This provides an argument in favor to theological atheism as well: the belief that God exists, but he does not want us to believe in him. God created evidence to prove that the universe, earth, and life came into existence and developed slowly by natural processes, without any apparent divine intervention. He left this evidence everywhere for us to discover — in the rocks, in fossils, in the DNA of all living things, and in outer space. Since God chose to hide his divine creative powers by using only natural processes that make him redundant, we can conclude he wants to remain invisible and not be acknowledged or worshipped. What do you think about it?
Why is a God that wants to remain invisible a more likely explanation than no God at all?
If you start with the thought, “Maybe God exists; maybe not.” and then notice that natural explanations are sufficient for all the phenomena you observe, then shouldn’t you move towards the “no God” hypothesis?
This provides an argument in favor to theological atheism as well: the belief that God exists, but he does not want us to believe in him. God created evidence to prove that the universe, earth, and life came into existence and developed slowly by natural processes, without any apparent divine intervention. He left this evidence everywhere for us to discover — in the rocks, in fossils, in the DNA of all living things, and in outer space. Since God chose to hide his divine creative powers by using only natural processes that make him redundant, we can conclude he wants to remain invisible and not be acknowledged or worshipped. What do you think about it?
Why is a God that wants to remain invisible a more likely explanation than no God at all?
If you start with the thought, “Maybe God exists; maybe not.” and then notice that natural explanations are sufficient for all the phenomena you observe, then shouldn’t you move towards the “no God” hypothesis?
“What do you think about it?”
It’s wrong.