Argument from "better to seek proper vision".

[Mister Agenda]

The following was a reply to Whateverist, and I think deserves its own thread.


LOL, thanks you provided me with a reflection on a proper argument for God.


1. It is better to sincerely try to objectively seek the vision of guidance rather than not.
2. If God doesn't exist, there is no reason to believe one can gain vision of guidance.
3. If there is no reason to believe one can gain vision of guidance, then it is not better to objectively seek the vision of guidance rather then not.

1, 3. If both these premises are true, we can conclude there is a reason to believe one can vision of guidance. Call this premise (4).

4, 2 proves God exists if both premises are true.

And you implicit were stating this, but you didn't know it. I gathered this from your sentiment.

1. Would you define the term 'vision of guidance' please? If I don't know what it is, I can't say whether it's better so seek it or not.

2. Why? All evidence points to people being able to have visions if they do or experience certain things; but the content of the visions is culturally determined. The human brain is more than capable of generating visions without divine intervention being necessary. And many of these vision provide some sort of guidance. So there: a reason to believe it's possible to receive 'visions of guidance' if God does not exist.

3. Well, there you go. The human capacity for self-deception and induced hallucination is sufficient to guarantee that many people who seek such visions will have them, real or not. Whatever they seek hard enough, they will find, even if it's only imaginary.

---

If I provide details promise you won't cry like a baby that it is too long.

You don't have any range between terse paragraph and wall of text?