Here is why you should believe in God.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hey there,

Screw proofs, look for good reasons to believe, that's what you do in your everyday life. All proofs need a starting point. Transcient, mortal people can play with the starting point all they like. And that's exactly why the existence of god question spilled much ink.

Among which are proofs 

There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

Yes because asking that question is meaningless and self defeating 

Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

Nope asking about god is a meaningful question sorry you don't get to smuggle that belief in 

Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

Yes we know you hate reason 

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

Nope two completely separate questions sorry  and how we reached that conclusion is an epistemic concern .

One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

Yes we know you hate questioning things 

I don't need to spell out the usual reasons for belief in God here. The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Because we don't need that hypothesis because i's redundant as for for you theistic jargon that's all it is 

Now look at what happens in the real world here : [John ate delicious teriyaki ribs], and ask the atheist how does he get to the existence of John? 

Considering atheism is the non acceptance of god. Why would an atheist have an opinion on John or his ribs .

Whatever the answer might be, it would be really stupid of him to say he figured out the cooking recipe, and that he doesn't need John anymore. 

This isn't a valid comparison so false analogy 

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, 

Physical consisties are nothing like ribs or a recipe.And assertion 

this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. 

No it's not .It's a freaking assertion you just claim then try and conflate to something else 

Is it wise to suspend judgement? 

Yes it is on your claim absolutely

Not at all. 

Yes it is 

The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. 

Too bad these two things are not the same kind of claim .Good you are terrible at analogies 

No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence.

Too bad these two things are not the same kind of claim. Therefore we won't respond to them the same .

 If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

Nope just treating two different claim differently .Rod his paragraph is moronic 

Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time.

Yes too bad these aren't the same thing and using something we have demonstrated to be redundant as a explanation may not be a comparison you wanna go with 

 And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong

No it was bad people refused to exercise caution and leaped beyond the evidence to magic fairy land 

What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, 

Suspending belief till one has justifications is never bad and not doing so has a long and bloody history . I know you just want your idea to win without having to put the work in but that do don't hunt .

when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

Which your god belief is not .So this whole exercise of jerking off was pointless .You have not backed he idea god exists or any of your other claims so suspending judgement till you do is justified regardless of your lame conflation and bad comparisons .

---

God this guy is awful at analogies


No because a thief breaks into your house and steals your shit  does NOT justify the idea physical constants are laws that require magic law pixies .It's a dumb comparison 

No the fact we have an understanding how stuff work renders a explanation redundant is not the same as looking to a cook book to render John redundant .This analogy is question begging central and not even remotely the same. 

No the fact we respond to the concept of a thief .Does  not make belief in invisible magic law pixies 

His whole paragraph is grand testament to fallacies and a awe inspiring lack of perspective as green mile high leaps of logic .