B
JFL This video clip perfectly encapsulates the mindset of every atheist/agnostic on this forum.
who gives a shit. i would be rather than brainlet normie than think about all that autistic nerd stuff
ok
B
>who gives a shit
>responds to thread
Also, if you don't wanna think about "autistic nerd stuff", then why are you on this forum? Log off and go be a brainlet normie.
searching god is normie trait. truecels know they are all alone
I almost want to pin this, why should I not pin this?
Cope. The possibility of existence ≠ The affirmation of existence.
There's a logical dilemma known as "probatio diabolica" (aka the Devil's Proof). It states that the absence of evidence for the existence of something, does not automaticallly prove that it doesnt exist. For example, it would not necessarily be true that unicorns dont exist, solely because of the absence of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns exist.
The key detail about the "probatio diabolica", is that it can be used to support any speculative proposition that has not yet been scientifically proven or disproven.
If there's no evidence to prove that "God, the Father" is non-existent, it doesnt automatically mean that "God, the Father" absolutely doesn't exist. But this logic can be applied to anything of which its existence has not been scientifically proven or disproven. If you swap "God, the Father" with "Allah" or "Lucifer" or "Zeus" or "Ganesh" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster", the same line of reasoning would still apply (with regard to the uncertainty of their existence).
What is the significance of this dilemma? It means there's no rational basis for you to conclude that your religious views are any more or less true than the religious views of another person, unless you have the scientific evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that your religious views are true. For all that you know, Islam may be closer to the truth about "meaning of life" than Christianity; or it could be Hinduism, or Judaism, or even Satanism, or Wiccanism, or Pastafarianism (for the Flying Spaghetti).
For "probatio diabolica" there are only two possible solutions to the dilemma:
1. Reverse the burden of proof onto the other party --- In religious context, this means you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your religious views are the truth
2. Provide the subject with the extra resources needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is true --- In religious context, this means I have to acquire the intel and abilities that are needed to become 100% certain that your religious views are true
There's a logical dilemma known as "probatio diabolica" (aka the Devil's Proof). It states that the absence of evidence for the existence of something, does not automaticallly prove that it doesnt exist. For example, it would not necessarily be true that unicorns dont exist, solely because of the absence of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns exist.
The key detail about the "probatio diabolica", is that it can be used to support any speculative proposition that has not yet been scientifically proven or disproven.
If there's no evidence to prove that "God, the Father" is non-existent, it doesnt automatically mean that "God, the Father" absolutely doesn't exist. But this logic can be applied to anything of which its existence has not been scientifically proven or disproven. If you swap "God, the Father" with "Allah" or "Lucifer" or "Zeus" or "Ganesh" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster", the same line of reasoning would still apply (with regard to the uncertainty of their existence).
What is the significance of this dilemma? It means there's no rational basis for you to conclude that your religious views are any more or less true than the religious views of another person, unless you have the scientific evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that your religious views are true. For all that you know, Islam may be closer to the truth about "meaning of life" than Christianity; or it could be Hinduism, or Judaism, or even Satanism, or Wiccanism, or Pastafarianism (for the Flying Spaghetti).
For "probatio diabolica" there are only two possible solutions to the dilemma:
1. Reverse the burden of proof onto the other party --- In religious context, this means you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your religious views are the truth
2. Provide the subject with the extra resources needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is true --- In religious context, this means I have to acquire the intel and abilities that are needed to become 100% certain that your religious views are true
Last edited:
Agnosticism (or Ignosticism) is the most impartial and rational stance for a person to have on the atheist-theist spectrum. Because it considers all possibilites for the existence of a "transcendent entity" in the universe (like a deity), without necessarily dismissing any belief of a "transcendent entity" as false, unless there's a clear logical inconsistency in the belief.
Religion = bluepill. Fuck off to some shithole where you can post your religion coping there.
B
It seems you didn't get the point of the vid. In no way am I saying it is proof of God's existence. I am simply saying so many atheists will act so assertive about the belief in non existence of a God, and then sometimes they may say "...well, a God could exist, but the Abrahamic God? NO WAAAY"
That was the point.
Seethe. I'm already on a shithole.
Yes I’m agnostic, it is indeed the most logical stance to take
the absence of evidence doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist, it may very well exist but evidence for its existence has not yet been given.
Yes a good point. This only applies to atheists who want to deny a specific theology and dismiss it as false. Why the atheists do this, I'm not sure. But this doesn't apply to agnostics. Because the agnostic wouldn't do what atheists do, which is conclude that a specific theology is 100% absolutely false without logical reason
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
