So here's a little game

in the same way that 1+1=2 is intuitive, but difficult to prove string properties might be intuitive to different brain.

Basically you might just need to accept that not all we see as insensible is insensible, it is merely an expression of a rational that is not developed for this kind of conclusion.

>implausible concept
God

yeah that's my point of view too, but as I learned and still learn more math, what was once nearly nonsensical seems rather intuitive now

it is good to remember that we didn't evolve to learn the secrets of the universe, merely deal with our environment at a medium sized scale, all things considered I'd say we're doing pretty well

Fun fact: If the bible were true, God existed and he created the world and humans as was described there... Then we would live in a world were it is possible to not see any evidence for God's existence. Even Jesus himself said something among the lines "In order to believe, all evidence won't help, you will have to make that leap of faith eventually".
Kurt "fu Russel and your axioms there are things you can't proove lul" Gödel believed in God and an afterlive. Do you think he would do that if that would be illogical? Dude was one of the most important logicians ever.

Not saying that our evidence implies the existence of God, but it is not logically inconsistent.

>teehee

[math]\mathbb{R}[/math]

we live in a world where not only there's no evidence for god, all the evidence seem to go against it

What would that be? Keep in mind that "God of the gap" is a term originally coined by christtheofags to denote the use of God to explain phenomena for which currently no other explanation exists (such as thunderstorms 10k years ago). It is considered a bad thing to do, as it does not represent what God stands for.
1) If you were about to argue against some kind of God of the gap ("We are getting closer and closer to explain every observable phenomene so God is implausible"), you would argue against a strawmen - except uneducated cave trolls no christian with a brain is waging science against God anymore. At least the one that matter when discussing: That is the theologicans, which try to systemize what people said about God and what is logically consistent with what.
2) With the most likely attack out of the way, I wonder what evidence else you could mean. One obvious choice is theodice: "How can ISIS soldiers rape children if God is good and allmighty?" That is a very good attack and there are many answers, but they don't need to convince you and will need a deeper discussion (first define the necessary axioms "God" "good""suffering" etc.).

I am not sure how one could look at the world today and say "It seems likely that there is no God" just as I am not sure how one could say the opposite. The agnostic position seems the only sensible to me intellectualy.

god would be a lot more credible if there weren't a gazillion galaxies with gazillions of stars in each of them gazillions of km away from us so that we can't even explore them.
it's all very wasteful

If you were never told about god, would you still think he existed?

Has anyone ever logically explained to you why god exists? If yes what was their reasoning?("Gödel believed so its only logical" is a fallacy)

Is the Christian god the only "correct" god? Why? Most other religions have been around much longer than Christianity, and every religion has a book that says all other religions are wrong so you cant cite the bible on this.

In your opinion, what exactly does god do? Did he just start the universe and leave it? Or does he play an active role in what goes on?

Do you think god is a consious being? (If the answer is no you believe in the laws of physics, not god)

Efficiency is only necessary if resources are limited. Assume God has no limits then efficiency is a question of aesthetics.

Sorry don't have much time for an answer (service is starting soon, ironcally)

I never said God is only logical and neither do i believe it. Gödel, being a logician, saying something is logical, increases the likelyhood of something being logical tho (of course he could be wrong!)

Yes I think I would believe in him - it is possible if one assumes that God cab manipulate atoms in a meaningfull way - he could communicate with me without the need of my parents vocal chords.

Yes I believe that he is active rather than passive. I also believe physical laws are real (and created by him).

I don't believe that the existence of God is provable in a scientific meaningful way.

Running out of time sorry, many of your questions deserve and call for more time.

Kurt also thought everyone was trying to poison him and died of starvation. Not much logic there, pal.

>Kurt also thought everyone was trying to poison him and died of starvation. Not much logic there, pal.
cringe

>no evidence of god
For us, that possibly doesn't apply to people born about a 1000 years ago.

Instead of just christianity let's assume all 3 abrahamic religions happened, that leaves a fuckton of people that have actually witnessed acts of god. For them it wasn't just faith, it was reality.

Now if they didn't actually happen, it's weird that we still even have holy books that tell about the same events even though they were written millennia apart by a bunch of desert people.

This doesn't prove the existence of god, but there is definitely something going on.

That's a though one, OP. I will use an analogy I once read in a book to try and explain how such an organism might exist. If you were to conceive states of matter in a flat surface it would look as if a liquid spreads, never to be contained. But in space such thing does not happen, indeed you can hold a glass of water, right? The same logic can be applied to a gas, it might be possible that it somehow becomes containable in dimensions higher than this one, thus allowing at least some cohesion among its parts. I would say that the next step, would be a sustainable metabolism, but I'm hypothesising too much. Anyways, that's my take on it. Now I want someone to explain how the Z-gun from gantz might work.

it's too far fetched amigo. you don't need galaxies billions of lys away that aren't even visible for aesthetic purposes

Keep in mind god is kind of autistic, I mean if you can do literally anything why would you create people just to send them to hell forever if they don't do as you say and be extremely vague to anyone who didn't witness you if you even exist or not.

Doubt it could happen. You need more rigid structures to store information. If somehow it existed it would be more like a virus-style organism in that it wouldn't have any capability of forming new behaviours. Just pure stimulus and response.

Here's one. Putting terminally ill people in close orbit of a black hole, in the hopes that time dilation will eventually allow a cure to be developed for them in the outside world.

That is just nomadic people handing down stories for generations. People got about a lot in prehistory user. Very slowly, but they got about. And they spread their stories between groups.

Aesthetic for God mostly - remember, as soon as you assume a God exists (which we do when we consider the hypothetic scenario in which God created the universe) you have an additional point of view to consider: Gods. He is described to just create stuff for the sake of it. Christianity is not about humans, it is about God who happens to love humans. Could have very well decided not to make highly consciously apes.
But even then: I could very well imagine the rest of the universe simply being a nice byproduct of creation. "But it is too big" for us humans yes. For that hypothetical God, scale is something arbitrary.

I don't want to derail this thread further, so I just give my personal answers to this: 1) Hell could be a much better place than usually depictured. It is the place where God not is. For beings that want to be close to God, that is the worst thing imaginable (member "Why have you forsaken me?"). While I think every human wants to be close to God in some way, I don't know for sure. 2) God is just. I don't think that any person in hell could say to God "I don't deserve this!". May not sound convincing, but I don't know how to say better. I don't think that God would send his son to die but then suddenly masturbate on syntactic trickery when the final day has come.

>1+1=2 is difficult to prove
nigger just apply the definition of addition until you get to the base case
inb4 principia meme, that's only complicated because he's defining numbers in terms of sets instead of axiomatizing them directly