Basic Belief & Practical Reason, From A Philosophical Perspective

[MindOverMatter]

I’ll have to submit this to the Internet list of Proofs of God’s existence:

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Argument By Suicide:
(1) Atheists are more lilkely to commit suicide that believers
(2) Therefore, God exists

I believe in promoting “basic belief” as a principle of being, which is based on practical reasoning. So, personally i would change your arguement to the following…

(1) Atheism & Naturalism offers no objective hope or security to the existence of personal beings; since Atheism, including Naturalism, as a world view, denies humanity the dignity of having an objective purpose, value, meaning, identity and moral truth. In other words it is the most unfulfilling and negative idea you could possibly conceive of in your life time. Therefore it would be no wonder, if it was found to be true, that more Atheists suffer from depression and suicidal tendencies then Theists who have believed in God their whole lives.

(2) But there is no a-prior reason to believe that human life has no objective purpose, value, meaning, identity or Moral truth. Therefore Naturalism is not a necessary truth, but rather a negative theory about life that some person or peoples in various times and places have suggested as being true.

(3) Surely, it must be the case, that such concepts, such as an objective purpose and meaning, so far as they pertain to some objective good, are some of the most positive and fulfilling dignities that humanity could ever possibly become aware of or accept in their life time.

(4) And surely nobody in their right mind would deny the fact that it is absolutely reasonable to hope for the greatest good.

(5) It is therefore both reasonable and natural for human beings to hope for the greater good that these concepts contain.

(6) If such concepts were objectively true, they would imply the existence of a personal and perfect ground of all being. A Moral Lawgiver. And that is precisely what is meant by the term “God”, when Christians speak about God.

Conclusion. It is therefore both practical and reasonable to put faith in God. It is also reasonable to put faith in some kind of established religion that conforms to the idea of God in so far as such a being provides, objective purpose, meaning, identity, personal value, and moral truth; and this is reasonable on the grounds that such a being would reveal its self in some manner to those created beings to which the value of life is given. Therefore Theism (rather then Atheism or Agnosticism) ought to be the default belief of any thinking person.

Peace.

P.s. To my catholic brothers and sisters. I wonder if this arguement is good enough to appear in one of the rock magazines? I guess in my dreams.

 

[Leela]

It sounds like your argument can be summarized as…

1. It would be nice if there were a God
   2.Therefore, God exists.

Obviously none of us believe that wishing makes anything true, so I can’t see the point of your argument.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I

I can’t see the point of your argument.

The point is, it is reasonable to hope for the greatest good; and hence, it is also reasonable to hope and believe that your life has an objective meaning, purpose, value, identity, and moral truth. Since there is no a-prior reason to think that Naturalism is true, then there is no rational reason to deny ones self of those concepts that would fulfill us the most. Nobody denies themselves of food. Hence my arguement shows that basic belief is a belief held by rational people.

I apologize for using your post without asking. But if you post again. Please do me the honor of taking on my arguement on each point, exactly as it is presented in the original post. Please don’t make straw-men; it will ruin your reputation.

 

[Leela]

The point is, it is reasonable to hope for the greatest good; and hence, it is also reasonable to hope and believe that your life has an objective meaning, purpose, value, identity, and moral truth. Since there is no a-prior reason to think that Naturalism is true, then there is no rational reason to deny ones self of those concepts that would fulfill us the most. Nobody denies themselves of food. Hence my arguement shows that basic belief is a belief held by rational people.

I don’t see how you make the leap from “I hope this is true” to “I believe this is true.” I agree that it is reasonable to hope for whatever you think is good, but, by definition, it is not reasonable to believe something unless there is good reason to believe it. Otherwise your argument ammounts to:

(1) there is no proof that naturalism is true
(2) therefore God exists.

The lack of disproof for one proposition is not evidence in favor of another.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t see how you make the leap from “I hope this is true” to "I believe this is true.

That depends on you definition of belief. I choose to believe in that which would objectively and ultimately fulfill me as a living person. There is an inference of reason here that you have failed to see; in that we have things in our lives that fulfill our “needs” such as “food”. Human beings have a natural need to be perfectly happy always, and there are certain things that must be fulfilled in order for us to be perfectly happy always. Physical-Reality does not make us perfectly happy always. But we are aware, through our experience of the world, of certain concepts that would make us perfectly happy always; such as an objective purpose, meaning, value, moral truth, eternal identity, eternal life and Heaven. These things infer the existence of God. These things flow naturally and necessarily from our natural need to be perfectly happy always. So, just like food, it is more likely then not, that there is an objective reality that ultimately fulfills all our personal needs. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a transcendent God.

