Hacker News Reader

Comment by devishard | Hacker News Reader

> And when it comes down to it, I think it takes more faith to believe that life exists because of random chance than because of a creator.

If you have two alternatives you're considering, and both require faith for you, then you don't know which is right. So instead of arbitrarily choosing to have faith in one based on ignorance, it would be much more respectable to admit you don't know and either investigate, or just be satisfied with not knowing. Pretending you know something when you don't is just arrogance, and "faith" is not an excuse.

> But God does not fit into a scientific proof framework whereby you can prove or disprove the existence of God, which is why it boils down to having faith.

The "God is too hipster for the rules that apply to everything else" argument.

View on HN

There is actually a sound argument behind it, regardless if you agree with it or believe in it.

Let's pretend that god exists and the bible is true. Under that assumption god wants humans to have faith and _choose_ to follow him/her/it, colloquially "if you love someone set them free". If god presents irrefutible evidence to his/her/its existence there would be no room left for choice/faith.

Regardless of your view on the rationality of that, it is part of the true/false teachings of that particular denomination, and within those set parameters I think the logic checks out.

It's not a logical argument, and we could go into it blow by blow, but essentially what you're saying is that God doesn't want there to be a logical argument, oh and as to why? That's just a given, which also makes the argument unsound.

Knowing a god existed would not remove the choice to follow him. If I were presented with irrefutable evidence that the god of the bible existed, I would absolutely not choose to follow him/her/it. The god portrayed by the bible is a petty narcissist who demands that people worship him, while using literally unlimited power to torture and kill people instead of doing anything helpful or responsible. He's also insane, as the only way he can forgive people is to send his son to be brutally murdered. I would not follow such a being even if it existed. Proving a god's existence would definitely not remove the choice of whether to follow a god.

Irrefutable evidence would remove faith (which is not the same as choice). But faith is just pretending you know something instead of admitting you don't know. So again, a god that wants you to pretend to know things you don't is not a being I care to follow.

At best, you've provided a picture of why an insane being might hide its existence, but that doesn't prove whether that being exists or doesn't exist.

> If you have two alternatives you're considering, and both require faith for you, then you don't know which is right

But if one takes more faith than the other, which do you choose?

Think of packing your own parachute for a sky dive vs accepting one that was packed for you. Still requires faith in the equipment to function when you go to open the chute, but it's not an arbitrary choice of which to trust.

> The "God is too hipster for the rules that apply to everything else" argument.

If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it. So the "rules that apply to everything else" probably do not apply to God.

> But if one takes more faith than the other, which do you choose?

I don't believe things based on faith, I believe things based on evidence. If there isn't evidence, I admit I don't know. Faith does not enter the equation.

> If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it. So the "rules that apply to everything else" probably do not apply to God.

And if god didn't create the universe then the rules of logic still apply to god. You've not proven that god created the universe, so you can't base arguments off that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com