this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
1024 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Logic is used in the court of law and it’s completely reliant on evidence missing to prove innocence.
Hence, “there is zero evidence that the defendant was in the location at the time of the crime which proves their innocence.”
Adding: I mean, the biggest evidence some people have is that something can’t come from nothing. We have no proof of where our something started or came from (for all we know it’s a game of marbles), so their theory is just as valid as anyone else’s until proven otherwise.
I'm confused about whether you argue for missing evidence not standing against gods existence or against it.
As you say, a court rules innocence when there is no proof of violation.
The equivalence to innocence is not gods existence. The equivalence to gods existence is the violation.
With a lack of evidence, the court would rule against gods existence.
(But a court ruling does not necessarily mean factual truth anyway. So I think it's a bad equivalence / analogy. But following it would mean dismissing gods existence because no proof exists.)
The claim was that “lack of evidence doesn’t count” and “facts are facts” essentially. Neither of which are true. I’m assuming most people aren’t reading real philosophical arguments for or against god, and the court equivalence is purely an analogy meant to make the idea more relatable.
At the end of the day—the argument that evidence is needed to prove or deny the existence of a god, is fallible. Purely because it changes based on: the evidence people have, evidence against it people lack, and how people interpret events.
Anything in the realm of religion and reality comes down to this: it’ll always end as an opinion because it can not be confirmed or denied in any quantifiable way.