On the contrary- everything points to humankind being an accident. We live in a massive universe, in a very ordinary solar system (universally speaking) Around 9 billion years after the the universe is created the earth forms. Then for 4.5 billion years species come and go on the planet. If just...
Assuming you don’t want to play some existential mind games and discuss the origin of consciousness or “soul”, then there is physical evidence that you exist because you are engaging in this thread. I am fairly confident that the iPad I am typing on exists and other tangible object around me...
Th
There is no burden of proof for a lack of belief. I think you misunderstand Stephen Hawkins. Any skeptic who values the scientific method will refrain from making positive assertions. At most one excepts the most probable outcome based on the available evidence. If new evidence becomes...
Your god cannot be encountered, only wants to meet people who already believe or who are worthy and everybody imagines this being in completely different ways. This does sound like tap dancing around the fact there is no evidence beyond just blind faith.
A god who is interested in humankind? Who would commit mass genocide and wipe out most of the population of the world because he messed up his original creation. Has the ability to do anything but chooses to play hide and seek and ignore the plight of every human. A tour loving god.
The definition of an atheist is someone who doesn’t hold a belief in a god. That is different from asserting that there is no god. Hard atheists claim there are no gods. In an ideal world a parent should provide the child with accurate unbiased facts and allow them to make up their own mind that...
The problem with prophecy is how the details are interpreted. Also, one has to decide how reliable the bible scriptures are. Are there no errors as some believe? Others claim some sections aren’t literal, but then provide no criteria for how to make the decision for how to determine what is...
You are totally correct the universe is full of mysteries a plenty. Science is comfortable with the conclusion that we don’t know the answer. It might be the case that there is a god, but this is just one of many possible explanations. Taking a methodological naturalism standpoint many questions...
These are all lovely experiences- I completely agree. However, my original question was about not having sufficient evidence. I am not sure how sitting under a tree would give me sufficient reason to think there is a god.
The appeal to complexity is a logical fallacy. This does not lead to a god. Merely because we see something that looks complicated there are many naturalistic explanations. Did you eliminate all of the possibilities before “filling the gap” with a god.
The obvious question is why do I need any deity to make me a better man. If I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to believe there is a deity how can I take any guidance from it.
Your argument is nothing comes from nothing therefore god. Can I ask what other possibilities you have explored and eliminated? How do you know that there is not an explanation that you have not considered?