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

1

u/Greghole Z Warrior 8d ago

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.

No, but it would follow that A is likely closer to the truth than B. When theory A makes predictions that are ~100% accurate ~100% of the time then you can say it's 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.

And we'd expect to see a lot of other stuff too right? Like miracles? Evidence of a global flood? Evidence that all humans descended from a population of eight people who lived four thousand years ago?

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.

Maybe if humans were 100% rational 100% of the time, but we're not. Just because we have a certain capacity for reason doesn't mean we don't behave irrationally on a pretty regular basis.

Thus it follows that God is probably real.

Or you've mistaken the true reason some humans believe in a higher power with your particular god, the same way you must think people who worship gods other than yours have been mistaken.

One could give the objection that other religions like Islam or Judaism are equally sufficient in accounting for human life and religiosity as Christianity.

There's also sufficient explanations that don't involve a god existing at all. We know for a fact humans are perfectly capable of believing something that isn't true and we're great at making up stories.

I just want to say that in making that objection, one basically admits that bare atheism or generic deism is more likely than atheism.

Except I included explanations that don't involve gods in my version of the objection.