It’s a convenient way to avoid having to actually provide an answer, nothing more. Take religion out of it and just consider the underlying argument:
You must believe this, without evidence, because you can’t see the evidence.
Ok, there are certainly things which we cannot perceive directly. Radio waves, for example. However, no one was saying we should just accept they exist, without evidence. Humans eventually found a way to detect them and create a reliable, repeatable, predictable way to detect them and show that detection in a way we can perceive. There is no need to take the existence of radio waves on faith, you can actually build a simple radio yourself.
And this is where such arguments fall over. There is some very powerful being. But, it is incapable of giving one of its prophets a framework which can be used to describe the universe in a testable, repeatable, falsifiable way which demonstrates the existence of said being. It all boils down to, “trust me bro!”
Ya, no thanks. If the claimant cannot provide better evidence than a bunch of stories someone may have once said, I’m not buying it. History is lousy with prophets claiming to hear gods. It’s the perfect con. Do what I tell you or something bad might happen after you die. Evidence? No sorry, the gods only talk to me. And this Al Gayeb argument is just more of the same.
Humans eventually found a way to detect them and create a reliable, repeatable, predictable way to detect them and show that detection in a way we can perceive.
That’s what makes the “you can’t see wind either” idiocy even more infuriating.
It’s a convenient way to avoid having to actually provide an answer, nothing more. Take religion out of it and just consider the underlying argument:
You must believe this, without evidence, because you can’t see the evidence.
Ok, there are certainly things which we cannot perceive directly. Radio waves, for example. However, no one was saying we should just accept they exist, without evidence. Humans eventually found a way to detect them and create a reliable, repeatable, predictable way to detect them and show that detection in a way we can perceive. There is no need to take the existence of radio waves on faith, you can actually build a simple radio yourself.
And this is where such arguments fall over. There is some very powerful being. But, it is incapable of giving one of its prophets a framework which can be used to describe the universe in a testable, repeatable, falsifiable way which demonstrates the existence of said being. It all boils down to, “trust me bro!”
Ya, no thanks. If the claimant cannot provide better evidence than a bunch of stories someone may have once said, I’m not buying it. History is lousy with prophets claiming to hear gods. It’s the perfect con. Do what I tell you or something bad might happen after you die. Evidence? No sorry, the gods only talk to me. And this Al Gayeb argument is just more of the same.
That’s what makes the “you can’t see wind either” idiocy even more infuriating.