Total posts: 407
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Empathy was central to the evolutionary process that produced tribal societies and that empathy meant we sought to protect each other and share any food, it also enabled cooperation and by working together we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators. Unfortunately it also has a negative side, also driven by our need to survive and that is competition with other tribal groups for resources, which can lead to violence. This negative side still exists, where we feel hostility towards those we perceive to be outside our group, I don’t think I need to provide examples.Yeah I 100% agree.You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.I don't think humans can transcend that negative side. Even if we're aware of it, how do we correct for it? Do we need to smile extra longer at different races of people to compensate? Do we need to date people of different races to make up for it? Do we need to hire different races of people exactly evenly throughout a workforce?Even if you transcend that negative side in an instance, will you be able to do it for every instance in your life?Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.I think an algorithmic being, who simple does the best course of action, might be a solution to this. So like having a computer-like brain that simply does the required calculations or actions in order to reach a desired outcome. I think moving towards a post-motivation world would render competition, complacency etc. obsolete. They're inefficient and should be replaced.However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.Well okay. It's dangerous. I don't think this should be rushed or hurried. I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that. Things such as aggression could easily be done away with (MAOA gene could be deleted).Working with the brain might require trial-and-error, though. I can't think of a solution for that atm (I don't think it's possible to exactly predict neurological outcomes with rewiring). What we have right now isn't all that good anyway. I think if people took their individuals lives out of the game and looked at human life objectively, it's pretty hard to justify.
Two points, firstly, the negative side and discrimination towards
those we perceive to be outside our group. To compensate for this through what
is sometimes termed “positive discrimination,” I still see as discrimination.
Secondly, to address your final point and one I see as crucial. You say “I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that.” There is a fundamental problem here and it’s a big one, as I said previously “perfection” is subjective. So how do we define perfection and who is the “we” who gets to decide what constitutes perfection. I’m guessing that if you were to ask a large group of people from any walk of life as to what their idea of a perfect human would be you would get varied answers. I personally can’t think on an objective definition and I have been unable to find one, so if perfection cannot be objectively defined then striving for it is impossible.
There is another factor, assuming there is an agreement on what constitutes perfection, then by the fact that it is perfect, it would be applied to everyone, so there would be no individuals and we would become a collective. As to whether that would be considered beneficial or detrimental is subject to opinion, but I do have a feeling that those in power who would be implementing this perfection, would probably prefer to remain imperfect.
Secondly, to address your final point and one I see as crucial. You say “I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that.” There is a fundamental problem here and it’s a big one, as I said previously “perfection” is subjective. So how do we define perfection and who is the “we” who gets to decide what constitutes perfection. I’m guessing that if you were to ask a large group of people from any walk of life as to what their idea of a perfect human would be you would get varied answers. I personally can’t think on an objective definition and I have been unable to find one, so if perfection cannot be objectively defined then striving for it is impossible.
There is another factor, assuming there is an agreement on what constitutes perfection, then by the fact that it is perfect, it would be applied to everyone, so there would be no individuals and we would become a collective. As to whether that would be considered beneficial or detrimental is subject to opinion, but I do have a feeling that those in power who would be implementing this perfection, would probably prefer to remain imperfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It made me think of that quote because I took it to mean that even though you’ve loved and will lose life it’s better than the alternative of not loving life.
For it to be better to have loved and lost you would need be aware
of having loved and lost, in death there is no such awareness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is it truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?
That probably depends on personal experience.
Again, I don’t really
see the purpose of the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Actually it does from a logical standpoint because the reasons as to why remain.
Pleasure in existence and beauty is driven by emotion not
logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
One thing about me is I’m very uncomfortable with not having closure so maybe for most people they can be satisfied without digging deep within themselves to ask these philosophical questions and having no answers at all but I’m not wired like that, I need everything to make sense in order to find purpose in it, no pun intended.
I think there is a basic difference between us. From what you
say you seek a meaning to life and it would seem you have found the answer in
God and if this gives you fulfilment that is fine.
