughts. We can test for certain things, but not all things.

Perhaps someone has a better analogy, but that's one example off the top of my head.

> The absence of proof results in what is known as faith.

It's not. The Christian word "faith" (in Greek, pistis (1)) is better translated as "trust", "conviction", or "faithfulness". "Faith" and "belief" are also translations, but the English meanings of those words have been watered down over the years, hence a lot of this confusion.

Anyway, you don't need proof to trust something, to have conviction that it's true. And having incontrovertible proof doesn't mean you don't trust something anymore.

(1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...

Many people take faith to mean to blind believe. But it is not like that at all.

What does it mean to have faith? Have faith in what?

When Jesus says have faith, Jesus meant have faith in what he said. In other word, believe in what he says. But what does that mean though?

What Jesus meant by believe is this...

Jesus: "Dude, believe me, you can save yourself from a life of misery and pain if you just do these things I am about to tell you: Do not murder. Do not kill. Do not steal. Etc. And also, remember, I love you and God loves you."

But somehow, most people have misunderstood this to just mean blindly believing.

Perhaps that sentence was not clear, as I typed it in a hurry before my bus stop. What you described is what I meant to say. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
If we press enough, though, the evidence in question turns out to be divine revelation and the axiom that it genuinely happened.