• NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If God suddenly appeared and said, “I have returned and I am very displeased!” and then he made all the televangelists and MAGAs burst into flames, I would say, “huh. I guess I was wrong.”

    I don’t need much convincing.

    • Ack@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would assume I was mentally I’ll and having delusions. Is anyone else seeing this? :)

    • halvar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      And then you would tell your son, who would tell their son and after around five generations or so God would have to appear and kill a bunch of people once again, because apperently your decendants don’t belive in him anymore. If I was a god that would start to annoy me pretty fast.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or you know, don’t hide if you want to be a celebrity. God seems kinda stupid. Maybe he should have eaten from the tree of knowledge.

        • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          God: Demand Worship, but refuses to do anything for it

          Humans: Stop believing in God because there’s no proof they exist

          God:

        • JoeyJoJoJuniour@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          What part of don’t pray in public for attention makes you think the Christian God wants to be a celebrity?

          I say christian, because that is in the new testament

          • shortgiraffe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            He doesn’t want others praying in public for attention. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t demand attention, and he does. He expects to be worshipped and will burn people forever if they don’t.

      • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        after around five generations or so God would have to appear and kill a bunch of people once again, because apperently your decendants don’t belive in him anymore.

        Well, yeah. Dude vanishes for a thousand years, and I’m supposed to believe the stories of the people who did see his work (people who all died before my most distant tracable ancestor was even born) that were written down by obvious agenda-posters? Seriously?

        The quickest way to get more believers is just to show up and do a party trick every once in a while, but for some reason, God hasn’t done anything public and indisputable since cameras were invented. Weird for a guy who wants the whole world to worship him. All he’d have to do is just have a booming voice, audible everywhere on the planet, say “By the way, I’m God, I exist, and [insert holy book] is the correct one, so ya’ll better get on that.” Only the hardcore contrarians would still be non-believers.

  • Zozano@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is the logical fallacy: Burden of Proof

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

  • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    More importantly science isn’t afraid to admit when it’s wrong and change its working theories and models to fit all available data. Being wrong is just as if not more important to science.

    • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being wrong means that we now can be right again by changing our views!

      And also that we can discover new shit after changing our views that will probably improve our lives.

    • kszeslaw@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely not, science has a long history of ignoring and laughing at many new theories. Many of them were later found out to be true, sure, but it’s not like religion doesn’t change, reinterpret itself etc. along with the changing times.

      All the while nowadays pendulum has swinged to the other side, and most of published papers are never peer-reviewed, as “science” working under a capitalist system must abide by its rules, and so quantity and shock value is more important than quality.

      So while in theory “being wrong” sounds like something that would be useful for science in practice, no, it always was about being (or at least seeming) right.

      • neutronicturtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        (Established) scientists have a long history of ignoring new theories not science itself. But that’s because at the end of the day scientists are still human.

        Science is not great at working on a very short time scales. But give it enough time so more evidence is gathered and possibly some stubborn influential people (that can’t accept a new theory) die and generally we get closer and closer to truth.

  • DaveNa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    That comma changes the meaning of what you are trying to convey op. Just remove the comma. :)

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ah, the good old, tried and tested burden of proof switcheroo.

    Unlike with religion, we could attempt to prove whether our flying friend is a liar or not… but they won’t like it.

    Load them on a plane, boot them from the sky - if they can’t infact fly, then they shall die.

    If only religion could be so easily tested as throwing someone out of a plane and watching if they splat or not.

    • EnemyBattleCrab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s no, it because this comic is cringey as heck. All it does is reinforces the notion that argument around God result in circular reasoning.

      It ignores that many Christian would argue the existence of the universe is prove of God’s existence as it’s more likely an omnipotent being willed it into existence then everything happening solely by chance. Which is the prove that the punch line claims Christian screech about. Einstein himself proclaimed “God does not play dice with the universe” (Im not well read enough to debate this but I’m pretty such quantum physics disproves this quote)

      • reilwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How does the existence of the universe serve as anything other than proof that the universe itself exists?

        It’s like somebody pointing at a random rock and claiming that because it’s there, a leprechaun must have put it there.

        • Hypnoctopus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “I don’t understand why it exists, so it’s gotta be god.” (Pronounced jod, btw)

          • EnemyBattleCrab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s pretty much it - the analogy used is if you find a stop watch in the wood, the stop watch doesn’t just appear out of thin air - someone must have placed it or dropped it there.

            Makes more sense then the ontological argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) - God must exist because intrinsically something omnipotent must exists.

            It’s not quite the “You find prove to disprove my god” the comic paints Christian out to be.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s more likely an omnipotent being willed it into existence then everything happening solely by chance

        It… is? 😅 I don’t ever remember gods showing up in the equations–not even the quantum ones–but go on

      • stappern@lemmy.oneOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many christians would be wrong :)

        Also you absolutely misunderstood the “god” Einstein references XD

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s more likely an omnipotent being willed it into existence then everything happening solely by chance.

        The problem with invoking God is that you end up right back at the same problem. If God created the universe, what created God? Any answer to that question can just be applied to the question of the universe itself.

        God does not play dice with the universe

        Einstein’s quote is him voicing his displeasure about the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. He thought the universe must be deterministic, though I don’t know exactly why. It was probably just a gut level thing.

        Even though quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic (you can’t know the outcome of an event until you do it, you can only predict probable outcomes) there are still people who argue the universe could still be deterministic. Their argument is essentially that even though quantum appears probabilistic, it could actually be deterministic and there’s just some completely unknown variable we have yet to discover determining the outcomes that we see as probabilistic.

        But, you know, until we discover such a variable or a way to prove that it must exist, the universe seems to be probabilistic on the small scale.

  • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You got it wrong my fellow internet user.

    Real Scientists don’t prove something.

    Real Scientists try everything in their power to disprove it.