Believers still understand intuitively just as you do that people who don’t look before they cross tend to get hit more often. Whether you call it “god’s will” or “just the way things are” has no bearing on the fact that it is prudent to look before you leap.
Your argument applies equally to non-believers. If a freak accident might kill you despite your best efforts, why bother trying to protect yourself at all?
The reason your argument is fallacious is also the same whether you believe in god or not: the future isn’t knowable.
A bit off-topic, but a completely understandable theology. I personally don’t find it meaningful to speculate about what god ‘knows’, since god is beyond all things.
In any case I’m glad you understand why believers tend to look before they cross the road.
This applies “god is beyond all things” as if it’s an established fact. The argument is built on a hypothetical.
In this case, no, we still don’t understandstand theology as you do because it’s built on irrational behavior. Unless, of course, you’re saying that you understand that theology is irrational and that’s what defines the entire thing.
Believers still understand intuitively just as you do that people who don’t look before they cross tend to get hit more often. Whether you call it “god’s will” or “just the way things are” has no bearing on the fact that it is prudent to look before you leap.
Your argument applies equally to non-believers. If a freak accident might kill you despite your best efforts, why bother trying to protect yourself at all?
The reason your argument is fallacious is also the same whether you believe in god or not: the future isn’t knowable.
And therefore God cannot know, therefore he cannot have a plan.
A bit off-topic, but a completely understandable theology. I personally don’t find it meaningful to speculate about what god ‘knows’, since god is beyond all things.
In any case I’m glad you understand why believers tend to look before they cross the road.
This applies “god is beyond all things” as if it’s an established fact. The argument is built on a hypothetical.
In this case, no, we still don’t understandstand theology as you do because it’s built on irrational behavior. Unless, of course, you’re saying that you understand that theology is irrational and that’s what defines the entire thing.
No it does not.
Fallacious. This relies on your application of a believers’ stance to a non-believer for the argument to work. Remove that and your argument fails.