• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle
rss




  • The claim was that “lack of evidence doesn’t count” and “facts are facts” essentially. Neither of which are true. I’m assuming most people aren’t reading real philosophical arguments for or against god, and the court equivalence is purely an analogy meant to make the idea more relatable.

    At the end of the day—the argument that evidence is needed to prove or deny the existence of a god, is fallible. Purely because it changes based on: the evidence people have, evidence against it people lack, and how people interpret events.

    Anything in the realm of religion and reality comes down to this: it’ll always end as an opinion because it can not be confirmed or denied in any quantifiable way.




  • There is a huge different between “god doesn’t exist” and “proven there is no need for a god.”

    Depending who you ask, there is plenty of evidence. And you don’t even need to ask the Ken Ham’s of the world—there’s literally dedicated fields of study in philosophy arguing this.

    The whole “one bad apple spoils the bunch” comes from a series Descartes’ essays trying to figure out if God can be real.

    Plus, everyday people have experiences that they interpret as religious events. Coincidence, whatever, that could apply—you can’t, with 100% certainty prove them wrong. You can only assume based off the information you have and your preconceived notions of the world.

    Religion is complicated. People’s faith makes it even moreso.