Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[SteveII]

I have over the years gotten  tired of discussng whether there is a god, with well meaning relatives.  I have a new program.  I say,

I would like to (1) believe in god, if god exists; and  (2) to not believe in god, if God does not exist.  Can you say the same?  If the answer is "no,"  I refuse to discuss the matter as we have left the realm of what is in favor of we would like to be.  

I've tried this just three times now. The answer has never been flat out no at least not initially.  Instead, the responses have been:  but you are trying to take away my faith; Pascal's Wager; and I just know he does.  To which I respond, that unless you are willing to consider the possibility there is no god, than there is no point in the dicussion.   It isn't perfect, but so far this works better than anything I've tried yet.

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Inherent in your question is the idea that some sort of proof is available. What exactly do you mean by proof? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold so they can claim--"see, no proof".

---

What exactly are we meant to do with someone else's "personal experience"?

No one is qualified to conclude that any particular occurrence was the result of a cause which hasn't yet been shown to be real in the first place. At best it's just unexplained.

That's one concise question begging argument. We can't consider a supernatural cause in event xyz because supernatural events have not been shown to happen. 

It's funny how all this magic stuff occurring everywhere around believers has completely avoided me the entire 40 years I've been on this planet. Why is that, I wonder?

How do you know? There could have been a 100,000 supernatural causes in and around your life. They are not all big flashy events with lights and smoke. A simple encounter, a delay, whatever. What if the effect God was after is a long way off? Why not 100 years from now? You can believe there are none but you cannot logically conclude that there were none. I would make the argument that if God exists and has a directed purpose for mankind, then it is very likely that you have been affected by supernatural causation in your life.