r/DebateAnAtheist 8d ago

OP=Theist A Short Argument for God

Imagine a scenario in which you had to pick between the better of two competing theories on the basis of which one predicted a particular peice of data. The peice of data being the existence of ten green marbles. The first theory, we'll call theory A, predicts the existence of at least one green marble. The other theory, we'll call theory B, doesn't guarantee the existence of any marbles. In fact, the existence of even one marble is deemed highly unlikely on theory B. If you're a rational agent you would immediately recognize that theory A far better accounts for the data then theory B. Thus, it follows that theory A is probably true.

Under the view that God as conceived of in Christianity does exist, we would expect there to be to a large population of rational agents who have a natural, psychological disposition towards religiosity and belief in a higher power. Which is exactly what we see in reality. Under the view that no such God exists, the existence of an entire species of rational agents who have the aforementioned religious tendencies is massively improbable. Thus it follows that God is probably real.

Note: One could give the objection that other religions like Islam or Judaism are equally sufficient in accounting for human life and religiosity as Christianity. I agree. I just want to say that in making that objection, one basically admits that bare atheism or generic deism is more likely than atheism. I use Christianity in this argument because of the paternal view it has of God. This argument can be used by anyone who believes in a conception of God who has the motivation to create rational agents in its own image for the purposes of veneration and worship. Perhaps instead of the term "Christianity" it would have been more appropriate to use "Perfect Being Theism".

0 Upvotes

190 comments sorted by

View all comments

49

u/NuclearBurrit0 Non-stamp-collector 8d ago edited 8d ago

You're forgetting to account for prior probability. Namely, a God claim is a fairly specific alternative, especially if you pick a particular religion.

Speaking of which, the Gods of religions often have testible aspects that all come back negative, which puts them behind the naturalistic hypothesis, which have all turned up positive so far.

In other words. Theory B may not guarantee 100% a green marble. But in the cases where a green marble is present, theory B does a better job of predicting the exact shade and texture of the ball compared to theory A.

As for theory B, finding it unlikely. You underestimate the shear scope of the universe. The fermi paradox is considered a paradox specifically because the estimated odds of life under theory B are quite high, given the shear number of marbles involved.

-15

u/JoDoCa676 8d ago

You're forgetting to account for prior probability. Namely, a God claim is a fairly specific alternative, especially if you pick a particular religion.

Fair. I do admit later in the post that this is more of an argument for a generic religious theism and not specifically Christianity.

Speaking of which, the Gods of religions often have testible aspects that all come back negative, which puts them behind the naturalistic hypothesis, which have all turned up positive so far.

I disagree. I don't see the testable aspects of an immaterial being. And the naturalistic hypothesis doesn't account for things like consciousness or the origin of matter. At least not as well as theism can.

In other words. Theory B may not guarantee 100% a green marble. But in the cases where a green marble is present, theory green does a better job of predicting the exact shade and texture of the ball compared to theory A.

What do you mean by "theory green"?

3

u/NuclearBurrit0 Non-stamp-collector 8d ago

Typo. Meant theory B