3 ms·
I strongly disagree. Just because something hasn't been proven to be false it doesn't mean it's true. It hasn't been decisively proven that the Earth wasn't sn
by mixmax 16y ago
I strongly disagree.
Just because something hasn't been proven to be false it doesn't mean it's true. It hasn't been decisively proven that the Earth wasn't sneezed out of the nose of a giant space-goat, but that doesn't mean that the goat-sneezing theory should be equally valid to other theories which have more empirical evidence to their name.
I have never seen any empirical evidence for the existence of a god, and thus it doesn't seem like a valid theory.
- ErrantX 16y agoI'd say they are valid theories simply by affect of not being completely absurd by "our standards". Many scientific theories have been considered absurd then ultimately proven. Obviously the religious argument has been around much longer; perhaps it is just a bigger question that "what is light", or maybe it is just bunk (I'm in the latter camp, if it matters). Also, from a personal perspective, I would say that the weighting is clearly in favour of non-existence. However from a religious perspective it is the other way. That, ultimately, is the source of all disagreement over religion. How do you find a common measurements of truth/non-truth when your "markers" are entirely different. Which is invalid? Who judges? (the answer, I feel is that society judges - and currently we are in transition from pro-theist to pro-atheist, but it will be a long transition)