10 ms·
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief, no different than "God is in everything" or "God
by yucky 4y ago
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief, no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning.
So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoYou can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
- yucky 4y agoSee above.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoYou can just say you don't have an evidentiary threshold. No one is going to hold it against you. It just means no one will want to engage with you because you're implicitly admitting that you didn't reason your way into your position so there's no way to reason you out of one.
- yucky 4y agoI've had enough of the "prove god doesn't exist" discussions with fanatics over the years to know where this is going, but since I'm bored on a flight I'll indulge you. A random galaxy formed billions of years ago, how was that political?