Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.
Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.
The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.
But there’s no place for theism if you value evidence
Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.
Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.
The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.