withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
I never said there wasn't a God, I said that it is folly to believe either way, because both make large assumptions. However assuming there is not a God makes less assumptions (because assuming there is a God we would also have to assume certain characteristics of that God), and it fits in better with current scientific evidence. Less assumptions means a more likely conclusion in most cases.veterandoggy said:give me reason why it isnt from god, and then i will leave you alone.
EDIT: Consider the following:
I have a box. I have been told that it may or may not have a ball in it. I cannot pick up the box, I cannot open it, I cannot even touch it. Assuming there is a ball means assuming characteristics of it (such as colour, material it is made of). Would it make sense to assume all of these things and go preaching to the world that I have a blue rubber ball in my box?
Last edited: