Most religions predict certain things can happen that are out of the norm. As such, there's an observable implication which can be derived from them. If you believe in scientific proof, then surely you can apply the same standard of observation to the religious observable implications and use that basis as truth. Just because no one has observed anything supernatural in support of religion does not mean it could not happen, I don't see how you can make such a strong claim. For example if Christianity is true, wouldn't God appearing before the world 4000 feet tall and proclaiming such be 'good enough' proof?
I'm afraid you misinterpreted the statement slightly - the whole sentence is All religions cannot be proven true, and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule.
Taking the pieces separately isn't inappropriate, but it does change the meaning slightly if you do not add the last third of the sentence to the first: All religions cannot be proven true as a general rule,
and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule.
I may not have made the intent clear, for which I apologize.
Scientific method is a very effective way of proving a truth. Unfortunately, it is a fact - a truth, if you will - that scientific methods are always changing and growing, and that what cannot be proven now we are forced to accept on faith. Einstein's E=mc2
was not proven until this year. We were essentially forced to accept it on faith while we strove to prove it. We did prove it. That neither invalidates other theories nor completes all theories, but is simply one more aspect of the overall truth that we can understand currently and accept as proven truth. There is no reason that multiple religions, which presents various 'truths' as yet unproven, cannot each be proven to be true and correct. An individual's belief in a religion might determine its validity. It may not. That doesn't invalidate their belief, or the idea that it is a potential truth.
I'm not sure if I understand your definition of validity, but it seems here that you're claiming that simply believing in something could possibly make it true for that person. That would essentially mean there is no truth, which makes this entire discussion pointless.
And I could believe my toe is the deity that created the heaven and the stars but that doesn't make it a rational claim. Believing two conflicting statements is clearly contradictory.
A central tenet of the Christian religion is the belief that there is only one God. This would mean the Goddess could not exist. Yet you claim it's not incorrect to believe in both.
Irrationality and belief in paradoxical or conflicting statements are not necessarily one and the same.
Truth is not a fixed thing. Truths can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misconstrued - which does not mean they are not true all of the time, or any less truth. It means that they are not fully understood. A central tenet of the Christian belief is that there is one God, yes. Yet some will also state that the Son of God is God. Contradiction: God cannot be the son of God, and God. Two completely separate entities existing simultaneously.
We have created states of matter in which a single object appears in multiple places at once. We have scientific proof that this is real, possible, and factual. Bose-Einstein condensates were the first of the states of matter where we could detect multiple existences of a single particle, and prove that they were one particle. The following video starts off as a kid's video, but the explanations in the middle area are the important data.Are We all Connected? What IS Entanglement?!
And he's right, it is rather mind boggling and really has no impact on day to day life that we know of.
So, we have proven that one thing can be in multiple places. We have also potentially proven some versions of Christian belief are now possible, despite an apparent internal contradiction: the Son of God and God are separate entities, and a single entity. It opens a doorway into the potential for multiple versions of the truth to be true, because the potential for truth can no longer be stated as provably false. This is 'faith in an unproven but possible truth'. Can there be multiple singular Gods and Goddesses? There can be a multiple singular particle, proven scientifically and evidenced. A belief structure that accepts one as possible, can accept the other as possible. But it is a belief structure that is separate from and incorporates other belief structures.
The way you attempt to define religion and the direction you take your argument is completely incomprehensible to me. Maybe I'm lacking imagination to understand the specifics of your argument, but I certainly can't see the logic in it. If you could explain it more simply, I could probably follow it, but I can't really debate this with you if I can't follow the steps involved in your crafting your points.
There is logic here, but explaining the logic is difficult at best, and undoubtedly there are flaws and arguments that cannot simply be explained or put forth as linear, straightforward statements. Which is not a fault of yours, or mine, but simply a limitation of the language and the differences between how people relate information, as well as differences in understanding and beliefs. I did try though.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if we've reached a point that I just *can't* understand because you're better read than I am (I certainly think you're more eloquent than me). If we're at an impasse, I'd prefer to just bow out of the discussion than keep going if it's going to seem like I'm being rude to you, because I really don't want to insult you. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you Mnemaxa.
I understand your concern, and appreciate it. I doubt I could continue much further, as we are approaching the point where 'faith', 'truth', and 'reality' become fuzzy at best.