I started this thread as I wondered what would persuade me to come to the conclusion there is no God. I thought of this as it has often been stated, ‘There is no evidence for God.’ Personally I don’t care - but it must be something that is important to others. If it was not they would not have looked for evidence of God in order to persuade themselves.
I wondered what would persuade me to come to the conclusion there is no God purely as a thought experiment. Believe in God in something I choose. That being the case the only way by which I could come to the conclusion there is no God is where it is my own conscious choice, but I wondered what it would be like not to believe in God - and by comparison to believing in God.
This thread was also a test. There are atheists who say, ‘I have no desire to persuade you that there is no God, and to renounce your faith,’ but then seem to go out their way to achieve that very objective. To illustrate - the atheist who says, ‘You can believe in God if you want but everyone is going to think you are an idiot.’ They claim this gives the believer a choice, but the choice is be an atheist or be thought an idiot. Or, ‘You just use your religion as crutch because you can’t cope with the realities of life and the fact there is nothing after death.’ This implies not only are you intellectually challenged by comparison to the atheist, you are weaker emotionally, and willing to delude and comfort yourself with fairy stories as a coping mechanism. How can it be said someone who makes these statements is not trying to convince you there is no God and renounce your faith. What if you actually became an atheist? Would the atheist as described above say, ‘Oh? Are you sure about that? I preferred you as a believer.’ I think not. They may say, ‘That’s your choice - so long as you are happy with it.’ But would part of them not be pleased?
Cont…
The case for God …according to the philosophy of minkymurph.
We have now commenced discussion on what I would term ‘Existence theory.’ There is probably a proper term, but this is the philosophy of minkymurph. In the absence of God, it appears to me the alternative is we exist simply because we exist, and are here for no other reason other than to exist. We are here largely as a consequence of luck. Life has no purpose other than enjoying oneself and reproducing. For some perhaps this is sufficient. For me, it’s an empty theory by comparison to belief.
I also think Existence theory is a Western concept - though I’m happy to be corrected if this is not the case. In the West we can surround ourselves with ‘stuff,’ have homes that are our own personal castle, earn money and some of us are fortunate enough to have a job we like, travel, engage in leisure pursuits and have quality time with our children. But life is not like that for everyone - particularly outside the West. For Hobbes the natural condition of mankind is a life that is nasty, short and brutish. In these circumstances Existence theory doesn’t offer a lot.
For this reason perhaps it is true humankind invented myths, fairy tales, gods to serve as a distraction from the harsh reality of existence merely for the sake of it. In which case it served a purpose in enriching life. Today, we read tabloids not because we want the truth but because we enjoy reading the scandal. Whether or not it is true doesn’t always come into the equation. If we don’t like someone we are more inclined to believe unsavoury things about them that may not in fact be true. If we like them - we are less inclined. We expect truth from others yet make allowances for ourselves in terms of our degree of truthfulness. Courts are full of people who don’t tell the truth. Only young children always tell the truth. Who here has gone a whole day without being untruthful in some way in any respect? I always say you know your child has moved from a state of innocence once they acquire the capacity to lie.
The point of this analogy is, is it really that important that we believe is absolutely true? In fact, can absolute truth be known? Facts can be established, but truth and facts are not always the same thing. In contemporary Western society we seek to enrich our lives with learning, ‘stuff,’ leisure pursuits to distract us from the assumed harsh reality of existence merely for the sake of it. This is what has replaced religion. Are we better off?
Some would yes, and in terms of learning they have a point. But in many other respects I would say no.
Yes, and I said up to 400 years ago people believed different.