Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Before you can study God, or the Force, first you must demonstrate that it even exists.
For some this is true and for others the exact opposite is part of the reasons for faith.
If you need evidence, by all means , seek it out but be carful to assume “everyone” needs evidence.
How do you study something that does not exist? This is not a claim either way, Im just asking how this could be done? If you assume something exists, (have faith) but have no way of understanding that thing or studying it you are just guessing. If something exists but does not interact with our reality how can you tell it from something that does not exist at all? And if something does exist and does interact with our reality then that means there would be ways to show that existence with evidence that can be reproduced and thus studied.
Is there any conclusion you could not come to using faith? I could have faith that there is an invisible unicorn in my garage. But if I have no way of demonstrating that unicorns existence what good is that faith? If that unicorn does not exist I would be acting in error to assume through faith that it does exist. This becomes an exercise in futility and so faith becomes an unreliable path to truth. Given this unreliable aspect why would you continue to rely on it?
This is not being closed minded, it is being skeptical. There is a difference. Closed minded dismisses the possibility of the unicorn existing. Skeptical, on the other hand, does not do this but also does not accept claims of faith. Instead it relies on other mechanisms to accurately arrive at actual truths. And in aspects of reality in which we may not have ready explanations, the answer to that truth is simply "I do not know". And that answer has to be sufficient instead of just making something up to fill that gap in knowledge with a God or a Force there is no evidence for.
