without evidence pointing to a god, we can easily dismiss the concept. “gods” were invented to explain the world before we had science. we have the tools and knowledge now to dismiss fairytales for what they are, interesting stories.
This makes it read like the likelihood of a god existing is 50/50. In reality, based on evidence, its much closer to 100% chance there’s no god; 0% chance there is one.
That wasn’t what I was implying, but I can see how it could be read that way.
I was more making the point that, while TECHNICALLY possible for there to be a God-like being out there (see simulation theory, for example), the likelihood is remote, so you shouldn’t concern yourself with it and assume there isn’t.
There could or could not be a God. There is no way to prove either without evidence.
However, we should not assume there is and base our life decisions around such a notion until there is proof one way or another.
without evidence pointing to a god, we can easily dismiss the concept. “gods” were invented to explain the world before we had science. we have the tools and knowledge now to dismiss fairytales for what they are, interesting stories.
I mean… That’s basically what I said.
Apologies, my point was not clear enough.
My response was aimed at your first sentence:
This makes it read like the likelihood of a god existing is 50/50. In reality, based on evidence, its much closer to 100% chance there’s no god; 0% chance there is one.
That wasn’t what I was implying, but I can see how it could be read that way.
I was more making the point that, while TECHNICALLY possible for there to be a God-like being out there (see simulation theory, for example), the likelihood is remote, so you shouldn’t concern yourself with it and assume there isn’t.
Removed by mod
My comment said the opposite