EDIT : So I think my question was not well understood by many members here.I am not trying to make an argument, I am proposing the question "What if atheists requirements to believe were all true ?" . Atheists always differentiate between knowledge and faith with science. They see science as the unarguable truth.

So my question precisely is :

If science is truth to Atheists

AND if science proved god exists

Then Would that means that god is not actually fair to the atheists who lived before his discovery?

  • I do not see any "logical connection" between the statements; a logical argument needs that the conclusion is entailed by the premises; see the "therefore" in the third line. Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 12:17
  • 1
    "Science is fact , therefore All humans accept it": why do you think so ? Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 12:18
  • "If God is a scientific fact , All atheists will "know" his existence". But God is not a "scientific fact". Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 12:19
  • What is the role of the assumptions at the end pf the text ? Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 12:19
  • "Science is 100% for sure (I know its not)"; if an assumtpion (premsie ?) is false we can prove everything from it. Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 12:20

1 Answer 1


Science is fact, therefore All humans accept it

Science says that the Earth is roughly spherical, but there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat. Scientific proof does not imply that everyone accepts that fact.

If God is a scientific fact , All atheists will "know" his existence

The term "Atheism" is typically understood to mean world-view in which God doesn't exist. By definition, then, atheists do not know that God is real. This statement doesn't make sense.

All People who are supposed to go to hell because they didn't believe in him will try not to by worshipping him

What do you mean by "believe" and "worship"?

There is a lot of confusion about the term "believe".

When some people talk about believing in God, they are discussing whether or not God exists.

On the other hand, when others (notably Christians) talk about believing in God (or having faith in God), they mean trusting Him. This goes far beyond asserting that God exists. It includes doing what He says (or what the believer understands Him to have said).

Based on these rules:

  • Believers go to Paradise
  • Atheists go to Hell

If "believe" means "accept that God is real", then your "atheists" don't need to worship in order to go to Paradise, because you've said that "believers go to paradise".

Alternatively, if "believers" = "worshippers" (ie. people who do what God says) then there are still issues with what you said. Why is anyone "supposed" to go to hell?

There were atheists in the past who didn't "know" his existence who will go to hell because they didn't believe Therefore God was unfair to them

Not all knowledge is scientific. For example, I know that I'm sitting at my desk, that I love my wife, etc. but I don't think science has done anything to "prove" any of these things.

Again, the real problem here is that you haven't told us what you mean by "science".

Assumptions... Science is 100% for sure (I know its not)


Your argument is deeply flawed, not least because you haven't defined your terms.

If you were writing a novel, and you define your terms to mean precisely what you want them to mean, then your argument may have validity. But in the real world... not so much.

  • Secondly I am speaking purely philosophical meaning that I am relying only on the linguistic definition of the word believe and believer.Any religious definition does not concern me by any means.
    – doumham
    Commented Mar 11, 2017 at 8:07
  • Thanks for the answer , however I didn't ask you to find flawness in my argument, I know it lacks formality as I am not a philosopher. However I am sure you get the point I am trying to highlight. Formalising my argument would also be not by far anything but hard. I am assuming the truthness of all the Requirements Atheists use against theists to justify their belief.Atheists say they would believe if science proved god existence. So my question would be "If this is true , would that result a fair god actually? " .
    – doumham
    Commented Mar 11, 2017 at 8:18
  • @doumham: The problem is, your argument may be valid, but without clearer definitions it is impossible to be sure. Moreover, the propositions on which your argument is based are sheer nonsense, so even your conclusion follows from them, it would have little practical value.
    – Kramii
    Commented Mar 11, 2017 at 18:16
  • By the way, the word "belief" is used in different ways in every-day English. For example, if I say, "I believe in fairies" then most English speakers would assume I think that fairies exist. But if I said, "I believe in you", most English speakers would think this is a statement about your reliability, rather then a statement about your existence. The confusion over the meaning of "believe" isn't exclusive to religion. Nevertheless, if you are making an argument about belief and God, it makes sense to clarify what kind of belief you're talking about.
    – Kramii
    Commented Mar 11, 2017 at 18:23
  • Again I am not arguing, if you see I actually edited the whole question. I am asking if those propositions were true , would this conclusion follow. And about the word "believe" , I meant its original meaning which every language use like for example when someone says I believe I will pass the exam , He can not prove for sure that he is going to pass but he sees that all the reasons lead that he will pass but however it can't be knowledge for him until it actually happens.it can be knowledge in his sense but he can not however prove it to the people.
    – doumham
    Commented Mar 13, 2017 at 17:28

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .