fan_from_texas wrote:
This sort of topic comes up pretty regularly, so I'd advise you to save time, dig through the archives, and see what we all thought last time around. I'm always somewhat skeptical of people who post on a message board and ask for proof. Is it an earnest request? If so, I'm happy to oblige. But if you're wanting to stir the pot (which is fine by me, of course), it probably isn't worth the effort.
If you ask complicated questions, you're going to get complicated answers. I've no doubt that if I posted, "Physicists--prove quantum mechanics to me, but don't rely on anything subatomic," I'm certain that I wouldn't get many good answers. That isn't because there isn't a good answer to my question (there is--QM exists), it's because (1) the subject-matter isn't well-suited to informal discourse on a message board; (2) I have no reason to suspect that there are any experts in the field posting here; (3) as a condition of the proof, I've removed something integral to the discussion; and (4) it's flat-out too complicated to be dealt with tritely.
There are many intelligent, well-read people who believe in god. There are similarly many intelligent, well-read people who do not. It isn't blindingly obvious that god exists or doesn't exist, and anyone who presents it to you as stunningly self-evident probably hasn't given it much thought (not that people can't sincerely be firmly convinced--they can, and I respect that, but that doesn't make it obvious to everyone else).
To the best of my knowledge, no one has proffered a consistent, acceptable, logically sound deductive argument for the existence of god. There's a world of difference between a deductive argument that PROVE god's existence, though, and an argument that virtually everyone would accept. We routinely convict people of crimes where there is absolutely no reasonable doubt, but that, by definition, isn't a deductive proof of guilt; it's an evaluation of the relevant facts and picking the conclusion that quite reasonably (and inarguably) lines up with the available theories. Do we think Charles Manson was guilty? Ted Bundy? Jeffery Dahmer? Their guilt couldn't be established by a deductive proof, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence that they were clearly guilty. We can have firm convictions on all sorts of things we can't logically establish by the deductive process.
If you're willing to accept that premise, it isn't too tough to end up with the conclusion that there is a god. In a trial, any individual piece of evidence may have another explanation that is more probable--that is, standing on its own, any one thing would make it less likely that a crime were committed. If I saw someone with a bloody knife, the odds are very good that they didn't just kill someone--most people don't kill people, and there are lots of other good reasons to have a bloody knife. If I knew that someone died, the odds are very good that they weren't murdered--very few people who die are murdered. If I saw someone transfer a big sum of money, it isn't likely that it was fraudulent--lots of big money transfers are made every day, and very few are fraudulent.
But say your rich uncle dies, and someone sees you with a bloody knife, and there's a huge transfer of money to you banjk account right at that time. Individually, each argument for your guilt fails. Collectively, there's a strong presumption that you're guilty, even though it can't be logically deduced, and even though each argument against you is more likely than not false.
That same sort of approach can work with god. There are a number of decent arguments (teleological, argument from design, etc.) that are somewhat less than 50% likely. Taken individually, they each fail. Taken together, they're enough to reach a legal conclusion of no reasonable doubt.
The big question isn't whether god exists, but whether that god is the typical judeo-christian conception. That's a tougher argument to make. I can't do it justice, but if you're sincerely interested, Richard Swinburne has done some very good work on this topic. I'd recommend starting with The Existence of God, then moving on to Faith and Reason. His arguments are much more persuasive than anything I can hope to put together.
very good post. i thank you for sharing