My perspective is different. I see no meaning in life, for me life is short and pointless and I have no need for God. That doesn’t mean I can’t perceive beauty, be in awe of existence and take pleasure in it, or alternatively see tragedy and feel compassion for those who suffer.
My perspective is different. I see no meaning in life, for me life is short and pointless and I have no need for God. That doesn’t mean I can’t perceive beauty, be in awe of existence and take pleasure in it, or alternatively see tragedy and feel compassion for those who suffer.
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose behind these questions is to put emphasis on my belief that none of these things matter without God validating it (E.g. your life) I thought it would be more beneficial for you to say it then me but you keep diverging to something else.
Okay, but I still don’t see the point.
Your belief is that none of these things matter without God validating it. There you are I have said it.
Your belief is that none of these things matter without God validating it. There you are I have said it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well in that case what’s ONE agreeable thing about it?
One agreeable moment. Of the top of my head, holding my newborn daughter
in my arms for the first time.
You ask a lot of questions that seem to be without any purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What’s agreeable about it?
The list is legion for it is many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Procreational sex is what it is.Recreational sex is the alternative.Both stem from the same basic instinct.Which is not something that we cannot control.We can attempt to suppress it.But it will out eventually.As the Priest said to the Altar Boy.
“Suppress” is to put an end to. “Control” is to exercise
influence over. I will stick with “control.”
We do successfully control our desire for recreational sex or acts of rape would be the norm. A priest is another good example, assuming they are not all child molesters, they are also able to control their sexual urges.
We do successfully control our desire for recreational sex or acts of rape would be the norm. A priest is another good example, assuming they are not all child molesters, they are also able to control their sexual urges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do you value yours?
Because it is all I have. I think I have been largely fortunate,
although there have been a few ups and downs it has been mostly ups, so life for
the most part has been pretty agreeable. Death doesn’t bother me, it is inevitable
and when it comes I won’t be there, but until then I will try to enjoy life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then how do you explain the suicidal and/or neglectful?
Because we are able to overcome that basic instinct. Suicide is one example, another would be those who will die
for a belief, there is also military training, where obedience to orders will transcend
the survival instinct and people will fight and die for a cause that may give them
no personnel benefit.
Another
basic instinct we are able to overcome is sexual reproduction; this is controlled
by abstinence and contraception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I'm not convinced that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism. Otherwise, we'd be totally incapable of feeling empathy for out-group people.I can agree that empathy is affected by tribalism, but as to what extent? I know it's not 100% or 0%. It's hard to judge when tribalism isn't the easiest genetic trait to test for. So, it might even be possible to shut down/erase multiple neural pathways and still have empathy intact.
Empathy was central to the evolutionary process that
produced tribal societies and that empathy meant we sought to protect each
other and share any food, it also enabled cooperation and by working together
we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators.
Unfortunately it also has a negative side, also driven by our need to survive
and that is competition with other tribal groups for resources, which can lead
to violence. This negative side still exists, where we feel hostility towards
those we perceive to be outside our group, I don’t think I need to provide
examples.
You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.
Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.
However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.
You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.
Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.
However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you justify the value of survival without God?
Survival is the basic driving force for all living things,
as to why, probably because it is encoded in the DNA of all species. I’m not sure you can justify a value to it; survival is
simply an end in itself and I don’t see that it necessitates God.
Regarding the value of human survival as a concept, I think that may be a
personal thing and different people may put different values on their existence.
Created:
Posted in:
Well in that case I guess God does interfere, I was told on judgement day God gives sinners one last chance to redeem themself (I assume by doing so he makes Himself known in the way your alluding to) and go to heaven (albeit more difficult) I guess that’s another thing to consider.
That on judgement day God gives sinners one last chance to
redeem themselves is what you have been told and what you belief, and I can accept
that as your belief. It is just that it is at odds with a lot of Christian teaching
I have come across, which doesn’t give you a second chance after death. That is
not to say whose belief is right or wrong.
