this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
-50 points (17.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43902 readers
1010 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which did you use to prove there is? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
The problem is there is no way to prove there is or isn't an after life. My point is that he's acting like it's already been proven.
If I tell you I'm your god and you should give me all your money or you won't go to heaven, you will rightly call me a liar, even though you can't really prove that I'm not.
You won't say "oh I guess there's no way to prove he's not god, so I'd better give him my money".
In science, the default stance on something existing is that it doesn't, unless there's solid proof, or at least a compelling scientific theory suggesting that it does.
He is not explicitly saying there is no afterlife, just that there is no way to communicate with a potential afterlife.
Oh. Good point. Guess I misread that