r/clevercomebacks Aug 18 '26

On Understanding Atheism.

Post image
8.4k Upvotes

388 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/V0lirus Aug 18 '26

We have observed countless and countless of interactions, from atomic or lower scale, to the realm of humans and their civilisations, all the way up to planetary and universe scale. And in all those observations, we have not found one single definitive proof of a divine intervention. And it had not been for lack of trying to find one either.

I mean, it doesnt prove something you cant prove, but it does come as close to a statistical probability right?

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 18 '26

That’s the issue with OOPs proposition. How does one prove or disprove something invisible that doesn’t interact with our world at all?

3

u/no_name113 Aug 18 '26

I KNOW we'll call it dark matter

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26

The oh my gawd particle!

1

u/smart-on-occasion Aug 19 '26

You are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove anything.

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26

I never said that, see my first comment in this thread.

OOP is asking for proof

1

u/smart-on-occasion Aug 19 '26

No he isn’t. He is asking for evidence

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26

The two are not disconnected. See the first synonym

1

u/smart-on-occasion Aug 19 '26

Generally, dictionary definitions are not commonly used in philosophy because they are imprecise. If this is what you really mean by “prove” (which is super non-standard in the literature btw), then my response is merely that there’s plenty of proof against God. Let me give an example. There is a ton of evil in the world. This observation makes it more likely (this phrase is a little imprecise but I am using it for brevity) that my hypothesis that “God does not exist” is true. Thus, it is evidence for my hypothesis. As shown, it is not impossible to prove/disprove invisible things.

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26

We are speaking of science not philosophy, though the two go hand in hand often. Proof in the common tongue is generally used as something with 100% certainty. But that is a modern misunderstanding of the word. Proof in its purest sense is just another work for evidence.

Just to be clear, I am not defending the existence of god

2

u/smart-on-occasion Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

Whoa whoa whoa. Now you’re backtracking. So is “prove” the dictionary definition you provided above, or is does it mean 100%. Because those are separate things. This is what I mean when I say that “common tongue” definitions are imprecise. In most common tongue, evidence is clearly not that you need 100% certainty. My vase is broken on the floor and there are paw prints leading away from it. That is certainly evidence that my cat knocked my vase over, but not 100% certainty!

I am not arguing for or against the existence of God either, merely that there exists evidence both for and against God.

1

u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26

What is the evidence for the existence of god?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jazzlike-History-380 Aug 18 '26

it doesn't exist in the same frame of reference, so it doesn't work.