On that note of agreement perhaps we should leave it there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I would ask for more details.
There are different definitions of "epiphany" the one I am
using is “a sudden divine manifestation.” You must have come across people who
claim “I wasn’t a believer, then suddenly I felt God’s presence,” or words to
that effect. This is sometimes referred to as a “Damascus moment” after the biblical story of Paul, who converted to Christianity while
travelling the road to Damascus (Acts 9). And if you believe that story, it would be a perfect example of God
interfering with someone’s belief.
I thought the general notion was the afterlife was eternal not this life.
There was a reason I emboldened the word “threats.” It is
the threat of eternal damnation that influences belief, not the actual event,
as by then it would be too late.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, AFTER the faith in Him is already there.
What about those without faith who have an epiphany moment, where God suddenly makes himself known.
I thought the narrative (and you’ve made this clear verbatim) was this life?
The threats of eternal damnation exist very much in this life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Context? Funny how you say this but you don’t contextualize interference. Now if the narrative is you questioning why God doesn’t make everybody believe in Him and my response is He doesn’t interfere then “CONTEXTUALLY” speaking that’s in reference to beliefs meaning He doesn’t interfere with peoples beliefs, so any argument pertaining to praying to Him for help and that being pointless is “simply dismissive” of the narrative being currently discussed and a non sequitur because you were arguing under the pretense of those who don’t believe so a more than appropriate response was to counter that with your own logic by asking why are you praying to a God you don’t believe in, since “CONTEXTUALLY” speaking you were arguing under that pretense.I really hope I helped bring this full circle.
Okay, I’ll accept that but perhaps if you had said that “he doesn’t
interfere in people’s beliefs” rather than the all encompassing “he doesn’t interfere”
that would have been clearer.
I will now address your statement that “He doesn’t interfere
with people’s beliefs.” Many claim that God has made himself known to them, now
if he doesn’t interfere with people’s beliefs that would mean they are mistaken
as by making himself known, this would constitute as interference. Secondly wouldn’t
threats of punishment in an afterlife for not believing also constitute as interfering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not the argument I was alluding to which wasThen that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.
Let’s put this in context.
You stated that God doesn’t interfere and my reply was, “Then that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.” This is valid because if God doesn’t interfere then requesting his help through prayer would be would asking him to interfere and therefore would be pointless.
The say the argument is pointless is simply dismissive and doesn’t refute it. If you disagree with it then please provide a valid argument as to why it is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
It's theoretically possible and desirable that the human brain could be redesigned to remove its tribal elements.
The problem with removing tribal elements from the brain is
that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism, so by removing tribalism you would be removing
empathy, which would result in a society of psychopaths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
When I look up "evolutionary advantage" for a definition, this is what I found:"Any phenotypic trait that increases the fitness of one species over another. This could be anything that allows the species to better compete with another species occupying the same niche, obtain food/resources more efficiently, or stave off predators." - SOURCEBased on that definition, I fail to see how the manmade concept of "religion" (or "religions") have anything to do with phenotype let alone the evolution of homo sapiens.In fact, historically, religion has been a rather huge disadvantage, disappointment, detriment, and any other "D" word (that corresponds with violence) one can come up with whereas the true evolution of humanity is concerned.
Yes, you are right, that is the obvious interpretation and so I addressed it from that position. But on re-reading it, it would seem that what the OP is trying to say is that religion after it evolved has impacted on social development, so nothing to do with it being an “evolutionary advantage.” Unfortunately instead of clarifying their position all I got was stupid comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Yes, your arguments can be.Ciao meow.
I’ll take that as a concession of your defeat.
Ciao.
Ciao.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I can't, actually. It's almost like they are intentionally bad arguments designed to mock something...
Can be dismissed as irrelevant then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Yes when it's time for humans to evolve, they walk out of their societies, do their evolving, and then come back in.
Societies and civilizations spawned out of nowhere for no reason.
People who make and help to maintain societies weren't selected for at all. That's why there are no societies anymore.
You have made three statements there, I can answer the second.
The first societies were “tribal hunter gatherer” these were a product of natural selection, as working together as a group gave us an advantage in hunting and finding food over a solitary individual and it placed us at the top of the food chain.
As to the other two please can you support them with some facts or evidence?
The first societies were “tribal hunter gatherer” these were a product of natural selection, as working together as a group gave us an advantage in hunting and finding food over a solitary individual and it placed us at the top of the food chain.
As to the other two please can you support them with some facts or evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.
All of that simply relates to the development of social structures
within society and has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution by natural
selection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well everything you've posted is true no one here wants to talk about those animistic and polytheist religions. They consider them irrelevant to today even though they existed for a very long time before monotheism or as you stated even religion in general. There are certain polyistic religions were even the gods take a back seat to land spirits and dead ancestors. But again nobody here wants to talk about those things because they're irrelevant to their day-to-day life. They only care about the religion they feel have scarred and marked them in some way. The purpose is never for productive conversation.
I have always been interested in paganism and I must admit I was quite drawn to it in my late teens and early twenties, I find there is something
romantic about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why are you making a pointless argument?
Here is the argument yet again.
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist.
Please show why it is pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not as pointless as praying to a God you don’t believe in.
I’m not sure there is a ranking of pointlessness, I would
say they are equally pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The type of belief system that supports cowards get punished in the afterlife or that a God will ensure victory even when certain defeat looks imminent is not any less likely to be polytheistic than monotheistic religion.
There earliest evidence for some sort of religious belief
probably related to Sympathetic Magic, this is a belief that events can be influenced
by creating a representation of that event prior to it taking place. This can
be seen in early cave paintings, where hunters are portrayed completing a successful
hunt, this is intended to influence the potential for future successful hunts. Such
religious concepts like retribution in an afterlife appeared much later long
after human biological development as we know it today was completed and so wouldn’t have influenced
evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
He doesn’t interfere.
Then that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Fair enough. I've only outlined them in the OP. They're very easy to miss. I'll even link to it to help you: Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)
Very easy to miss as none of those points appear to maximise
our fitness to survive by process of natural selection. Did they help those
early hominids find food, hunt animals or compete with predators, if so I can’t
see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I would argue that it has maximize fitness to survive. You'd have to look at it through the lense of group evolution. If a group has 30 selfless individuals unafraid of death and willing to die for their God, they have an advantage over tribes in warfare who do fear death, will act selfishly in battle by retreating too early etc.
It is unlikely that early tribal groups would die for God as
there is no evidence for monotheism in these early groups, polytheism was probably
the norm, the earliest monotheistic religions came into being about 4000 years
ago.
Is to whether there would have been any religious conflict between polytheistic groups is as far as I am aware unlikely, as if you believe in many gods it is easy to accept the gods of other tribes.
The main reason for early tribal conflict would have been about resources not religion, obtaining resources would be beneficial to survival.
Is to whether there would have been any religious conflict between polytheistic groups is as far as I am aware unlikely, as if you believe in many gods it is easy to accept the gods of other tribes.
The main reason for early tribal conflict would have been about resources not religion, obtaining resources would be beneficial to survival.
Created:
Posted in:
For it to be an evolutionary advantage it would need to help maximise our fitness to survive and I can’t see how religion does this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Or He does conditionally.
Unless you state what those conditions are that is pretty meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That's because atheists are just monotheist with angst.
I’m not against monotheism only when it tries to impose its beliefs
on others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then swap out free will with perception if it makes you feel better, either way He doesn’t interfere.
Then he doesn’t
want everyone to believe in him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well there's more than one religion and I'm sorry that you can't address all of them cuz you're too stupid to do that.
As there are literally thousands of religions you are right …
apart from the “stupid” bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There are more than just a few people worshiping gods on the planet, don't be a dick. What makes you think the gods want everyone to worship them they obviously reveal themselves to who they want to. Don't take it personally you wouldn't want to serve a god anyway.
