This is deep.
I think that it also slightly wrong.
Yes you don’t need to prove that someone is real if they are there with you. However if they are not there or you have not seen or experienced them then you need to be sure that they are real and not made up.
I explored the Christian faith/God to find out if God was real and if so what that meant for me.
I read history to find out about particular people of old and that proves there existence. There are multiple ways to see them, records about them from various sources.
If Jesus is not real then neither is Julius Caesar or Hannibal as there is less evidence for them
Let us call the unknown God. It is only a name we give to it. Now it hardly occurs to the understanding to want to demonstrate that this unknown exists. If, namely, God does not exist, then of course it is impossible to demonstrate it. But if he does exist, then it is also foolishness to want to demonstrate it, for in the very moment the demonstration commences, you would presuppose his existence. Otherwise you would not be gin, easily perceiving that the whole thing would be impossible if he did not exist.
One never reasons in conclusion to existence, but reasons in conclusion from existence. For example, I do not demonstrate that a stone exists but that something, which exists, is a stone. The court of law does not demonstrate that a criminal exists but that the accused, who does indeed exist, is a criminal. Whether you want to…
View original post 659 more words