" I agree that it is reasonable to hope for whatever you think is good.

No. It is reasonable to hope for the greatest good; and the world we live helps us to know what that good is. Its not whatever we think.

but, by definition, it is not reasonable to believe something unless there is good reason to believe it.

There is good reason to believe, because it objectively fulfills our humanity.

(1) there is no proof that naturalism is true
(2) therefore God exists.

(1) There is no proof that naturalism is true.
(2) Therefore it is reasonable to believe in God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

it is more reasonable to believe in G-d than to believe G-d doesn’t exist, because one can hope for the greatest good, in theism. while in atheism there is no hope of any thing transcendant, or a greater good than ones own personal satisfaction.

essentially atheism is an unreasonable position as nothing good can come of it right or wrong.

theism, therefore, is the reasonable default position, as it offers hope of something more.

sounds a lot like certain elements of pascals wager, which i havent seen a good argument against.

 

[Leela]

That depends on you definition of belief. I choose to believe in that which would objectively and ultimately fulfill me as a living person.

I wish someone would teach me how to do that. I can’t choose to believe anything. Wait, I’ll try it again. I do believe in God, I do believe in God, I do, I do,I do …Nope, didn’t work.
MindOverMatter;4993057:

There is an inference of reason here that you have failed to see; in that we have things in our lives that fulfill our "needs

" such as “food”. Human beings have a natural need to be perfectly happy always, and there are certain things that must be fulfilled in order for us to be perfectly happy always. Physical-Reality does not make us perfectly happy always. But we are aware, through our experience of the world, of certain concepts that would make us perfectly happy always; such as an objective purpose, meaning, value, moral truth, eternal identity, eternal life and Heaven. These things infer the existence of God. These things flow naturally and necessarily from our natural need to be perfectly happy always. So, just like food, it is more likely then not, that there is an objective reality that ultimately fulfills all our personal needs. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a transcendent God.

The fact that you have a need (desire?) to be perfectly happy does not mean that the universe has a need to supply the means of your happiness to you. You are making a huge unjsutified leap.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

sounds a lot like certain elements of pascals wager, which i havent seen a good argument against.

Actually its a combination of pascal arguement and the arguement from natural desire, which is made a little bit more clearer in my last post. The only difference between my arguement and pascals is that i don’t use the fret of eternal hell in the after life. I feel it would be better to focus more on the hells we experience in this life and our natural desire to escape it.

Do you think i made a good arguement, or was it crusty?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I wish someone would teach me how to do that. I can’t choose to believe anything. Wait, I’ll try it again. I do believe in God, I do believe in God, I do, I do,I do …Nope, didn’t work.

You cannot choose to believe in something you know does not exist. But its quite possible to be inspired to belief by ones experiences and desires. God, for some reason, is not a desirable concept to you, and that is the real reason why you do not believe it. It has nothing to do with reason. Of coarse you cannot force yourself to believe in that which you do not desire. And you may demand that if somebody wants you to believe, they must provide you with ironclad logical empirical inferences. Its not surprising that you would put yourself in a position where you can tell yourself that its okay to ignore all those aspects of reality that cry out for Gods existence. No arguement, no-matter how good they are, is going to convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. Anything less then the coercion of mathematical certainty will not compel you to belief. If God appeared to you, you would simply say that it is an hallucination. If an inference to an immaterial non-random cause is made, you will simply say that the world came out of nothing by itself. The sad thing is, you do not hold such a position in regards to the things you do desire. You believe that you should be treated with respect and loved and cared for. You have beliefs about how the would ought to be, or what you would like it to be, and you wish to fulfill those beliefs.

On the same note, you are quite happy to believe in the honesty of scientists when they say this or that equation is correct, or that this theory over here is true. And yet you would not be capable of understanding half of the equations and ideas they talk about. You believe, because it suits you! You accept naturalism because it suits you. You are probably proud of your atheism. And it is an irrational belief because you rob yourself of the very thing that will ultimately fulfill you as a person.

