216
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 147 points 6 months ago

God exists and watches everything you do and loves you while threatening you with eternal damnation.

[-] azimir@lemmy.ml 63 points 6 months ago

And he's terrible with money! He needs more money!

George Carlin, how we miss thee.

https://youtu.be/QZ8hefESt7c?si=I5xZByn7o1UWcsbv

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/QZ8hefESt7c?si=I5xZByn7o1UWcsbv

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You're allowed to be atheist of course, but do you have any more proof that there are no gods than they have that gods exist?

EDIT: Y'all can have your opinion, no one's questioning that. You're allowed to believe there are no higher powers, but I'm not allowed my personal belief that there is?? Not one person has provided proof that there is no Higher Power. Grow up....

[-] billgamesh@lemmy.ml 60 points 6 months ago

I'm not against religion, but that's not how evidence and proof works. Do you have any proof that tiny invisible pink elephants aren't hiding in your fridge?

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

that’s not how evidence and proof works.

Proof of a negative is common in science and mathematics.

No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.

Edit: For those who are downvoting here are some sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

[-] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 17 points 6 months ago

No, you can't prove that something never happens or that something doesn't exist. You can sometimes prove something that contradicts the existence of something, but that's not proving that the thing itself doesn't exist, because it's epistemologically not possible

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.

Science, philosophy, and mathematics say otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Then why did you dodge the request to prove there are no tiny invisible pink elephants in your fridge, wise guy? lmao

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If you're claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.

I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.

Edit: I think you're confusing me for the other guy.

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I think you're confusing me for the other guy.

I was, but you're running defense for him so I think the point still stands.

Believing claims on the grounds that they haven't been disproven is just bad epistemology, and it certainly isn't good science. Hence the elephants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 40 points 6 months ago

That's not really how it works though. If I tell you there's an invisible dragon living under your bed who will burn your house down at some time in the future if you don't give me $10. You can't disprove it, but because I'm the one making the claim that the dragon exists the burden of proof is on me.

load more comments (32 replies)
[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

You should familiarize yourself with the concept called Burden of Proof. They (those who believe in God, and claim he exists and created all things, etc) are the ones where the burden lies. It is not for the rest of us to prove their beliefs for them, or you.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 13 points 6 months ago

The default position is that we don't know if a specified thing exists. To prove or disprove it, you need evidence. I can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, as it is logically impossible, but it's possible that some other version of a god might exist, I don't know. I don't have evidence either way.

[-] daddyjones@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

How can you prove the Christian God doesn't exist?

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

It's logically impossible, it has contradictory aspects.

[-] daddyjones@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Yes, you said that, but what exactly?

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

For example, omnipotence is a self-contradictory term, as you have a dilemma - if a being is all powerful enough to give itself limits, it is not omnipotent as it wouldn't be able to do the things it limited itself to do. Whereas if it can't self-impose limits, it's also not omnipotent as it isn't able to self-impose limits. Another example is that suffering exists in the world, which would be a contradiction if an all-powerful being that wanted to end suffering existed, since it should, but it isn't.

And these are just contradictions within God's character. If you want to look at the things he actually claims to have done, you'll find numerous more in the Bible. Just as one example, Jesus's last words are different in almost every gospel.

[-] daddyjones@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

None of this is new or hasn't been thought about, written about and deflated for centuries. I doubt you have any theologians shaking in their boots.

The meaning of omnipotence as it translates to Good has always been nuanced. There have always been things God can't do - sin being the obvious example. You could debate whether he can, but just never would because of his character, but it amounts to the same thing and has been orthodoxy for centuries.

The apparent contradictions on the Gospels (especially synoptic) have been done to death. Debated and answered more times than you've had hot dinners. There is no serious theologian or biblical scholar who would hear that argument and be at all concerned by it.

Honestly the same applies to the idea of a good god and suffering.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Just because people think they've put forward an excuse doesn't mean it's a good excuse. None I've heard have convinced me yet.

[-] daddyjones@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

And that's fair enough. Claiming you can definitively disprove the existence of the Christian God and having some objections that you haven't heard a convincing response to aren't the same thing though...

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. It's on those who believe in god to prove its existence.

And the Bible doesn't count as sufficient evidence because that would be like believing Harry Potter exists because JK Rowling says so.

[-] daddyjones@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Unless you claim, as OP did, that you can actually disprove it.

I agree that the Bible is not sufficient in the sense that it proves anything or sews up their arguments, but to suggest its historical value as evidence is the same as modern day fiction is absurd.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Careful, many online atheists don't understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: "There is no god."

The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, you have provided me with further evidence that online atheists don't understand that they have to prove a negative. Your butthurt fuels me.

[-] Communist@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

This guy eats babies

prove me wrong

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago

You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" QED

[-] Communist@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago

...Do you not realize that the same goes for god?

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I wasn't arguing for the existence of god.

Let me break this down:

  • "There is a god." --> Burden of proof
  • "There is no god." --> Burden of proof
  • "Hey, man. I don't know." ---> No burden of proof
[-] Communist@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn't require evidence

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

Negative claims require evidence.

Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say "There are no structural issues with this building." He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. 😜

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Squorlple@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Not one person has provided proof that there is no Higher Power. Grow up....

Because that's not the atheist position. You're wrestling with a claim nobody is making.

Atheism doesn't claim there is no "Higher Power", it's just a disbelief in theistic claims.

this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
216 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43939 readers
372 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS