(August 15, 2019 at 4:07 pm)Lek Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 2:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Because, it sure seems to me, that your method, leads you and 2 billion other Christians to Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims to Islam, and 1.1 billion Hindus to Hinduism. If the same method can lead the majority of people, to different (and mutually exclusive beliefs), it is not reliable, definitially.
My method has led those and billions more to a belief in God. It's the same instinct that has led the vast majority of people throughout history to that belief. It's my belief that all human beings have that instinct within us that has been put there by God. Even atheists are open to the existence of God, rather than pink elephants, dragons, etc. They just haven't proven it to themselves and are unable to accept his existence, but I think we're all searching.
There is no instinct for to believe in gods. There is a human instinct (part of our survival mechanisms) to seek out patterns and agency (even if there is none).
This instinct, put there by our evolutionary history, is what leads us to find gods where there are none.
Quote: It's the same instinct that has led the vast majority of people throughout history to that belief. It's my belief that all human beings have that instinct within us that has been put there by God.
Circular argument.
"We have an instinct to believe in gods, because a god put that instinct in our brains. That's how I know gods exist, because I have the instinct to believe in gods. And since I have that instinct, a god must have put it there".
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
