[Colin2B]

So God is a 1 in 4 shot.
And then, there's Susan...

Mmm. So after Susan there are an infinite number of god eaters? That seems to reduce the odds of a god existing.

[Bored chemist]

And any proof of the non-existence of Susan can also be recast as a proof of the non-existence of God.

[alancalverd]

Mmm. So after Susan there are an infinite number of god eaters? That seems to reduce the odds of a god existing.

Not according to Occam.

The more preconditions you have to apply before a condition is met, the less likely it is to be met*.

Your target is the nonexistence of god, but you now require the actual or possible existence of an infinite number of deophages to meet that target, and the absence, or failure to perform, of any of them, would invalidate your precondition.

So you either need to demonstrate the existence and function of an infinity of creatures with a common defining characteristic that each can eat the next before being eaten by its predecessor, or accept the possibility of a god.

* the economist's defence.

[Bored chemist]

Yyou now require the actual or possible existence of an infinite number of deophages to meet that target

No, I only need one.
You seem not to understand that it's not a matter of "

failure to perform

.
Their performance is the same as their existence.

Your target is the nonexistence of god

It's not a target; it's an observation.

[alancalverd]

Their performance is the same as their existence.

If only that were true of anything, these days.

It's not a target; it's an observation.

Then you are wasting your time. Observations do not require proof.

[Colin2B]

So you either need to demonstrate the existence and function of an infinity of creatures with a common defining characteristic that each can eat the next before being eaten by its predecessor, or accept the possibility of a god.

Not sure they are cannibalistic. However, wouldn’t you need to prove the existence of god before you could suggest the existence of a creature whose existence depends on it eating gods?

[alancalverd]

No. You can build one unprovable hypothesis on another. It's called philosophy, religion, economics, or string theory. They vary in effect from useless to dangerous.

[Bored chemist]

existence of a creature whose existence depends on it eating gods?

The use of  the word "eat" is a metaphor; not sustenance.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The reason for this is, of course, Colin the God-eating caterpillar.
Colin's defining feature is that he eats and thereby destroys any God in the universe.
For any God to exist, you have to prove the non-existence of Colin.

Can you do that?

This caterpillar story and what follows is the fruit of your delirious halucination.

I don’t see anything in the replies that could be considered a taboo

More than a tabbo. A diversion from the OP.

[Kartazion (OP)]

No. You can build one unprovable hypothesis on another. It's called philosophy, religion, economics, or string theory. They vary in effect from useless to dangerous.

I guess string theory is useless compared to theology which can be dangerous.

This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God.

[Bored chemist]

This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God.

Why do you say they do it "falsely"?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Why do you say they do it "falsely"?

e.g

an entity which doesn't exist.

Calumny.

This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God because theology can be dangerous.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Back to the OP.

In France if you are against the idea of ​​Zionism, then you are accused of anti-Semitism. You are therefore obliged to endorse Zionism. [fr] https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/l-antisionisme-est-bien-un-antisemitisme-24-05-2021-2427846_2.php

Angolsaxon side it's just in discussion. [en] https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/is-anti-zionism-anti-semitism

What taboo? I don’t see anything in the replies that could be considered a taboo

Let's go then...😜

[Kartazion (OP)]

I contest land on earth at the expense of gaining a galaxy to be able to accommodate all living beings on different planets.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you say they do it "falsely"?

e.g

an entity which doesn't exist.

Calumny.

This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God because theology can be dangerous.

You didn't answer the question.
Why do you say it's done falsely?

[Bored chemist]

This caterpillar story and what follows is the fruit of your delirious halucination.

No. It's a perfectly respectable theological point.
God can't exist becasuse of Colin.
So, before you talk of God, you need to prove Colin's absence.
But you can't.

You just say you think it's an hallucination.
You don't realise that your God is the hallucination.

[Kartazion (OP)]

You don't realise that your God is the hallucination.

Poor Bored... My God is that of the USA. Yes dear friend in God we trust.

[Bored chemist]

It's sad that some people can not accept Colin.

[Kartazion (OP)]

It's sad that some people can not accept Colin.

Your Colin who eats the Gods is big nonsense. So yes I refute this stuff. It's so unfounded that when you type on your search engine 'Colin who eats the Gods' you come across this thread. So your God-eating Colin doesn't exist.

[Bored chemist]

So, the basis on which you say he doesn't exist, is the Google found him.
You will need to do better than that.

Just claiming "it's nonsense" is not a valid argument, is it?