The fact that you have a need (desire?) to be perfectly happy does not mean that the universe has a need to supply the means of your happiness to you. You are making a huge unjsutified leap.

Well first of all, i never said that it was the universe that would provide it. It cannot and has not provided it. Secondly i was born with a natural desire to be perfectly happy. Every healthy working mind has it. Its not imaginary, or some vein subjective fantasy. My desire to be perfectly happy is real. It is essential to my state of mind and being to be happy always, and it is reasonable for me to seek that which will fulfill my happiness. Not sometimes, or once in a blue moon, but always. This is similar to our natural desire to eat food. This is where i make the logical inference from our natural desire for something and the objective existence of that which will ultimately fulfill that desire. Therefore it is not a leap in any sense to believe that there is something in existence that will fulfill me as a person, in so far as providing me with an objective purpose, meaning, value, identity, and moral truth. I am inclined to believe because of my nature as a person inspires me to believe it. My inference is completely reasonable.You choose not to believe because you mistakenly think that there is something to be gained from disbelief. You provide no good arguments to suggest otherwise.

Peace.

 

[Leela]

You cannot choose to believe in something you know does not exist. But its quite possible to be inspired to belief by ones experiences and desires. God, for some reason, is not a desirable concept to you, and that is the real reason why you do not believe it. It has nothing to do with reason. Of coarse you cannot force yourself to believe in that which you do not desire. And you may demand that if somebody wants you to believe, they must provide you with ironclad logical empirical inferences. Its not surprising that you would put yourself in a position where you can tell yourself that its okay to ignore all those aspects of reality that cry out for Gods existence. No arguement, no-matter how good they are, is going to convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. Anything less then the coercion of mathematical certainty will not compel you to belief. If God appeared to you, you would simply say that it is an hallucination. If an inference to an immaterial non-random cause is made, you will simply say that the world came out of nothing by itself. The sad thing is, you do not hold such a position in regards to the things you do desire. You believe that you should be treated with respect and loved and cared for. You have beliefs about how the would ought to be, or what you would like it to be, and you wish to fulfill those beliefs.

It’s not at all a matter of desire. Whether or not I desire God to exist would depend on what sort of God he might be. But even if I definitely desired God to exist, it would have no bearing on the truth-value of the proposition that God exists. I desire for $1000 to be in my pocket right now, and my desire is completely sincere, but I know my desiring it is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is actually there.
MindOverMatter;4993814:

On the same note, you are quite happy to believe in the honesty of scientists when they say this or that equation is correct, or that this theory over here is true. And yet you would not be capable of understanding half of the equations and ideas they talk about. You believe, because it suits you! You accept naturalism because it suits you. You are probably proud of your atheism. And it is an irrational belief because you rob yourself of the very thing that will ultimately fulfill you as a person.

If what you mean by “it suits you” is that I find the evidence and arguments for such things compelling, then, sure.

Well first of all, i never said that it was the universe that would provide it. It cannot and has not provided it. Secondly i was born with a natural desire to be perfectly happy. Every healthy working mind has it. Its not imaginary, or some vein subjective fantasy. My desire to be perfectly happy is real. It is essential to my state of mind and being to be happy always, and it is reasonable for me to seek that which will fulfill my happiness. Not sometimes, or once in a blue moon, but always. This is similar to our natural desire to eat food. This is where i make the logical inference from our natural desire for something and the objective existence of that which will ultimately fulfill that desire. Therefore it is not a leap in any sense to believe that there is something in existence that will fulfill me as a person, in so far as providing me with an objective purpose, meaning, value, identity, and moral truth. I am inclined to believe because of my nature as a person inspires me to believe it. My inference is completely reasonable.You choose not to believe because you mistakenly think that there is something to be gained from disbelief. You provide no good arguments to suggest otherwise.

