Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I know that there is no Evidence. To actively accept that as something is to Fail. Until there is Evidence, there is no god.
You mean there is no laboratory data to support the contention one way or another. Because you haven't seen a deity under a microscope, god doesn't exist, and you say so definitively.
Now you bring up random examples and might say that because a flying spaghetti monster hasn't been seen it has the same likeliness of being true or false as a god. The difference is that people still claim to have experiences regarding the latter, but I haven't seen a FSM cult recently.
When something persists over all time, cultures and demographics, it would be rather imprudent to claim that there can be no basis for any belief because god hasn't volunteered to be put under your microscope. Does that mean that I believe? I haven't an opinion one way or another because I lack data. That doesn't mean I view what billions believe as genuine as being the same as any randomly blurted phrase.
Clearly you believe that you are right. You dismiss all out of hand, have no evidence one way or another, and say that without Evidence god does not exist.
The latter statement sounds like a quantum interpretation of the universe at large. Techtonic plates didn't exist before there was Evidence. X-rays didn't exist before Evidence.
For thousands of years great minds have pondered the question of god, and yet you know what all the rest of them could not.
I'm in awe.