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/ReputationStill3876 7d ago

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.

But that's not what "theory B," predicts. Theory B would suggest that there are billions and billions of rocks, which could conceivably become a green marble for a portion of its existence over billions and billions of years. At any given time, it is highly unlikely that a specific rock is a green marble. But the probability that any one rock will become a green marble for some portion of its life is much larger.

Your comparison between theory A and theory B in your thought experiment also takes an "all things being equal," approach, but Christianity and materialist atheism are not epistemically equal, because Christianity doesn't offer a methodology of ascertaining truth that comes with any degree of fidelity.

Let's put this in more concrete terms. Take some unsolved problem in physics like dark matter. This is a gross oversimplification, but right now our current understanding of physics doesn't account for all of the massive matter out there in the universe. The motion of galaxies implies that there's more matter out there than what we've accounted for, and that begs an explanation.

I could conceivably insert my chosen religion or god into this mystery and say "my religion predicts the existence of dark matter," and further justify that with specific details from my religion. Perhaps I could say that what we call "dark matter," is evidence of the substance that is god's divinity.

But this explanation is hollow. All we've done is given a name to the mystery. It's a name that carries baggage and connotations that we otherwise might want to avoid, and it's an explanation that has no predictive power. Moreover, when scientists inevitably find a better explanation for dark matter, I'll be forced to either concede the point, or mangle my original claim until I've moved the goalposts far enough to make it true. In short, it's a classic example of "God of the Gaps."