My favourite argument is ...
The natural human threshold of belief is observable, repeatable, reliable events. When we observe something a few times this creates a feeling of certitude about those events, and this seeps into our subconscious as a fact, and this becomes part of our model of the world that we act in. This is how the brain works: it takes observable repetition to cross the threshold of belief.
However if something is unreliable or random, this creates a feeling of uncertainty. We do not know what to expect, hence we are hesitant to act around unreliable objects.
So, God, in all his wisdom, provides no credible evidence for his existence, and thus makes it incredibly difficult to believe in him. The brain is at odds with God. Why would God do such a thing? He must be a sadist.
The natural human threshold of belief is observable, repeatable, reliable events. When we observe something a few times this creates a feeling of certitude about those events, and this seeps into our subconscious as a fact, and this becomes part of our model of the world that we act in. This is how the brain works: it takes observable repetition to cross the threshold of belief.
However if something is unreliable or random, this creates a feeling of uncertainty. We do not know what to expect, hence we are hesitant to act around unreliable objects.
So, God, in all his wisdom, provides no credible evidence for his existence, and thus makes it incredibly difficult to believe in him. The brain is at odds with God. Why would God do such a thing? He must be a sadist.
