It’s fun to think about a lot of things for sure. But everything you just said is well summed up in your sentence “I just think there’s SO much we haven’t seen and so much we don’t know”.
See, just because we don’t know everything, saying that god probably hides somewhere in what we don’t know yet, that’s called “The God of the gaps”. It’s what Christians have done over the centuries.
They claimed that God created the sun and earth and the solar system, and that earth is the center of it all. Then Kopernikus came along. They claimed that god created the animal kingdom and that all species are unchanged since creation. Then Darwin came along. Etcetera, etcetera. Science has kept disproving religious claims, and it still continues to do so. The gap is becoming smaller and smaller for God to hide in. Christians always point to what science doesn’t know yet (and it happily admits it doesn’t know) and say, see, that’s why God is still possible. It’s why I used the word “desperate” earlier in our debate.
In general, believing in something because one doesn’t know better is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam - and that’s a logical fallacy. There is no good reason to come up with a far fetched claim, just because you don’t have evidence to the contrary.
Have you ever heard of Russell’s Teapot? It’s a thought experiment that claims that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Jupiter and Mars. Just because it cannot be discounted, does that make it likely to exist? Is it sensible to assume it does exist? No.
I think about God the same way. Everything indicates that mankind invented God. After all, we know over 3000 different deities. It just doesn’t make any sense to assume he’s real.
You’re getting really hung up on this idea of “god” when that’s not what I’m really talking about lol
Maybe some people find the big bang theory far-fetched, maybe in 300 years we’ll have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT origin story for our universe, ALSO free of any god or creation theory, but just different thanks to our understanding of it changing.
“argumentum ad ignorantiam” - I’m not claiming anything, just trying to keep your mind open by playing devil’s advocate. There’s a HUGE difference between saying “this is real because we can’t prove it isn’t,” and “there’s a small possibility this is real, but we can’t prove it.” Like, saying something DOESN’T exist simply because you HAVEN’T seen proof of it is actually, literally argumentum ad ignorantiam, and you’re getting dangerously close to that.
Like yes, the discussion started because you don’t believe in a god because you haven’t seen evidence of it. I’m just trying to point out the argumentum ad ignorantiam in that. Not trying to get you to believe in god, just to see that there’s maybe things we don’t understand, that we aren’t capable of disproving, and possibly will simply never know in our lifetime
It’s fun to think about a lot of things for sure. But everything you just said is well summed up in your sentence “I just think there’s SO much we haven’t seen and so much we don’t know”.
See, just because we don’t know everything, saying that god probably hides somewhere in what we don’t know yet, that’s called “The God of the gaps”. It’s what Christians have done over the centuries.
They claimed that God created the sun and earth and the solar system, and that earth is the center of it all. Then Kopernikus came along. They claimed that god created the animal kingdom and that all species are unchanged since creation. Then Darwin came along. Etcetera, etcetera. Science has kept disproving religious claims, and it still continues to do so. The gap is becoming smaller and smaller for God to hide in. Christians always point to what science doesn’t know yet (and it happily admits it doesn’t know) and say, see, that’s why God is still possible. It’s why I used the word “desperate” earlier in our debate.
In general, believing in something because one doesn’t know better is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam - and that’s a logical fallacy. There is no good reason to come up with a far fetched claim, just because you don’t have evidence to the contrary.
Have you ever heard of Russell’s Teapot? It’s a thought experiment that claims that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Jupiter and Mars. Just because it cannot be discounted, does that make it likely to exist? Is it sensible to assume it does exist? No.
I think about God the same way. Everything indicates that mankind invented God. After all, we know over 3000 different deities. It just doesn’t make any sense to assume he’s real.
You’re getting really hung up on this idea of “god” when that’s not what I’m really talking about lol
Maybe some people find the big bang theory far-fetched, maybe in 300 years we’ll have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT origin story for our universe, ALSO free of any god or creation theory, but just different thanks to our understanding of it changing.
“argumentum ad ignorantiam” - I’m not claiming anything, just trying to keep your mind open by playing devil’s advocate. There’s a HUGE difference between saying “this is real because we can’t prove it isn’t,” and “there’s a small possibility this is real, but we can’t prove it.” Like, saying something DOESN’T exist simply because you HAVEN’T seen proof of it is actually, literally argumentum ad ignorantiam, and you’re getting dangerously close to that.
Like yes, the discussion started because you don’t believe in a god because you haven’t seen evidence of it. I’m just trying to point out the argumentum ad ignorantiam in that. Not trying to get you to believe in god, just to see that there’s maybe things we don’t understand, that we aren’t capable of disproving, and possibly will simply never know in our lifetime