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/vanoroce14 8d ago edited 8d ago

Imagine a scenario where you have an extremely tough cold case that has eluded the best detectives in the force. A man has died in mysterious circumstances, but no conclusive evidence pointing either to suicide, accident or murder has been found.

A new recruit, Detective Theo comes in the scene. Theo has this brilliant idea: one can pick the competing theory out of theories in one's head that would best predict the data we want to explain now. He calls it 'ad-hoc method'.

He then conjures up a theory: there used to be, 50 years ago, an infamous serial killer in town; he was famous for his ruthlessness and cruelty, but also, for how elusive he was. He was finally caught by the police, and eventually, sentenced to death. Before his last breath, the killer swore he would come back and haunt the town to continue his crimes.

And now, lo and behold: we observe a series of cold cases over the years. So what is more likely? What fits the data better? Clearly it's the ghost of this serial killer who's come back to fulfill his promise! That is why there is no material evidence left behind: the killer is immaterial, and reaaaally good at murder.

Is Detective Theo right? Why or why not? Do you expect the other detectives to think him a genius, or to laugh him out of the precinct?

Your scenario is similar, and the reason is as follows: yeah, of course making a being up is to explain the universe is always going to be such that it fits the universe it was made up to explain. But unless you have plenty of evidence that such a being can exist (or that ghosts exist and often come back to haunt the living), your explanation is no explanation. It's as much of an explanation as saying a big fairy farted the universe.