The argument I posted relates specifically to the Biblical
God who wants to be exclusively worshiped, so much so that failure to do so can
result in eternal damnation … not very nice.
I don’t necessarily think all gods are that intolerant.
As to me not wanting to serve a god you are right but then I have no wish to serve anyone.
I don’t necessarily think all gods are that intolerant.
As to me not wanting to serve a god you are right but then I have no wish to serve anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe He wants His people to believe in Him through their own free will and not His own.
Free will has nothing to do with belief as it isn’t a matter
of choice, belief is down to perception and you cannot believe something if you
perceive it to be false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You still seem to be missing the point of the original argument. Many people will claim that God has made himself known to them and I accept this as a matter of faith, but to return to the original argument, if God wants all people to believe in him then he must make himself known to all people and not just a few.
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
What we call morality comes from empathy, this is an inherent trait and nothing to do with God, religion or an afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Quoting snippets from my posts and responding with trivial
comments doesn’t really address the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Theirs a strength in the number of believers.
What is considered a strength is a matter of perception and
opinion, it is subjective.
Assuming that this strength is beneficial, then more believers would serve to increase this benefit, so why doesn’t God make himself known, as this would increase the number of believers?
Assuming that this strength is beneficial, then more believers would serve to increase this benefit, so why doesn’t God make himself known, as this would increase the number of believers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
They will at some point, whether or not it’s too late is the question.
They will acquire faith at some point, so what is that point,
as you say “whether or not it is too late” would suggest it is in an afterlife when
God makes himself known. If God makes himself known in an afterlife then they
would not be acquiring faith as faith would be unnecessary, and it doesn’t answer
the question as to why God doesn’t make himself known in this life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe to teach the lesson of faith, I know that’s a turnoff for a lot of nonbelievers so I offer deductive reasoning as an alternative argument.
What is this lesson in faith, surely it can only be taught
to those who have faith, as those who do not have faith would be unresponsive
to such teaching, so there would be little point in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you justify the value of those concepts without God?
They were the product of evolution through natural selection
and they helped maximise human fitness to survive. There is no need for God.
To move on, none of your rather cryptic questions actually addresses
the argument I posted.
The OP asked for the best arguments for and against God, So I posted an argument against God, I’m not sure it’s the best and it certainly it isn’t new, so I can’t take credit for it but I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone could refute it. Here it is again:
The OP asked for the best arguments for and against God, So I posted an argument against God, I’m not sure it’s the best and it certainly it isn’t new, so I can’t take credit for it but I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone could refute it. Here it is again:
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist.
This is my take on it. The argument isn’t asking for evidence
of Gods existence. The argument poses a question that if God wants us the believe
in him then why didn’t he provide irrefutable evidence for his existence, that
is basically make himself known to everyone on this planet. The fact that he
hasn’t allows for two possible answers. He exists and the first premise in the
argument is wrong and he doesn’t care whether people believe in him or not, or alternatively
he doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then how do you justify the existence of morality without God?
Morality was selected by evolution in order to promote
cooperation and smooth social interactions. We evolved as a tribal species with
feelings of empathy for the members within our group, we would seek to protect
each other and share any food acquired. Also by cooperating we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves
against heavily armed predators. In terms of evolution all this helped to
maximise our fitness to survive as it placed us at the top of the food chain,
which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I get the sense this is an appeal to vagueness. Which empirical beliefs are necessary for day to day functioning? I feel like it exists in a manner of degrees. Some people are fine not believing in free will, some people even seem fine being unsure of what will happen tomorrow. In this same sense some are fine not being religious or fine with god not existing, others not so much!
Yes I agree that those examples are somewhat ambiguous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t necessarily agree
with the solipsism hypothesis but as far as I know there isn’t an argument to
refute it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a significant amount of quantifiable empirical evidence for "the sun"there is significantly less quantifiable empirical evidence for "the god" (or "the bigfoot" or "the space aliens" or "the lochness monster")
I agree, but if you take the solipsistic view the only thing
you can prove is your own existence.
Created: