nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If GOD wants belief in him based on faith...

shadowcomplex

then isn't it logical to asume he would make it seem from a scientific point of view he doesn't exist

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dave!

Occam's razor brah, look it up...

shadowcomplex

Dave! wrote: »

Occam's razor brah, look it up...

occam was a theist

Dave!

And Newton was an alchemist, doesn't mean they didn't talk sense from time to time

shadowcomplex

Dave! wrote: »

And Newton was an alchemist, doesn't mean they didn't talk sense from time to time

despite being a thiest his theory only involved the split in the christian religion , it has nothing to do with the non existence of GOD

Dave!

Dunno what you're getting at there champ.

Occam's Razor recommends choosing the explanation that makes the least assumptions.

Your theory in the OP proposes that the lack of evidence for god's existance is because he contrived to mislead us to test our faith. The simpler explanation would be that god just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't interact with the natural world, and that's why there's no evidence in his favour.

liamw

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then isn't it logical to asume he would make it seem from a scientific point of view he doesn't exist

That's a good point. The Flying Spagetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn must have had the same idea....

magicbastarder

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then isn't it logical to asume he would make it seem from a scientific point of view he doesn't exist

so the lack of scientific proof of a god is proof that god exists?

i've just watched a really bad m. night shyalaman film. this makes even less sense.

shadowcomplex

Dave! wrote: »

Dunno what you're getting at there champ.

Occam's Razor recommends choosing the explanation that makes the least assumptions.

Your theory in the OP proposes that the lack of evidence for god's existance is because he contrived to mislead us to test our faith. The simpler explanation would be that god just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't interact with the natural world, and that's why there's no evidence in his favour.

This theory would have also supported the idea that the earth was flat back before middle ages

MagicMarker

liamw

There's a good chance MagicMarker

AhSureTisGrand

Douglas Adams wrote:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

This theory would have also supported the idea that the earth was flat back before middle ages

huh?

Irish_wolf

shadowcomplex wrote: »

This theory would have also supported the idea that the earth was flat back before middle ages

Well actually not many people in the middle ages believed the world was flat it was a myth created by writers in the 18th - 19th century, in my entirely unprofessional opinion there's a higher percentage of people today that believe the earth is flat then there was before due to things like the flat earth society and the rise of creationism etc.

Also if a god wanted to be seen as impossible from a scientific view or unlikely or whatever then why would he allow humans to evolve(or be created with) critical thinking. Surely he was just condemning the logical thinkers to certain hellfire by designing their brains in a certain way as to have to regard god as a logical improbability, seems heartless and cruel. Whats the point in giving people the power to think and choose their own destinies if you must require them not to use it in order to get into heaven.

Dave!

shadowcomplex wrote: »

This theory would have also supported the idea that the earth was flat back before middle ages

Well there was evidence of a round earth before the middle ages, but even still, so what? As more data becomes available you should adjust your theory accordingly. So it might have been reasonable to believe one thing 1000 years ago, but it no longer is today.

Are you expecting some new evidence in favour of god's existance to become available in the future?

Do you realise that what you're proposing can be applied to anything? Observe: if we were all actually computer programs existing only in a simulated world for the benefit of an experiment, wouldn't the experimenter have programmed us to believe that that wasn't the case? So how do we know we're real?

You're also assuming that you're capable of reading god's mind. Why do you think that god wants people to believe in him based on faith? Because you read it in the Bible? Isn't the Bible supposed to be evidence of god's existance? If it's not then it's just a book, so why would you think it gives any insight into god's wishes? Bit circular I would think.

gbee

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then isn't it logical to asume he would make it seem from a scientific point of view he doesn't exist

I'm absolutely sure he would, but religion got in the way, some say that the real trick the 'devil' has played, is not having anyone believe in him anymore, but that he successfully disguised the fact that religion is the real 'Devil' in this process.

Blackhorse Slim

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then isn't it logical to asume he would make it seem from a scientific point of view he doesn't exist

So what you're saying is, if god is real, he's a ****?

Interesting theory

ArtSmart

plus a lot of virgins tend to question god's existence.

not sure if that's relevant, but - well, it's true.

shadowcomplex

Irish_wolf wrote: »

Well actually not many people in the middle ages believed the world was flat it was a myth created by writers in the 18th - 19th century, in my entirely unprofessional opinion there's a higher percentage of people today that believe the earth is flat then there was before due to things like the flat earth society and the rise of creationism etc.

Also if a god wanted to be seen as impossible from a scientific view or unlikely or whatever then why would he allow humans to evolve(or be created with) critical thinking. Surely he was just condemning the logical thinkers to certain hellfire by designing their brains in a certain way as to have to regard god as a logical improbability, seems heartless and cruel. Whats the point in giving people the power to think and choose their own destinies if you must require them not to use it in order to get into heaven.

There are more intelligent thiests in the world then you or any other athiest on this forum im sure

Ickle Magoo

I'm sure they aren't so insecure they have to keep spamming the A&A forum tho...

shadowcomplex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm sure they aren't so insecure they have to keep spamming the A&A forum tho...

Is that dig at me, im an agnostic remember

Dave!

He's only playing devil's advocate/trolling, fair enough I guess... Bit of intellectual masturbation for us!

Ickle Magoo

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Is that dig at me, im an agnostic remember

I don't care - this is the second thread I've happened upon in as many minutes asking some really daft question. Do you see the search button top right? It's dead handy - failing that, google religious fallacies. :cool:

Dave! wrote: »

He's only playing devil's advocate/trolling, fair enough I guess... Bit of intellectual masturbation for us!

Since when is answering the same questions asked three times a week religiously for the past however many years allowed to be classed as any kind of masturbation?

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

There are more intelligent thiests in the world then you or any other athiest on this forum im sure

That's your response to his post? He doesn't poke fun at you or your stupid thread, posts an informative and thought out post relative to your OP and you come back with this shít?

ArtSmart

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Since when is answering the same questions asked three times a week religiously for the past however many years allowed to be classed as any kind of masturbation?

i've underlined the words i believe counter your assertion.

god, i hate bad telly nights.

Daegerty

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't care - this is the second thread I've happened upon in as many minutes asking some really daft question. Do you see the search button top right? It's dead handy - failing that, google religious fallacies. :cool:

Since when is answering the same questions asked three times a week religiously for the past however many years allowed to be classed as any kind of masturbation?

a female militant atheist

never thought i'd see the day

Ickle Magoo

ArtSmart wrote: »

i've underlined the words i believe counter your assertion.

god, i hate bad telly nights.

Three times a week? lightweight

Bad telly night or not, masturbation is fun...the same asinine arguments being trotted out and met with intelligent replies that are ignored just ain't...if you think this is better then, well, good on ye mate.

/counter.

MagicMarker

Daegerty wrote: »

a female militant atheist

never thought i'd see the day

I don't think you know what militant means.

ArtSmart

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Three times a week? lightweight

Bad telly night or not, masturbation is fun...the same asinine arguments being trotted out and met with intelligent replies that are ignored just ain't...if you think this is better then, well, good on ye mate.

/counter.

masturbation is fun???

oh, la de da.

'scuse me, mister enlightened.

mutter, three times if i'm lucky, mutter, mutter

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't think you know what militant means.

I don't think he knows much about females either tbh

shadowcomplex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Since when is answering the same questions asked three times a week religiously for the past however many years allowed to be classed as any kind of masturbation?

what question