You're getting downvoted but you are right. Stuff like this is a super cool example of exactly the type of thing you are talking about imo.
There's a lot of AI generated art that sucks. But that does not imply that in skilled hands an artist can't use those tools in creative/interesting ways.
Arguably a lot of these tools are designed specifically to reduce the effort a human has to put in to create the art they want to make too.
I don't see the acorn criminal around anywhere? I heard they haven't even found the body.
Have you studied philosophy of religion? Sounds a lot like you haven't. Maybe reading up on it will help you? You can fix your reading comprehension and also learn not to say the dumbest shit possible on topics of religion. It's really a win-win for you.
Sorry for getting your panties in a twist over paraphrasing your totally irrelevant point. Please understand, I don't give a shit about what you think you can prove or disprove.
Any supernatural phenomenon, upon rigorous delineation, becomes provably false
Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not "rigorously delineated" in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.
The lack of reading comprehension here is definitely on your end.
Me (sans-snarkyness) in the original comment you replied to: "Hey, the field of philosophy where this stuff is studied is called philosophy of religion. Proofs for and against the existence of a god have been critiqued to shit there. You should read about it."
You: "Oh yeah! Well I can disprove any god you like."
Congrats? Do you want a gold star or something?
Go study philosophy of religion. These kinds of proofs and disproofs are part of that field along with their critiques. That's the point I'm making in the comment you originally replied to. Nothing about my point is subjective.
I'm "oh-so-focused" on that because you're "oh-so-focused" on telling me about "empirical investigations" that disprove the existence of gods, which have literally nothing at all to do with my point.
How do you know my point is subjective if you do not understand my point in the first place?
I never said there was prove god doesn't exist. And like I said, there doesn't need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
You also said: "A nonexistent almighty being". Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?
More importantly, for the claim "no god exists" specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that "a god exists", for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?
Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn't prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.
It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).
It seems like you should understand my point/position before you reply to me if you want this conversation to be productive? Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?
Do you think I believe in a god?
Edit: Bonus question, do you think I'm claiming a god exists?
Given that music boxes are very very old it is plausible that beethoven could have made a remark sharing his opinion on this exact issue. I don't mean to agree/disagree with your point, I just find that kind of interesting.