New potential response to "Belief in God is dumb because there is no evidence"

[MattMurdock]

Okay, so I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, insofar as I believe that there are observations we make in the world such that, in their absence, the existence of God would not be as plausible with those observations in play. Nevertheless, here we go...

1. All virtually universal ontological apprehensions of humanity (hereby known as VUOAH’s) that lack a compelling argument against them should be taken as rational.
2. “God” and “afterlife” (hereafter known as Theistic Postulates, or TP) constitute a VUOAH.
3. Therefore, TP (“God” and “afterlife”) should be taken as rational.


Notice that I am not arguing for the existence of the divine as true, but as rational instead. Any thoughts?

[37818]

Okay, so I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, insofar as I believe that there are observations we make in the world such that, in their absence, the existence of God would not be as plausible with those observations in play. Nevertheless, here we go...

1. All virtually universal ontological apprehensions of humanity (hereby known as VUOAH’s) that lack a compelling argument against them should be taken as rational.
2. “God” and “afterlife” (hereafter known as Theistic Postulates, or TP) constitute a VUOAH.
3. Therefore, TP (“God” and “afterlife”) should be taken as rational.


Notice that I am not arguing for the existence of the divine as true, but as rational instead. Any thoughts?

Well a couple things, for one, existence is presumed. And the reason there is no "evidence" is that God's identity (Proverbs 21:30) being that He is the self existent uncaused existence is not recognized. To question God's "existence" is tantamount to questioning if there be any existence itself. There is plenty of evidence that there is existence. Even a supposed regress of an infinite series of caused existences without any first existence coming into being would still require an uncaused existence for them to be.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, so I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, insofar as I believe that there are observations we make in the world such that, in their absence, the existence of God would not be as plausible with those observations in play. Nevertheless, here we go...

1. All virtually universal ontological apprehensions of humanity (hereby known as VUOAH’s) that lack a compelling argument against them should be taken as rational.

2. “God” and “afterlife” (hereafter known as Theistic Postulates, or TP) constitute a VUOAH.
3. Therefore, TP (“God” and “afterlife”) should be taken as rational.

Notice that I am not arguing for the existence of the divine as true, but as rational instead. Any thoughts?

"Belief in God is dumb because there is no evidence" is a meaningless combative challenge. The proper wording is simply; 'Is there any objective evidence for the existence of God?

Extra heavy front loading with 'Begging the Question' assumptions. Odd you propose a question concerning the existence of God, but not present any evidence.

The answer is no, The existence of God is based on the belief that God exists and not a significant rational nor logical argument.

[37818]

"Belief in God is dumb because there is no evidence" is a meaningless combative challenge. The proper wording is simply; 'Is there any objective evidence for the existence of God?

Extra heavy front loading with 'Begging the Question' assumptions. Odd you propose a question concerning the existence of God, but not present any evidence.

The answer is no, The existence of God is based on the belief that God exists and not a significant rational nor logical argument.

You presume existence do you not? Why should existence of any sort need a God?

I presume an uncaused existence which is self existent and not in need of any kind of god. And I identify that "self existent" as the God of the Hebrews (Exodus 3:14-15).

[shunyadragon]

You presume existence do you not?

I do not presume the existence of God. I 'believe' in the existence of God

Why should existence of any sort need a God?

By the objective evidence there is no need for any sort of any number of God(s).

I presume an uncaused existence which is self existent and not in need of any kind of god.

I 'believe' in an 'uncaused' existence which is "self-existent" and not in need of any kind of god.

And I identify that "self existent" as the God of the Hebrews (Exodus 3:14-15).

I agree. I agree that I believe in the "self-existent" _____ of the Hebrews. Of course, the "self-existent" ____ of the Hebrews is not subject to rational, logical, nor definition of God's nature by rational humans.

[JimL]

You presume existence do you not? Why should existence of any sort need a God?

I presume an uncaused existence which is self existent and not in need of any kind of god. And I identify that "self existent" as the God of the Hebrews (Exodus 3:14-15).

If you admit that there is no reason to identify the uncaused self existent with a being/god, then for what reason do you identify it with a being/god?

[JimL]

Okay, so I do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, insofar as I believe that there are observations we make in the world such that, in their absence, the existence of God would not be as plausible with those observations in play. Nevertheless, here we go...

1. All virtually universal ontological apprehensions of humanity (hereby known as VUOAH’s) that lack a compelling argument against them should be taken as rational.
2. “God” and “afterlife” (hereafter known as Theistic Postulates, or TP) constitute a VUOAH.
3. Therefore, TP (“God” and “afterlife”) should be taken as rational.


Notice that I am not arguing for the existence of the divine as true, but as rational instead. Any thoughts?

They are not apprehensions, they are beliefs. By using the wording you do, you have your desired conclusion already set in your premise. Certainly "God" and the "afterlife" have compelling arguments against them in that we have no evidence of either. They are beliefs, not apprehensions.

[MattMurdock]

They are not apprehensions, they are beliefs. By using the wording you do, you have your desired conclusion already set in your premise. Certainly "God" and the "afterlife" have compelling arguments against them in that we have no evidence of either. They are beliefs, not apprehensions.

