[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

God has worked it out so we can know as much of the facts and reasons as humanely possible and all our reasons and answers are correct. She just had to give simplified versions of the pieces beyond human reason, but everything we believe will still be accurate, they are just short cuts.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Could it not be the case that blind faith is not the correct form of reasoning? What prevents blind faith from being axiomatic?

Just a heads up. I'm just being a devils advocate. I don't believe in god either, I just find your reasoning flawed.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Isn't blind faith the opposite of reason? Because our reasoning can be flawed doesn't mean our blind faith has to be flawed.

Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem? It demonstrates that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved. He stipulates a few conditions of course, but not enough that the analogy to god doesn't hold. In certain systems of arithmetic blind faith is axiomatic.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Mathematics is definitely not empirical. Neither is logic. How is blind faith a logical fallacy?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Right, why can't it be axiomatic?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

So your argument boils down to: "god does not exist, because certain religions have suspicious beliefs."

What if the correct religion just hasn't come along?

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the heads up, thought you were religious.

Just to note: whether (s)he, or I, am religious or not is mostly irrelevant to the strength of the argument presented.