Message from @Jonathan The Shaman
Discord ID: 617948797322002444
Isn't a creator the same thing as a prima cause
I need a logical defense for atheism
A creator is a prime cause, but a prime cause doesn’t have to be a creator being
Lets say the BOP is on me
False
That’s switching the burden
He claims its an atheist cliche to claim that
Burdens on the one with the claim
But he tricks people into making claims
Religion can’t prove it beyond personal experience, which where does that get you in court and science
True
He could say that atheists are claiming that God doesn't exist
Doesn’t matter, not the atheist burden to reach
We’re claiming there’s no evidence so why believe
Isn't that agnostic
No evidence
Why not believe in ra, oden, Zeus, etc
Atheist say they *know* God doesn't exist
Agnostic is unsure
Agnostics say that they don't give a shit
Lack of evidence is not proof
Then they’re more atheist technically, agnostic is curious, but waits for evidense
Btw opinions? https://youtu.be/wtibnUWp_TE
So what about elves?
Does the logic apply
Why do these people look like potatoes
If not with science, law, etc, why with religion?
Maybe because they are mashed together
Because those are empirical sciences
Why should religion if the claims are to be taken serious not be the same
Philosophy is more than empiricism
Held to the same standards
Far more
Scientifically speaking, you could "prove" that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence
Let me ask it differently, what makes religion special?
Also, science disproves, it proves 😉
A scientific fact, is a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven yet.
Where there is no evidence, there is no reason to look
We aren't talking from a scientific perspective, we're talking philosophy
We had evidence of black holes, but couldn’t see them, why shouldn’t the same be expected
If you are dead set on empiricism, that's fine