10th March 2020, 9:41 PM
(8th March 2020, 9:40 PM)ForestDweller Wrote: Here's my problem with this. First of all, Neil is a smart guy, I like him - and he's proven it several times through what he says and has done. So when he goes "that's why it's called a *faith*, because it's not based on any evidence" I was confused. This is exactly what I say when discussing the topic of God with people who question it. The whole point of religion is that we need to have faith in the creator through the inherent spirituality that is given to mankind, and if we fail to do so then we face the repercussions of it (in Islam, at least, these "repercussions" depend entirely on how Allah deals with you, which obviously will vary person to person - much has to do with deed and intention). If God gives us the evidence of his existence, then even the most evil of people will worship him out of necessity, knowing that he exists so they have no choice. This is a really important concept in Islam, called "iman" - faith in God which goes hand in hand with the "goodness" of people. People who chose to stray and live a life of sin will weaken or perhaps completely drop their iman in order to do so. You wouldn't do evil if you were keenly aware of His presence, and your iman was "strong". Since life is a test, it wouldn't make sense to give the "answers" (evidence of God) to the test, that would defeat the point of the test.
Sure, IF there was specifically an Abrahamic God then the world that we live in could still be possible. But that's only one of many possibilities. For example:
-What if there is no God?
-What if there is a God, but he prefers when people do evil acts and rewards them in the afterlife?
-What if there is a God, but he's a big nacho fan and only lets people into heaven who create a large amount of nachos in their life?
ect.
What exactly about the world we live in makes a God more likely than any other alternative?
