So Boerd

Nexus Of Worlds Multiverse

Made the requested changes. Thrusters are high, nanobot capabilities specified.

State-Church Separation

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

I don't believe you, a view I gained from my intuition, however strictly rationally, I don't know. That would be why I included the bit about the agnostic having no burden.

State-Church Separation

The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?

The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

What the hell happened to Spam?

That and Guildfall. Pr0n nation also killed Advanced's quality.

State-Church Separation

I don't have telescopes strong enough, I have to rely on the word of others, and their potentially doctored images.

The more things I have to believe to believe the claim and the more it defies common logic

Why can't I say anything I want defies common logic? All sorts of scientific knowledge which relies on mathematics far too incomprehensible to me which I cannot understand, for evidence. Am I rational to disbelieve those?

State-Church Separation

Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence.

I said they could not reproduce it, not that they had no evidence.

State-Church Separation

Brovo said
There is nothing subjective about measuring the fantastical quality of something. Here, let me show you.There are lots of people named Susie in the world. The only barrier to my belief of your friend being named Susie is believing that someone would be named Susie and that someone is your friend. To believe that any god exists, I have to suspend my disbelief and believe that there is a being with omnipotence and potentially omniscience who created the entirety of everything, then left no evidence behind whatsoever, for no apparent reason except to ask me to worship them. This just opens up so many unanswered "why" questions. Why worship? Why do they need my worship? Why do they need me to believe them to be real without any evidence? Why this, why that, why why why~Claiming a god exists is a fantastical claim and requires fantastical evidence, of which there is none. That is about as rational as it gets: It's down to a pure mathematical level of logic. If X value is Y, it requires Z quantity/quality of evidence. It does not get more rational than that.I said no . But then you're using a broken example anyway: The only reason every scientist on the planet would proclaim the existence of a deity is if they had significant, unbeatable, unparalleled evidence for it.Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence. That goes completely contradictory to everything science stands for. Here, a perfect example of what I mean: If every single priest on the planet simultaneously declared there was no god, would you stop believing in god?

No, I would not, however, I don't pretend to be rational.

Now you claim there is some objective way to demonstrate fantasy and not only that, a quantifiable way. What are those parameters? What prevents me from deciding that a giant hole in space is more ridiculous than an enormous invisible bear who moves things in the patterns scientists have seen? I have never seen space holes, but I have seen bears and I know they can move things.

State-Church Separation

Subjective? Opinionated? Strong words that ultimately make no sense in this context. I'm stating that the more "out there" a claim is, the more evidence is required for me to believe it. The more fantastical something is, the more evidence I need.

>States subjective has no bearing

>Proceeds to use a subjective criteria.

God created the world in seven days. That has pretty significant consequences.

I said a non-descript God, not the Christian God in the hypothetical. As far as the hypothetical, l asked you if you would believe in a God if every scientist on this planet said he did. You said no. I am now applying that level of evidence to your claim that bank robbers are punished. Per your standard of evidence, no volume of authoritative sources is sufficient.

State-Church Separation

Not observing something does not mean it does not exist, it means you have not observed it.

State-Church Separation

Also, as I've said before which you conveniently ignore: The more ridiculous a claim, the more evidence is required to prove it. I don't need you to prove your friend Susie exists, I'll take your word for it, there are a lot of people named Susie on the planet. I do need evidence if you claim Susie can bend a spoon with her mind, or make people instantly com-bust with her mind, or fly through the air without any mechanical assistance, and so on.

How decidedly irrational. Using a purely subjective and opinionated judgement to determine how much proof is needed? Irrational indeed. Ridiculousness varies wildly from person to person. A rational iindividual would stack consequence against evidence.

Bank robber captured, and you can easily find and verify it by finding the person's name, where they are located, video records of the event, judicial records on what evidence was brought to prove the bank robber was captured, and so on

I offered you stronger evidence for God im the hypothetical, so no, that will not do.