I can’t see how you can “make the logical inference from our natural desire for something and the objective existence of what will ultimately fulfill that desire.” I now understand that you are not saying that anything that you desire must exist, but rather that anything that you naturally desire must exist and that you think this is an important distinction. I understand your previous example of food. It wouldn’t make sense to hunger if there were no such thing as food. I desire world peace, but it does not exist. I desire knowledge that does not exist. I suppose you would say that we don’t naturally desire those things. But I still think that it is a stretch to say that because we naturally desire to be happy then ultimate happiness must exist. Doesn’t it just say that it is possibly to reduce suffering? that at least some modicum of happiness is possible rather than infinite happiness? When someone is hungry, they suffer for lack of food and desire to be free of their suffering. When someone is in pain, the desire for their pain to end. I can’t see how any of this leads us to the existence of perfect happiness or gives any meaning to what perfect happiness may mean other than as the absence of hunger or pain or the absence of desire in general, and what meaning would it have to say that the absence of all desire exists?

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

even if I definitely desired God to exist, it would have no bearing on the truth-value of the proposition that God exists.

I said that God is the best explanation for our natural desire for perfect happiness (Please re-read my posts). I never said, that because i desire any particular God, therefore that God must exists. I said that there are certain concepts that fulfill our personal nature; our personal and natural desire to be perfectly happy. After i presented my reasons for believing that my natural desire represents and infers the existence of a specific being in objective reality, i went on to explain the necessary attributes that such a being would have to have in order to fulfill our human nature. That being is very much like the God of Christianity.

Please feel free to re-read all my posts again. I really don’t want to accuse you of misrepresenting my arguments.

If what you mean by “it suits you” is that I find the evidence and arguments for such things compelling, then, sure.

Are you saying that you are compelled to believe in things that you don’t know to be true?

It wouldn’t make sense to hunger if there were no such thing as food.

Precisely; it wouldn’t make any logical sense at all. Food fulfills that hunger, and thus makes the best sense of it. God makes the best sense of my existence as a living person and my natural desire for perfect happiness. Therefore i feel compelled to believe in God. It makes perfect sense to me. But if my arguement doesn’t do it for you, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Peace.

 

[Touchstone]

I believe in promoting “basic belief” as a principle of being, which is based on practical reasoning. So, personally i would change your arguement to the following…

(1) Atheism & Naturalism offers no objective hope or security to the existence of personal beings; since Atheism, including Naturalism, as a world view, denies humanity the dignity of having an objective purpose, value, meaning, identity and moral truth. In other words it is the most unfulfilling and negative idea you could possibly conceive of in your life time. Therefore it would be no wonder, if it was found to be true, that more Atheists suffer from depression and suicidal tendencies then Theists who have believed in God their whole lives.

It may be the case that many atheists suffer from hopelessness, I don’t know. That is not my experience. But there’s not getting around the ramifications of clear thinking about theistic claims: “Heaven” is an expression of desire rather than objective analysis as to the facts. For those that aren’t comfortable conflating desire and reality, that can be a hard thing to face. For myself, I really believed I (my soul) was going to live forever in God’s presence when I died, and that I would even get a new, resurrected body to enjoy my eternal convalescence in. That’s an appealing prospect, at least the way I fashioned it in my head, with the help of my Bible and my church.

It’s not a “happy” prospect to consider that my death is the end of my consciousness, of my existence as a “self”, in a final way. But there is both great satisfaction in having the courage to face the situation as it really is, and to develop a “real world hope”, hope that obtains from a clear-eyed look at life and its potentials and constraints. I know there must be atheists without hope, but that is a clear failure of the mind and imagination. My godless hope is more satisfying and visceral – and practical – than the fanciful visions I entertained as Christian.

(2)

But there is no a-prior reason to believe that human life has no objective purpose, value, meaning, identity or Moral truth. Therefore Naturalism is not a necessary truth, but rather a negative theory about life that some person or peoples in various times and places have suggested as being true.I think we need to agree on what “objective” means. I take it to mean “independent of any will or mind”. An objective reality, or an objective fact is one that is what it is, regardless of my wishes, or yours, or anyone’s (or God’s for that matter, which makes an objective reality a non-starter for Christians, but that’s another discussion). So, if a human is to have an objective purpose, that purpose is one that isn’t dependent on the mind or will of anyone, including the individual whose life we are considering.

If you find a rabbit in your back yard, and your dog chases after it, the rabbit will run. Why? Because it has a purpose, wired into its brain, its body: to live, to survive, and to thrive. You are no different, and you have no more choice over your purpose than the rabbit, running from the chasing dog. It’s an objective feature of the rabbit, and of the human: living things have an innate purpose, wholly involuntary: to live, and to reproduce.

