Doug Holland@lemmy.worldM to AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agoThe behavior of the devoutlemmy.worldimagemessage-square24fedilinkarrow-up1227arrow-down115
arrow-up1212arrow-down1imageThe behavior of the devoutlemmy.worldDoug Holland@lemmy.worldM to AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square24fedilink
minus-squareDiplomjodler@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·2 days agoIn what way was I implying that? You’re not making sense.
minus-squareGHiLAlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·2 days ago If you claim God does not exist, you get the burden of proof This is only true if the general consensus is “God exists”. If no one has any concept of God to begin with, then what are you arguing?
minus-squareDiplomjodler@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 days agoIf you have to invent hypothetical scenarios to make your argument sound plausible, it’s probably not a good argument.
minus-squareGHiLAlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoConsidering God is entirely hypothetical, I agree.
In what way was I implying that? You’re not making sense.
This is only true if the general consensus is “God exists”.
If no one has any concept of God to begin with, then what are you arguing?
If you have to invent hypothetical scenarios to make your argument sound plausible, it’s probably not a good argument.
Considering God is entirely hypothetical, I agree.