Perhaps the wording is clumsy, but regardless I think the argument stands. Again, I don't even wish to argue that these beliefs are true (not in this context anyway). The argument only aspires to dismiss the claim that these beliefs are irrational.

I think the universality of these beliefs across the ages, throughout countless cultures, and given that we seem to even be hardwired for belief, would suggest that these beliefs should be taken as at least rational beliefs to hold in the absence of an actual demonstration that they are false.

[Psychic Missile]

Perhaps the wording is clumsy, but regardless I think the argument stands. Again, I don't even wish to argue that these beliefs are true (not in this context anyway). The argument only aspires to dismiss the claim that these beliefs are irrational.

I think the universality of these beliefs across the ages, throughout countless cultures, and given that we seem to even be hardwired for belief, would suggest that these beliefs should be taken as at least rational beliefs to hold in the absence of an actual demonstration that they are false.

Following your logic, you would have to agree that cognitive biases are rational, when by their very nature they are irrational. Also, and more to the point, your argument rests on an argumentum ad populum and an argument from ignorance. I think you misunderstand what people mean when they talk about rational beliefs in a debate setting. They mean beliefs that have evidence behind them or make sense logically.

[MattMurdock]

The evidence is simply any data such that, in its absence, the belief it is meant to support becomes less plausible. As such, the cognitive predisposition of man toward belief could be taken as evidence of our hypothesis. Even if it is taken as considerably minute, it should be regarded as a contribution to the discussion. Of course, it is an obvious one. It isn't so much, "Hey, all of these people cannot be wrong about this!" That is not what I'm getting at. It's more that the fact that the belief in some intelligence beyond all of this and belief in the afterlife is a belief that we would more expect humankind to be predisposed to on Theism than Atheism. You might say that we would only somewhat expect this observation more on Theism, but the point still stands.

[JimL]

The evidence is simply any data such that, in its absence, the belief it is meant to support becomes less plausible. As such, the cognitive predisposition of man toward belief could be taken as evidence of our hypothesis. Even if it is taken as considerably minute, it should be regarded as a contribution to the discussion. Of course, it is an obvious one. It isn't so much, "Hey, all of these people cannot be wrong about this!" That is not what I'm getting at. It's more that the fact that the belief in some intelligence beyond all of this and belief in the afterlife is a belief that we would more expect humankind to be predisposed to on Theism than Atheism. You might say that we would only somewhat expect this observation more on Theism, but the point still stands.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is a disbelief in an unevidenced claim. You can't say that we believe in the non-existence of a deity, well you could, but that would be improper speech. What you would say is that we disbelieve. Man does not have a cognitive predisposition toward belief in a deity, cognitively they are born with a clean slate with respect to belief. That many cultures have come to, and spread that belief through the generations, is not due to a predisposition, but to our ignorance, and ignorance is not evidence.

[MattMurdock]

Rather than get caught up in that old semantic debate, I can change it to Theism vs. Metaphysical Naturalism.

As for infants having a blank slate, calm down Locke! Infants have all kinds of predispositions, even if they cannot articulate them. I'm surprised you don't acknowledge a predisposition toward belief, as this is precisely the same argument that many atheists have tried to make against God! Of course, it amounts to a genetic fallacy. But, it is being widely argued that there is a God-part of the brain.

Countless cultures having a belief in an intelligence beyond nature is due to ignorance? That is a pretty bold statement! Every individual in every culture ever to propagate the existence of a deity was doing so based on their ignorance.

To move from, "I don't know what causes x in nature" to "there is an intelligence beyond nature" is a pretty big leap. Why think that is a natural leap for every culture and would just naturally endure over centuries?

[Truthseeker]

Every individual in every culture ever to propagate the existence of a deity was doing so based on their ignorance.

I don't understand. Could you reword?

[Truthseeker]

To me "rationality" in a particular kind of context simply means making decisions while keeping a good and strong grip on one's emotions. Surely every waking moment everyone is emotional to a degree. One could still make rational decisions, though, keeping oneself disciplined throughout.

I've pointed out before that atheists reject the notion that the universe does constitute evidence of a Creator, though I conceded that was not close to being decisive. The Bible is evidence in that way also. It looks like people like Tassman simply ignore all that argument, though.

[Psychic Missile]

The evidence is simply any data such that, in its absence, the belief it is meant to support becomes less plausible. As such, the cognitive predisposition of man toward belief could be taken as evidence of our hypothesis. Even if it is taken as considerably minute, it should be regarded as a contribution to the discussion. Of course, it is an obvious one. It isn't so much, "Hey, all of these people cannot be wrong about this!" That is not what I'm getting at. It's more that the fact that the belief in some intelligence beyond all of this and belief in the afterlife is a belief that we would more expect humankind to be predisposed to on Theism than Atheism. You might say that we would only somewhat expect this observation more on Theism, but the point still stands.

What hypothesis is the cognitive predisposition of man toward the gambler's fallacy evidence of? How about "human beings are commonly prone to irrational beliefs"? What separates a bias for belief in the divine from a bias for fallacy?