God: No magic required

[Esquilax]

Thanks to those who replied.

Here's an executive summary:

1. There are objective, personal benefits associated with being a theist.

Only insofar as a drunk man is happier than a sober one.

2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.

Don't mistake the fact that your arguments haven't convinced us with some kind of stubborn, iron willed certainty on our part. Instead of attacking our character and motivations- which you have literally no knowledge of- you could try examining your own arguments from a hypothetical outsider perspective and see if you would be convinced of this god of yours based solely on how you've defined it and an assertion that maybe it's possible.

3. Cosmological physics is perhaps the scientific discipline most closely related to theology. I find it most interesting that cosmological physicists accept the plausibility of concepts not only rejected but actually derided by atheists.

A simple demonstration would be all it would take to turn this derision you see into acceptance. Perhaps you should be wondering why you're not able to surmount the kind of evidentiary support I could give for a pack of playing cards or a super ball with ease?

4. For a skeptic, the possibility for theistic belief begins with rejection of certitude and an open minded consideration of plausibility.

Plausibility and reality are very different things, and you won't convince me of the latter by appealing to the former using zero evidence.

5. Once plausibility is accepted, the next step is self exploration. I have found -- personally -- that it's entirely possible to separate formal religious doctrine from belief in a higher level of sentience. Based on this principle, I entered into a process of self exploration which has become of great personal benefit. I don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't even require preponderance of evidence. All I required was a real universe, physical plausibility and the personal experience of self exploration.

Are these benefits in any way objectively verifiable, or are they simply emotional benefits? Also, again, "higher level of sentience" is not necessarily god; you have some legwork before you get from "higher level of sentience" to "god."

There is absolutely no downside in what I've done in this regard. I've benefited personally. My family has benefited. The only "victims" are the people on this blog who have chosen to follow this thread and who have "suffered" annoyance.

The downside is that you've stopped searching for the truth, and have instead picked up a comfortable delusion. You'll have absolutely no idea whatever else you've missed because you won't be around to see it.

My conscience is entirely clear. I haven't hurt anyone. Atheism isn't an evil, but certitude is an evil. I hope to have struck a blow against certitude.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

If your best argument in favor of your beliefs is "it is not actively causing anyone else pain," you may not have super well supported beliefs, there.