(August 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I have had experiences that, it seems to me, are best explained by the God of Jesus Christ existing. Granted that this is not an argument for God, but I can certainly think of examples where one is justified in believing their experience to be true, even if they cannot prove this experience to others.
And what makes you think that the god of Jesus Christ is the "best" explanation for those experiences? Seems to me that if that was actually the "best" explanation, then this could definitely be used as an argument for your god. But since you explicitly state that it is not an argument, I'd say that your experiences have a mundane "best" explanation and you simply wish that your god was the best explanation in its place. And if your god was the "best" explanation, then you'd be justified in your belief, but since it is not, you know that you have no justification and are simply trying to use the subjective nature of your experience to escape providing it.
(August 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: However, as one cannot experience directly the non-existence of God (nothingness has no presence which can be directly experienced), I don't think atheism can be justified that way.
Actually, it can. As you said, we can experience the existence - however, if in every case where existence is expected to be experienced we find that either there is no experience or experience can be traced to other causes, then it is ample justification for non-existence. If I am outdoors and I see that the sky is not cloudy and there are no raindrops falling on me and I am not getting wet, then there is ample justification to say that rain is not falling - even though I cannot "directly experience the non-falling of rain".
(August 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: And as you have looked for a sensible argument for God's existence, I have also looked for a good argument against God's existence and haven't found one. Your post also didn't seem to contain a convincing one. While it is true that humans are capable of believing things based on wish fulfillment, the simple assertion of this would call into question all of our beliefs, and not just God. Some could see atheism as wish fulfillment if one wanted to as well. Atheism, like God, is nonphysical, and the non-existence of God is not going to be found in the scientific laboratory. Likewise, simply, from the fact of suffering it doesn't seem to follow that there is no God because it seems possible that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing this suffering. If I have missed any of your arguments, feel free to bring them up and I will respond.
This is where you lose your justification. That is the line between wish-fulfillment and justified belief. The moment you invoke a hypothetical, without any basis on facts, you have lost your "justified" position.