So, here we have objective purpose and value in life, independent of what you or I (or (supposed) gods) might think of that purpose. Through observation and testing we can verify that the rabbit and the human affirm that purpose through their actions, and reactions.

(3)

Surely, it must be the case, that such concepts, such as an objective purpose and meaning, so far as they pertain to some objective good, are some of the most positive and fulfilling dignities that humanity could ever possibly become aware of or accept in their life time.Objective good? What’s that mean? I understand a “subjective good” – an objective of one’s desire, the means to satisfaction, achievement or some other form of happiness. But the emphasis there is on ‘subjective’. If “objective” means “independent of any will or mind”, “objective good” is a problematic term.

When you say “surely”, here, I think it is wholly unwarranted. It’s not sure at all, and I suggest it’s not even coherent. It doesn’t hold together conceptually. There’s not point in even addressing “most positive” and “ever possibly”, etc. at this point – we fall into a ditch well before we get there.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

… continued…

(4) And surely nobody in their right mind would deny the fact that it is absolutely reasonable to hope for the greatest good.I do deny that, as a matter of necessity. It may be reasonable to hope for the greatest good, but it may not be reasonable, as well. Again, your “surely” seems to be signalling so much wishful thinking, rather than reason. As a matter of reasoning, there’s no warrant for your assertion. It may be that the reasonable stance for the rational mind is to hope for something more humble, but practical, credible, supportable. It may be that the concept of “greatest good” is incoherent, and thus it’s a non-starter anyway.

Your claim may be correct, but it’s certainly not necessarily correct, it’s not self-evident, and you’ve not provided any warrant for believing it is reasonable. If my “greatest good” is to become an exalted demigod, ruler of my own universe some day, I think it’s not only unreasonable to hope for such, it’s likely to be quite detrimental to my ability to reason clearly about other things if I adopt such a belief.

(5)

-Touchstone

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

But there’s not getting around the ramifications of clear thinking about theistic claims: “Heaven” is an expression of desire rather than objective analysis as to the facts.

What objective analysis proves anything about atheism other than that it is “an expression of your desire”?

Even if we accept that there was something “objectively good”, arguendo, that doesn’t imply a lawgiver, or any being that is “the ground of all being”. I can certainly understand that idea popping into one’s head, given our biases and psychology, but neither of those has anything more than a vague kind of intuitional support, so far as I can see. Just as it’s an egregious error to say that the universe necessarily had a cause, it’s an egregious error in reasoning to say that any “objective good”, or objective purpose necessarily establishes the actuality of a “Lawgiver”. There’s no warrant for such a claim.

Nor is there any warrant for the claim of atheism. For a reason known only to you, only for the satisfaction that it gives you to believe there is no God, you do not believe.

Your atheism is no more intellectually or scientifically tenable than all the “fantastic” claims of religion you find it so easy to renounce.

It is to me, and to many (as among those listed below) just as fantastic that there could be no God.

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

**Galileo Galilei ** Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.
**
James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

**Lord William Kelvin ** Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

**Charles Darwin ** Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

**J.J. Thompson ** Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

**Arthur Compton ** Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

**George LeMaitre ** Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”**

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

But there’s not getting around the ramifications of clear thinking about theistic claims: “Heaven” is an expression of desire rather than objective analysis as to the facts.

What objective analysis proves anything about atheism other than that it is “an expression of your desire”?

1. We have no God or gods in evidence. 2) Claims made for the existence of God fail, and badly, in empirical terms. Atheism is nothing more than the affirmation of 1) and 2). There is no proof possible for the non-existence of God (or gods). There is only the judgment that theistic claims fail, and are less reasonable than the idea that no God or gods exist. I think the more one insists on objectivity, the more compelling this conclusion becomes. We can go over that in as much detail as you like.

Even if we accept that there was something “objectively good”, arguendo, that doesn’t imply a lawgiver, or any being that is “the ground of all being”. I can certainly understand that idea popping into one’s head, given our biases and psychology, but neither of those has anything more than a vague kind of intuitional support, so far as I can see. Just as it’s an egregious error to say that the universe necessarily had a cause, it’s an egregious error in reasoning to say that any “objective good”, or objective purpose necessarily establishes the actuality of a “Lawgiver”. There’s no warrant for such a claim.

