It’s clearly not always a legitimate position.. if someone were to ask “do you actively believe all people of a race are inferior” and your answer is “I don’t know” that’s a pretty illegitimate response. You don’t know if you actively believe that? And even if you misunderstood and thought the question was asking if they are, not just if you believe it, then “I don’t know” is still a pretty illegitimate response.

@travispratt6327 I don't know what I believe is still a valid answer...however with your example I would find such an answer difficult to believe as I expect every adult has already put some thought into the subject...it's still valid though...just hard to believe

@@ThePsyko420 You think “I don’t know what I believe” is a valid answer to do you believe x race is inferior? You either do or you don’t… that’s not something people just accept “I don’t know what I believe” as an answer. They’d correctly peg you as a racist, because that’s the answer a racist would give.

@@frederickfairlieesq5316 yeah gor really uninteresting moment he had an opportunity to speak. It's unfortunate.

@@Rev-bb9ej 😭

@@masscreationbroadcasts yes requesting to prove God is reasonable, this is just a stupid question.

>"Is requesting to prove God even reasonable?" Yes. Any positive claim, like "X exists," carries a burden of proof. Proof can be empirical, deductive, or based on inference to the best explanation. >"Aka. is God something provable through argument?" If you’re claiming something exists *in reality,* you need some form of empirical verification. Arguments alone aren’t enough unless they involve a purely deductive, self-contained axiomatic system. Since we interact with reality through our senses, empirics are necessary-unless you’re assuming we’re all brains in vats. >"There would be 2 ways of concluding the existence of something: conclusions gained through experience, and conclusions gained through third-party descriptions." That’s a false dichotomy. Both personal experience and the scientific method rely on empirical observations. Third-party descriptions are meaningless without verification, which is why peer review exists. When skeptics ask for evidence of God, we’re requesting the same standard of proof used to verify anything else, like Australia or oxygen. Bad arguments for God are rejected for the same reasons we’d reject bad arguments for Australia. We’re not asking you to jump through hoops; it’s just that your claims lack the coherent evidence needed to justify belief. >"Is there any kind of thing for which you don't have to be there for, but you believe would prove God?" It depends on how "God" is defined. For a tri-omni God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good), logical contradictions make its existence impossible. Clear definitions are crucial. For example: - Fossil rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata could support a creationist god. - Overturning current neuroscience might make gods related to "free will" plausible. Evidence must positively indicate one hypothesis over competing ones or exclusively align with one explanation. >"Because if not, you have an impossible standard and are just asking theists to jump through hoops for your personal entertainment while you would reject everything they bring forth." The issue isn’t that the bar is “impossible”-it’s that your arguments don’t meet the standard used for anything else we know exists. If you can prove atoms, supernovae, and water using consistent reasoning but fail to do the same for God, that inconsistency is telling. Theists don’t lack evidence because skeptics are unfair; they lack it because their arguments are bad. If God were provable, we’d have demonstrable reasons, like with the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, or black holes. But theists fail to provide good reasons for anyone else to believe their claims. Good arguments follow valid logical inference rules and are demonstrably sound. Theists often rely on emotional reasoning ("vibes") rather than solid evidence. That’s why critiques of their arguments often go unanswered or ignored. If you think you have a valid argument for God, feel free to present it-I’ll show you why it fails. The problem isn’t an impossible standard; it’s that God is either an incoherent concept or so vague and unfalsifiable that it becomes indistinguishable from leprechauns or unicorns. Theists have a responsibility to justify their claims because they use God as a basis for actions and policies that affect others. If they can’t meet that burden of proof, then their beliefs shouldn’t be treated as justified.

Also, they can’t say evil is necessary for good while also saying they don’t know if good is obtainable without evil because by their lights it’s constitutive of the notion. Or in other words, if evil is necessary for good then trivially good is unobtainable without evil. They want to say evil and good are conceptually asymmetric but they can’t do that when affirming necessity. They’re trying to have their mince pie and eat it too.

@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Yeah what's fun and what I should of done is ask is God a robot

That implies in order to be free we have to sin, but if we have to sin then we are determined to sin, and if we’re determined to sin then we’re not free (at least with respect to incompatibilist freedom), so that objection is self-defeating.

@@displacegamer1379 they always say this dumb confused shit, it's irritating

Hello Reddit! 🙋

Even right now there is one certain country committing unspeakable atrocities, same atrocities it has been committing for hundreds of years, and what do most God people do? That's right, they either pretend nothing is happening, or even worse - they support that country, for its so-called "family values".

@@garzon53 immoral*

@@RahjaStooli 🎄

i had a seizure reading my own comment, sorry!

@@ChristianEncyclopaedia if you want you can give me your discord and we can talk about the same critic and see if you track his time.

i can already see the atheists with cognitive dissonance coming in

@@ChristianEncyclopaedia then you can't track

@@ChristianEncyclopaedia yean and I'm replying to a theist with cognitive dissonance rn

@@ChristianEncyclopaedia no clue who they are, but if they're thomist it's just gonna be conversing with a gibberator

@@masscreationbroadcasts Vader is just channel icon. You can only prove or justify propositions inferentially, so experiences don't do anything, only arguments raise the likelihood or entail a God exists. Yeah theists are jumping through hoops, theisms like thy dumbest view, ofc there's no good arguments in support of it.

Either people who believe in god have good reasons to believe or they don’t. If they don’t then there’s no reason to be convinced, and if they do they need to share them in order for them to be evaluated. If someone believes in god because of certain experiences, it’s reasonable to question them to see why those experiences are better explained by god rather than natural things such as super advanced aliens, or the more likely human failure of the mind like a hallucination Like that doesn’t seem unfair at all, I don’t see why god would explain it better, and it requires theorizing a new type of being

@darth_mb you dodged my question.

​@@masscreationbroadcastsif there are no good arrangements for God's existence, do you think it's still reasonable to believe in God?

What do you mean when you say "arguments exist outside the category of firsthand experience"? Could one not construct a syllogism such as, "If you had first-hand experience X, God exists. You had first-hand experience X. Therefore God exists"? You may say the argument is unsound, but its still an argument.

They... Don't. They're just saying that for some things, the answer is or relates to God. I seriously doubt if you ask any theist "how do we make a rocket that can reach the stars within our lifetime", they won't say "we don't know, we only have a general idea".

@@masscreationbroadcasts The very reason why they believe in a god is that, instead of simply accepting that they _don't know,_ they _assert_ an answer that is comforting them (there is a god), instead of admitting that they don't know where the universe comes from and/or they can't figure out what their purpose is and/or they are afraid of death. They're saying that for some things - which are totally coincidentally the things they do not know - the answer is god. Your analogy with the rocket is not working.

@MyReligionIs2DoGood for how long have you been training these psychic powers of yours?

@@masscreationbroadcasts My statements do not require psychic powers. All it takes is countless debates with theists, in real life and on the internet. I did not claim anywhere there cannot be more reasons for people to believe. I have just listed three that are relevant to the topic. The vast majority of religious people believe because they have been indoctrinated with it since childhood.