Theism and the simulation hypothesis fail for the same reasons. Neither explain our observed reality (evidence) better than explanations we derive without them. They fail Occam’s Razor by adding entities beyond necessity.
The burden of proof falls on the theists and the people who propose the universe is a simulation. We do not need to spend any time disproving those ideas. We have no evidence to support the existence of a god, or that we’re living in a simulation.
Atheism is not the proposition that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief. The theistic proposition is a matter of belief or faith, not supported by evidence, not testable, and not falsifiable. Because the proposition is not falsifiable trying to prove it false is no more rational than accepting the existence of a god.
The theistic proposition is a matter of belief or faith, not supported by evidence, not testable.
I disagree here. I came up with a theory/philosophy or a way for 'theistic proposition' which seems to be pretty good. Not only that, but I tried to counter this proposition from every angle, but it still it holds true for me. It is not supported by belief/faith, but I derived it from science/maths/philosophy. Basically, I created my own version of God.
Comments
Theism and the simulation hypothesis fail for the same reasons. Neither explain our observed reality (evidence) better than explanations we derive without them. They fail Occam’s Razor by adding entities beyond necessity.
The burden of proof falls on the theists and the people who propose the universe is a simulation. We do not need to spend any time disproving those ideas. We have no evidence to support the existence of a god, or that we’re living in a simulation.
Atheism is not the proposition that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief. The theistic proposition is a matter of belief or faith, not supported by evidence, not testable, and not falsifiable. Because the proposition is not falsifiable trying to prove it false is no more rational than accepting the existence of a god.
I disagree here. I came up with a theory/philosophy or a way for 'theistic proposition' which seems to be pretty good. Not only that, but I tried to counter this proposition from every angle, but it still it holds true for me. It is not supported by belief/faith, but I derived it from science/maths/philosophy. Basically, I created my own version of God.
“Holds true for me” is the same as faith or personal belief.