Nor is there any warrant for the claim of atheism. For a reason known only to you, only for the satisfaction that it gives you to believe there is no God, you do not believe.

Think about this claim: There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. What warrant do you require for that claim, assuming for the moment you do not believe a pasta-based deity by that name exists? What would you consider justification for concluding that the FSM does not exist? Or use “Ahura Mazda”, or Odin, if you like.

I think you are getting the denial of a claim as nominally satisfactory with a positive claim of universal non-existence. These are not the same. You are thoroughly unable to prove the non-existence of Odin, and yet you are fully justified in concluding that no such deity exists, because there is no basis for the idea in the first place.

Your atheism is no more intellectually or scientifically tenable than all the “fantastic” claims of religion you find it so easy to renounce.

In both cases, what is not in evidence does not demand justification. It’s certainly less fantastic to say “we have no basis to believe in little green faeries who live in your garden, making the plants grow”, than to claim that there are such faeries. Without any evidence supporting a positive claim, the null hypothesis, the economical answer is clearly: no faeries. It takes nothing to satisfy the data in saying no faeries exist, which makes it a very economical explanation. Suggesting that such faeries do exist introduces new entities into the model (faeries) and demands an account for how such an addition gets warranted, over the “no faeries” hypothesis. Barring some evidence to support the existence of such faeries, the Faeries Hypothesis loses on both accounts.

It is to me, and to many (as among those listed below) just as fantastic that there could be no God.

Well, tell me what makes something “fantastic” then, as I can’t match what you are saying with my conventional understanding of the term. What makes something fantastic, in your view?

As for the quotes, thank you. Please remember, though, that the testimony of science is that talk is cheap, intuition is a cheat, and that objective results carry the day. Quotes from Einstein, Newton or Feynman are no more valuable than Aquinas’ or the Buddha’s when it’s just talk. It’s only when the idea gets tested by the fire of evidential, predictive and explanatory scrutiny that the idea gains epistemic weight.

As is, these are being used as exhibits for an “appeal to authority” fallacy. None of the people you cited can show the least bit of demonstrated expertise or authority on the subjects you are addressing.

 

[geometer]

Well, if the idea is based on Pascal’ wager, in a more positive form its nice. It shouldn’t be criticized that it is not an exposition of ultimate reasons, because Pascal wasn’t making an air tight case either. He simply proposed that belief in God is the better bet in terms of the after life.

That we have hunger for food and hunger for God supports the existence of both in natural reasoning.

However, the uses of the terms; rational, irrational, objective, objective good, objective purpose, and perhaps a few others, have been used as buzz words in that they are undefined in the text.

If person can do arithmetic he is rational. Objective means that which pertains to objects.

An objective good would be clean nutritious food, I would suppose, and other objects along that line.

Well, if the case is being made that God does help us during our lives. Then yes it is an improvement over Pascal…

 

[Leela]

I said that God is the best explanation for our natural desire for perfect happiness (Please re-read my posts). I never said, that because i desire any particular God, therefore that God must exists. I said that there are certain concepts that fulfill our personal nature; our personal and natural desire to be perfectly happy. After i presented my reasons for believing that my natural desire represents and infers the existence of a specific being in objective reality, i went on to explain the necessary attributes that such a being would have to have in order to fulfill our human nature. That being is very much like the God of Christianity.

Please feel free to re-read all my posts again. I really don’t want to accuse you of misrepresenting my arguments.

I think I understand what you are saying at this point. My issue is with this conception of “perfect happiness.” Do we really all seek perfect happiness or do we just seek happiness? What does perfect happiness mean? Is it what Heaven is like? But no one really knows what Heaven is like, so how could we desire it specifically? Don’t we just desire to be happy? To be happier than we are now, rather than desiring some ideal of “perfect happiness” that we can’t even really conceive of?

Precisely; it wouldn’t make any logical sense at all. Food fulfills that hunger, and thus makes the best sense of it. God makes the best sense of my existence as a living person and my natural desire for perfect happiness. Therefore i feel compelled to believe in God. It makes perfect sense to me. But if my arguement doesn’t do it for you, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Okay. It is an interesting argument. At least it’s one that I don’t think I heard before.

Best,
Leela