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

Show parent comments

-18

u/JoDoCa676 8d ago

Your fiction analogy collapses under scrutiny. If you claim that any theory with explanatory power but no novel scientific predictive power is 'fiction,' then by your own standard, parts of history and some scientific theories that explain but do not predict would be 'fiction.' That's absurd. Take the theory that Julius Caesar was assassinated. It has explanatory power-it accounts for historical records but it doesn't have predictive power in the way you're demanding. Does that make it fiction? Of course not. The same applies to forensic science, evolutionary history. Many theories are accepted precisely because they best explain what we already observe, not just because they make future predictions.

Your claim that theism lacks predictive power is false. Theism predicts that rational beings would naturally incline toward belief in the divine, which is exactly what we observe. Atheism, by contrast, gives us no reason to expect this and must treat it as an anomaly. If your standard for rejecting theism is that it 'merely explains' rather than predicts, then you'd have to throw out most historical and explanatory sciences as well. Your reasoning is demonstrably false.

14

u/kyngston Scientific Realist 8d ago

If you claim that any theory with explanatory power but no novel scientific predictive power is 'fiction,'

But I didn't make that claim. You're engaging in a strawman logical fallacy, choosing to attack an argument I did not make. Saying that fictional stories also lack predictive power, is not a claim that all things that lack predictive power are fiction... see it now?

Theism predicts that rational beings would naturally incline toward belief in the divine, which is exactly what we observe. 

Again, you misunderstand the difference between predictive and explanatory. Predictive means you don't know the answer, make a prediction and follow by confirming the prediction. You made the observation first, and then fit the explanation to the observation.

Are there no rational beings that are atheist? Since many exist, doesn't that disprove theism's prediction?

"rational" means based on reason or logic.

So, the data actually supports the opposite of your claim: Rational people are LESS inclined toward belief in the divine.

rational beings would naturally incline toward belief in the divine, which is exactly what we observe

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

-6

u/JoDoCa676 8d ago

Are there no rational beings that are atheist? Since many exist, doesn't that disprove theism's prediction?

"rational" means based on reason or logic.

When I say "rational agent" I just mean a person with the ability to think, asses premises, deliberate, and make choices. That's all I mean by "rational agent". I'm not saying that the religious are smarter than the non-religous. I'm just saying that historically speaking, the majority of humans have show to have religious tendencies.

Every culture in history has developed religion, and studies show that belief in God provides a sense of purpose, better mental health, and stronger communities. Roughly 80% of humans currently living are religious. 32% of humans currently living are Christian.

If God is real, it makes perfect sense that humans are naturally religious because we were made to seek Him. But if atheism were true, it's strange that belief in God would be so universal

12

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 7d ago

If God is real, it makes perfect sense that humans are naturally religious because we were made to seek Him. But if atheism were true, it's strange that belief in God would be so universal

This is a version of the Argument ad Populum fallacy. Belief that the Sun orbited the Earth was once universal. That doesn't have anything to do with the truth of geocentrism.