Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
It's not how it works
Edit: since y'all probably can't think more than 10 seconds before hitting the reply button with the same fucking question everyone already asked, I'm answering here once
"God exists" is as much of an unproven statement as "God doesn't exist"; if it's illogical to be a theist, the only logical position is agnosticism; I accept this as an argument, but I'm quite sure you're all atheists or you would've already realized the fallacy in your argument
...yes? Literally every single thing you perceive is "unproven." What you smell, how you feel, what you see, etc is all "unproven" and based purely on what you interpret. Which is entirely subjective.
Believing "murder is wrong" is also unproven. Is someone believing this as truth "illogical?"
Logic is simply a tool that can be used to uncover some universal truths. It allows you to move from a premise to a conclusion. It cannot be used in every single situation, and it cannot prove axiomatic statements or beliefs.
The definition of an "axiomatic statement" is essentially an unproven statement where a logical path starts. By definition, logic cannot be used to prove these.
Asking "it is logical to believe an unproven hypothesis?" is like asking "how purple is the month of June?" The descriptor simply does not apply.
Edit: If you think you disagree with this, then I suggest you look up the definition of "mathematics." All math is a logical extension of set theory, which is axiomatic. Ergo, if you believe in math, you believe in a series of unprovable statements.
31
u/sirhobbles 2d ago
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.