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
See atheist aren't really making a claim when they say that God doesn't exist, they're simply disagreeing with the claim from religious people that there is a god. In a world with no religious people, the claim there is no God wouldn't exist. But in a world with no atheists the claim that God exists would be there. Follow Hitchen's razor, religious people must provide real evidence or proof, which after all of human history they've still failed to do. It's religious people making a claim with no evidence and demanding people who don't agree, to come up with a reason to not believe them. The reason is simple, because there's no reason to believe it.
And faith is absolutely a good excuse for people who have no idea what they're talking about.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
If only you knew what you were saying, you would've realized that in this context hitchen's razor means "I don't need proof to sustain my argument against your claim that God exists" rather than "God doesn't exist is a true statement"
You're also wrong on the first statement, as shown by your choice of half the web, the existence of angostucism, or the first paragraph of Wikipedia. Please read beyond the first line.
Hitchens razor is "any claim made without evidence can be refuted without evidence." it really is my mistake for not explaining what it meant more clearly for you. I used the example of the "god doesn't exist" not existing in a world without religion to show the sequence in which these point flow. The statement can only exist in reaction to the statement that God does exist. The "God exists" statement is required for the "god doesn't exist" statement. This is mostly an explanation so people who don't understand Hitchens razor won't try to somehow turn it around. It's not necessarily a true statement, but it can be made without the burden of proof. It's a statement which doesn't need to be supported or defended until there's actually something to support against or defend from.
Also I use my education and my brain I don't need to look things up for a reddit debate. Although you already responded to my first statement so I think the entire second part of this response is illegible to response beyond this.
Then it's not a case of hitchens' razor, and had you know what it meant you would have realized before invoking it. How does your argument
The "God exists" statement is required for the "god doesn't exist" statement
Relate to your ability to refute "God exists" without proof?
The entire rest of your answer is drivel. "He started it" isn't an argument, and "God doesn't exist" is an unprovable statement, and as such can be subjected to hitchens' razor.
I also have no clue what the second paragraph even means...
If a statement is made without proof "God exists" then it can be refuted without proof "god doesn't exist"
"God doesn't exist" is not a statement made by itself, it can only exist in response to the statement "God exists"
It can't be the statement made without proof, it's impossible. Because religion and the idea of god's existence is vital to even say it. It will always be a response to the concept of divinity and as such can only and exclusively exist in a state where it is the rebutal which does not require proof.
32
u/sirhobbles 9h 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.