If I tell you I’m your god and you should give me all your money or you won’t go to heaven, you will rightly call me a liar, even though you can’t really prove that I’m not.
You won’t say “oh I guess there’s no way to prove he’s not god, so I’d better give him my money”.
In science, the default stance on something existing is that it doesn’t, unless there’s solid proof, or at least a compelling scientific theory suggesting that it does.
Which did you use to prove there is? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
The problem is there is no way to prove there is or isn’t an after life. My point is that he’s acting like it’s already been proven.
If I tell you I’m your god and you should give me all your money or you won’t go to heaven, you will rightly call me a liar, even though you can’t really prove that I’m not.
You won’t say “oh I guess there’s no way to prove he’s not god, so I’d better give him my money”.
In science, the default stance on something existing is that it doesn’t, unless there’s solid proof, or at least a compelling scientific theory suggesting that it does.
He is not explicitly saying there is no afterlife, just that there is no way to communicate with a potential afterlife.
Oh. Good point. Guess I misread that