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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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. And if he didn't see John, he still saw the teriyaki ribs on the table before dinner, suddenly disappearing moments later.
Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.
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. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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. And if he didn't see John, he still saw the teriyaki ribs on the table before dinner, suddenly disappearing moments later.
Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.
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. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.
