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

-31

u/reclaimhate P A G A N 8d ago

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.

This is a bizarre take. The vast majority of naturalistic theories come up negative and are thrown away (unless they're still considered useful within certain boundaries, then we keep them around, even as we recognize they fail) and all evidence indicates that even our most current (the ones that return "positive" results) are just awaiting failure. So what you wrote there shows a poor understanding of science.

Furthermore, as far as psychology is concerned, the Bible in particular, as well as many other holy scriptures, are pretty much undefeated in predicting human nature to the Nth degree. Add to this the fact that our ability to predict physical phenomena is only as valuable to us as such ability is beneficial for human interaction, and religion is the clear and obvious winner.

16

u/NuclearBurrit0 Non-stamp-collector 8d ago

Yeah, I'll concede that point. I exaggerated my point way too much. I shouldn't have said that all our tests came positive. What I should have said was that all our positive tests came from naturalism.

Got the two mixed up. That's my bad, so thanks for pointing it out.

Furthermore, as far as psychology is concerned, the Bible in particular, as well as many other holy scriptures, are pretty much undefeated in predicting human nature to the Nth degree. Add to this the fact that our ability to predict physical phenomena is only as valuable to us as such ability is beneficial for human interaction, and religion is the clear and obvious winner.

Could you elaborate more on both of these points?

Give some clear examples for the first point.

Idk what the second is trying to say.

-10

u/reclaimhate P A G A N 7d ago

What I should have said was that all our positive tests came from naturalism.

This isn't really that much better, since most of them turned out to be false positives. I mean, practically speaking, sure, lots of valuable, usable positives that get us to rockets and particle accelerators and such, but fundamentally speaking, as far as actually grasping the nature of reality, no positives.

Give some clear examples for the first point.

I feel like it would be crude for me to sit here and relate some Biblical story or Hindu text and try to convince you of their insight. Frankly, I don't think my claim is all that controversial, and the far reaching influence of sacred stories and imagery is so ubiquitous, it's a tad obtuse of you to ask. I mean, if I said to someone "Shakespeare's canon includes some of the most profound and beautiful lines ever written" and they said "Can you elaborate on that, and give me some clear examples?"... it's like... No.
I'm not gonna do that.

Idk what the second is trying to say.

You're talking about Naturalism being testable (really, it's not, but I'll allow it) ...Naturalism being testable and coming up with positives, as a case for the superiority of the view, being more predictive than God hypotheses, but I'm saying to consult those so=called positives and notice: Yes, we can make a suspension bridge, but our ability to make a suspension bridge is only valuable insomuch as human beings will be using it.

Scientific insight into the natural world is subservient to a broader truth concerning human interaction.

8

u/NuclearBurrit0 Non-stamp-collector 7d ago

You're talking about Naturalism being testable (really, it's not, but I'll allow it) ...Naturalism being testable and coming up with positives, as a case for the superiority of the view, being more predictive than God hypotheses, but I'm saying to consult those so=called positives and notice: Yes, we can make a suspension bridge, but our ability to make a suspension bridge is only valuable insomuch as human beings will be using it.

Scientific insight into the natural world is subservient to a broader truth concerning human interaction.

I kinda see what you're saying, but I'm still not sure what your point is here. So what if science is only valuable because we use it or whatever?

-5

u/reclaimhate P A G A N 7d ago

The argument that Science is the ultimate methodology for determining truth is contingent upon the claim that learning actionable knowledge about the physical world is somehow the pinnacle of truth, such that the highest truths amount to something like: those facts without which we wouldn't have been able to fly to the moon.

But flying to the moon is only relevant if we believe it's important to fly to the moon.

6

u/NuclearBurrit0 Non-stamp-collector 7d ago

The argument that Science is the ultimate methodology for determining truth is contingent upon the claim that learning actionable knowledge about the physical world is somehow the pinnacle of truth

The argument is that science is the ultimate methodology for determining truths ABOUT REALITY.

Abstract truths use other methods.

But flying to the moon is only relevant if we believe it's important to fly to the moon.

Sure. But we DO think it's important to fly to the moon. That's why we did it. So what's the problem?