The concept of God is not analogous to the spaghetti monster, leprechauns, Sagan's dragon in the garage, and so on

You’re asking how to prove consciousness and morals. And implying this is the same belief as believing in a god.

I’m not “implying”, I’m explicitly and obviously doing just that. Perhaps more specifically, I’m trying to express that “proof” is simply not a means through which to attain belief or acceptance of everything that is, or can be thought of to be.

I’m not concerned presently with whether these things are perfectly analogous to god. What I’m more interested in is why you single out proof, when proof is fundamentally unattainable? What proof would you even find hyptoethically sufficient? I’ve read many replies to that question, and the answers usually wouldn’t even as qualify as proof beyond a first glance, or else the answers would be examples of something that would directly contradict the very “nature” of what god is typically purported to be in theological/philosophical writing.

/r/DebateReligion Thread Parent