Message from @troglodytes
Discord ID: 635539563170758666
Well, there arer probably more. Those are the ones I thought off the top of my head.
the more detailed the more likely youre wrong
How?
specifics of unknowables
You can the assumption of no special revelation. If you entertain special revelation, the probability difference WILL disappear.
its a memetic trick
fake evidence
>_>
'he must be right his story has such detail it cant have been made up'
😍 ✋🏻
Haha, ok, I think this is simple enough for you to understand. Perhaps, you have not thought of this yet.
But if God were real and was capable of revealing his self, there is literally no difference of probability in details.
3. Your third assumption is that religions are strictly men guessing. Going back to point 2., you assume there is not an interaction between God and man.
Saved
<:smugooze:398100987866251265>
😏
omnipotent omnipresence is indistinguishable from randomness
Your argument was that all religions are unlikely correct. I point why that argument is invalid.
So how did I prove your point?
I just think your argument is bogus. I am looking for a debate rn. Bored out of my mind.
it goes for all religions that they are very unlikely to be true
hektor
your syllogism is self referentially incoherent
: 0
this is basic logic
Tell me why?
u srs?
your premises refute your conclusion
Tell me why.
it isn't valid
because neither can prove their starting point: god
your premises refute your conclusion because it does not follow
it's a non sequitur
I was not proving God.
its just sall self referential lore
i cant get more simple than that you idiot