← Back to context Comment by tonyedgecombe 1 month ago It's much harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence. 4 comments tonyedgecombe Reply ChrisGreenHeur 1 month ago Just show the concept either is not where it is claimed to be or that it is incoherent. mrbombastic 1 month ago I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence. ChrisGreenHeur 1 month ago what argument? pjaoko 1 month ago The question wasn't about which is harder, it was asking for proof.
ChrisGreenHeur 1 month ago Just show the concept either is not where it is claimed to be or that it is incoherent. mrbombastic 1 month ago I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence. ChrisGreenHeur 1 month ago what argument?
mrbombastic 1 month ago I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence. ChrisGreenHeur 1 month ago what argument?
Just show the concept either is not where it is claimed to be or that it is incoherent.
I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence.
what argument?
The question wasn't about which is harder, it was asking for proof.