Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.
Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.
The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.
It’s the infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time problem. Given an infinite number of universes anything that can happen statistically will happen.
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?
Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
Pretty much all of them do…
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out
“ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
What’s inane?
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.
It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”
From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.
Can you prove free will exists?
Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.
Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.
Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.
Can you prove there’s not a teapot floating between mars and Jupiter? That doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
Let’s say for example free will doesn’t exist and a god named billy the nose picker created us to do exactly what we do all under the illusion of free will.
Does it make argument that “belief” in Billy the nose picker is the sign of a deranged person any weaker?
NO!
Without free will we’re doing what we should so EVERY QUESTION IS MOOT
Take that gobbledygook diversion tactic out of here it’s baloney moon man talk.
Gobbledygook. Like a youth pastor. Or any religious leader when a child asks a question so dangerous that even considering it would shatter your faith, free will or not.
Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.
Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.
The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.
wut
It’s the infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time problem. Given an infinite number of universes anything that can happen statistically will happen.
This video explains it in relation to entropy https://youtu.be/nhy4Z_32kQo
Based
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.
What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?
Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.
Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.
Pretty much all of them do…
Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out
“ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
What’s inane?
It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”
Anyone who “believes” in things that are not provable cannot be trusted.
“Belief” is mental illness
From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.
Can you prove free will exists?
Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.
Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.
Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.
There’s that gobbledygook
Can you prove there’s not a teapot floating between mars and Jupiter? That doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
Let’s say for example free will doesn’t exist and a god named billy the nose picker created us to do exactly what we do all under the illusion of free will.
Does it make argument that “belief” in Billy the nose picker is the sign of a deranged person any weaker?
NO!
Without free will we’re doing what we should so EVERY QUESTION IS MOOT
Take that gobbledygook diversion tactic out of here it’s baloney moon man talk.
Gobbledygook. Like a youth pastor. Or any religious leader when a child asks a question so dangerous that even considering it would shatter your faith, free will or not.
GOBBLEDYGOOK
When did Radical ever say religion teaches people that they are God? That’s a claim you made.