neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”
That’s a loaded question. What type of god? You wanna define it before you ask if it exists.
And after you define it, you can also gather all the proof that it exists and you can present it to science and to philosophy. And they will look at all that proof and say “X”. Because they doubt.
But it’s still on you to prove your claim that there is a god, if you believe it. If you’re just on the sidelines asking because you’re not sure - there’s a simpler answer: yes, there is a god. It is me. And I need about 10% of your monthly income. Get in touch, I’ll send you some details where you can donate your share. In return, I will of course love you unconditionally until you slightly annoy me with your lifestyle (which I already know you will, I am omniscient and I literally made you this way, you have no choice in the matter), at which point you will know my vengeance, for I am the Lord. Throughout this period where I exact my retribution, the expectation is that you’ll shut up and take it, and never forget about that 10% you owe me. Otherwise I will literally put you through hell.
If you somehow doubt ANY of these claims, for reasons like “why would God contact me on the internet, or need my money, or hate me for how he made me”, or any of these silly questions, just remember - neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”. Just like they can’t provide objective truth to “is god that dude on lemmy?”
My dude there’s a few billion of you that I’m looking into, I don’t have all day to listen to your half-assed “logic”, I am eternal, I’m beyond your comprehension. Enjoy the rusted-spear-devil-dick, I’m Audi.
The first part is a response to “why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false”, which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you’re really earning that “edgy teenager” label.
The second is saying that there’s literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of “is there a god?”, science included
Philosophy asks some “why?” questions, but if you think it’s equipped to definitively answer all of them you don’t know much about philosophy.
Neither can science nor philosophy prove that unicorn’s don’t exist. Proving negatives isn’t a thing, you have to substantiate whatever claim it is you’re making.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It’s ignorant or plain wishful thinking to claim otherwise
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system. There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it’s on them to prove it. Atheism simply says “no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don’t believe you”.
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system.
Y’all are arguing the same thing with these two sentences.
There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it’s on them to prove it. Atheism simply says “no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don’t believe you”.
That sounds like trying to disprove a negative to me. Just because it’s an absurd negative doesn’t mean it’s not impossible to disprove it.
I don’t want to get into all the nitty gritty, but the weight against the big sky person is “we definitely don’t see it.” and the argument for the big sky person is “we definitely feel it.”
Y’all are both spending a lot of time arguing about the big sky person regardless of your stance.
*edit
actually, i just saw this comment, and i’m not gonna argue with that.
![Victory? [elder cactus]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/244d43ec-eeec-4e9c-a97a-a7e978cc47a5.jpeg){kind=link}
So your arguments for agnosticism over atheism is that you don’t want to make religious people feel uncomfortable and science isn’t philosophy?
how on earth was that your takeaway from that comment?
neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”
it’s edgy teen territory to act like they can
That’s a loaded question. What type of god? You wanna define it before you ask if it exists.
And after you define it, you can also gather all the proof that it exists and you can present it to science and to philosophy. And they will look at all that proof and say “X”. Because they doubt.
But it’s still on you to prove your claim that there is a god, if you believe it. If you’re just on the sidelines asking because you’re not sure - there’s a simpler answer: yes, there is a god. It is me. And I need about 10% of your monthly income. Get in touch, I’ll send you some details where you can donate your share. In return, I will of course love you unconditionally until you slightly annoy me with your lifestyle (which I already know you will, I am omniscient and I literally made you this way, you have no choice in the matter), at which point you will know my vengeance, for I am the Lord. Throughout this period where I exact my retribution, the expectation is that you’ll shut up and take it, and never forget about that 10% you owe me. Otherwise I will literally put you through hell.
If you somehow doubt ANY of these claims, for reasons like “why would God contact me on the internet, or need my money, or hate me for how he made me”, or any of these silly questions, just remember - neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”. Just like they can’t provide objective truth to “is god that dude on lemmy?”
given that we’re very clearly talking in the context of a christian god here, I’m not sure what additional information you need
this is just that edgy teenager shit again
Nope. I’m God. Please remember, you have as much evidence I am not, as I have that god doesn’t exist.
And just for that “edgy teenager” comment, I’ll put a word in to make sure you’re tortured by the devil with the most jagged penis.
you’re still behaving as if i’m trying to convince you of the existence of a god, rather than you trying to convince me that one doesn’t exist
do you understand the difference?
My dude there’s a few billion of you that I’m looking into, I don’t have all day to listen to your half-assed “logic”, I am eternal, I’m beyond your comprehension. Enjoy the rusted-spear-devil-dick, I’m Audi.
Their first part is a short work of fiction about making a religious person feel bad.
Their second is saying that science doesn’t answer the question “why.”
Philosophy asks “why” at least it does here on Earth.
The first part is a response to “why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false”, which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you’re really earning that “edgy teenager” label.
The second is saying that there’s literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of “is there a god?”, science included
Philosophy asks some “why?” questions, but if you think it’s equipped to definitively answer all of them you don’t know much about philosophy.
Neither can science nor philosophy prove that unicorn’s don’t exist. Proving negatives isn’t a thing, you have to substantiate whatever claim it is you’re making.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It’s ignorant or plain wishful thinking to claim otherwise
Atheism is trying to prove a negative
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system. There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it’s on them to prove it. Atheism simply says “no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don’t believe you”.
Y’all are arguing the same thing with these two sentences.
That sounds like trying to disprove a negative to me. Just because it’s an absurd negative doesn’t mean it’s not impossible to disprove it.
I don’t want to get into all the nitty gritty, but the weight against the big sky person is “we definitely don’t see it.” and the argument for the big sky person is “we definitely feel it.”
Y’all are both spending a lot of time arguing about the big sky person regardless of your stance.
*edit actually, i just saw this comment, and i’m not gonna argue with that.
Gnostic atheism is not the same as agnostic atheism. You’re talking about a subsect of atheism.