Attention Theists! Present your best argument for the existence of God!

[fr0d0]

Naturalism is neutral, where theism is a focus on the positive. I personally understand that to be a preferable outlook. In naturalism I'm subject to life wherever it may take me; where in theism I aspire to more. I choose to interpret natural as divine.

These are not questions of personal preference though Fr0ds, they are questions about the fundamental nature of reality - such things are completely aside from which option seems more 'positive' to us - Unless you mean theism as a 'positive proposition' as opposed to naturalism as a tentative conclusion in which case I gota wonder why you think that making a positive claim about reality makes the proposition it's self better, after all belief in Tinkerbell is a positive belief, I hardly think you would state that belief to be better for the individual than a lack of belief in Tinkerbell...

You might aspire to more beyond the natural life we have, but that again has no impact on whether or not it is true, you could find that you have wasted a good portion of your time partaking in this train of thought only to find it does not exist, in that sense your aspirations may have lead you in the wrong direction resulting in your time being spent inefficiently, however your subjective satisfaction in the belief may make up for any opportunity cost (the opportunity to live as reality is and the satisfaction that can bring), in that case I couldn't say theism is any worse for the individual under a naturalistic context.

How you interpret reality is personal. I attribute everything to God. I don't deny scientific explanation at all, I cannot. The two are integral. At the macro level, my appreciating nature, say, and thanking God for it, might be pretty much the same as your experience, of appreciating nature and wondering at it. But that would be to ignore the wider implications of my connection with God.

How is a belief in Tinkerbell a positive belief? What does she add to reality? That's not the same for God. God adds everything.

The existence of God bears zero impact upon my belief in him. My belief in him is the complete benefit in itself. Therefore I cannot waste my time because the justification and reward is immediate and not dependant upon anything else, now or in the future.

What we're aspiring to here is getting the most out of life. At worst my theistic aim would be as low as a naturalistic aim. I can't reason away the benefit.

I can only relate my own experience where happiness in the two places is very different.

There is also the opportunity to study the relevant statistics which paint a picture that is significantly different, such as the World Peace Index and similar endeavors. I'm not saying that this negates your own subjective experience in any way, but it could well be that your problems before finding theism could have been resolved by other measures and experiences, you'll probably never know but if it works for you and you value subjective satisfaction over being objective as possible in forming beliefs then why the hell not.

You make the mistake of assuming that
1. I had problems
2. no problems are spiritual/ there are no gains to spiritual health
3. benefits of spiritual health are measured in material gain

As an atheist I felt very strongly that religion as a prop for the weak and suffering was an abomination. I was very happy before I converted to Xtianity, and the wave of happiness from conversion hit me like a tidal wave.

I couldn't have achieved that in any other way I could imagine. The closest I could clone to my theism would still be a poorer copy of my theism. Your experience may be different. If that were indeed true, I'd expect it to be essentially the same. If there were a better way of attaining that I'd jump at it and abandon my current position. I don't see how anyone wouldn't.

You would abandon your theism if you believed that another position would make your happier/expand your potential for happiness? That is truly the point at which we diverge, I couldn't make myself seek happiness over truth in any circumstance.

I couldn't abandon truth either. The perfect truth of the realisation is what makes it. In this happiness there may be personal and/ or material loss and suffering. We're not talking hedonism.

Love in a naturalist worldview is limited to the personal, where in a theistic worldview it has to be external as well. The whole experience of life is related to an external force for good.

Of course that is the conceptual difference, however the experience of such emotions are identical, a theist has no more capacity to experience these things than a naturalist does - That may well be something you would expect in some theistic worldviews, it could almost act as a falsification in some circumstances.

Absolutely.