classthe_king wrote:Now you are proving my point. The universe obviously exists, as we are having this conversation right now, yet no one can prove how the universe came into existence. Therefore, simply because we cannot prove how a god came into existance does imply that it cannot be real. Since when does absence of evidence equate to evidence of absence?
No, once again you've misused that analogy.
The Universe exists, that's correct, we're in it. Us not being able to FULLY (we've partially explained it) explain how it came into existence just means... we don't know how it came into existence lmao. But we don't need to know that to know it exists as we're in it and it's apparent.
God however, is not apparent and not a reality like the Universe. God is not visible or present and you can't prove there is a god around us. Therefore it's a totally blind idea and a fantasy, not a reality. It's as fantasy as an imaginary friend or anything which is not visible or apparent.
Not only is god not visible, apparent or reality, the idea of a personal god is not logically sound, makes no sense and nobody has ever come up with a good explanation for it.
And please... more rookieville... the old 'absence of evidence' line, gimme a break. Just because you can type that sentence or think that thought doesn't therefore make the idea of god plausible lmao. Otherwise, you could simply apply that thought to anything and claim anything is as valid as anything. Which clearly, is ridiculous.
Let's apply it to another claim...
Claim: there is a giant lizard wrapped around Earth.
You can't see the lizard? and how is this possible? how is the lizard breathing or surviviing in space you ask?... that doesn't matter. Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it can't be true. And since when does absence of evidence equate to evidence of absence?
We can all play little games of semantics or philosophical cat and mouse but that's once again, academic and conversational. Not reality, and proof of nothing. You can't just say that line and conclude the idea of god / a supernatural creator is now plausible or possible.
Here's another one "how do you know my red is the same as your red?"... well, wasn't that fun. But once again, this is just language and ideas. Means nothing in all actuality and the idea of god is as ridiculous and implausible as it's ever been, as it was before I typed that sentence and as ridiculous as it was when primitive man invented the idea thousands of years ago.
classthe_king wrote:On a side note, I don't believe in a god, I'm just saying that saying a god cannot exist because of science is ridiculous.
No that's not ridiculous.
Saying that a claim which is illogical, unproven, massively... hugely, gigantically unlikely and total fantasy cannot be true because of logic / reason / science / reality - saying that, is not ridiculous. That's a logical conclusion. That's sense.
Do you also think it's ridiculous to say... saying I can jump into space is impossible, because of science. Do you think that's ridiculous? you make an exception for god, everybody makes an exception for god because it concerns creation, mystery and self-comfort.
It's a ridiculous, unproven, illogical claim. So unless you can change the state of the claim, by making it logical, reasonable and proving it (to any degree) then no, it's not arrogant or ridiculous to call it impossible or stupid. It's the logical conclusion.
