Recently I left my religion due to logical errors I found and with brief knowledge of other religions, I've come to belief there is no religion that is true.
However I still believe in God and purpose of life. What is my belief based upon? Well I think primarily that knowledge of God is ingrained in humanity. It is a properly basic knowledge. In the same way belief there is objective morality or real morality, is properly basic. Now person might ask if it's properly basic, why do so many people not believe in God? Well just like there is things in morality we can disagree upon but some can have the correct knowledge of the matter, I believe it's the same in the case of knowing God. The issue also is that their can be inside knowledge of God but it's being suppressed.
For example, in Islam, hadiths, both sunni and shia teach killing people whom leave Islam is a command of God. Now a lot of Muslims would disagree with these hadiths, yet a lot accept them. Some people believe it's wrong and some people believe it's right. Now can anyone know it's wrong? I would imagine most people would agree we can know it's morally wrong to kill people for leaving a religion, be it the true one or not. We can also believe deep down inside people whom support it, know it's wrong, but suppress that knowledge because hadiths support it and they wish to support what the hadiths teach.
In the same way, it can be that knowledge of God is properly basic, but it's yet disputed for other reasons than that we have no way of knowing him. Another objection is how come people differ about God if God is properly basic. Well just as people differ on what is great and what is moral, yet that doesn't mean there is no such thing as greatness and morality, the same can be true of Ultimate Greatness. Our conception of Greatness can differ but at the end, we may know Ultimate Greatness exist, and know some things about Ultimate Greatness and can know right things about it, even if people differ.
This is not hard to believe if you accept the notion of a Creator is plausible. If a Creator exists, why would he not ingrain us with properly basic knowledge of himself in the same way we are ingrained with other properly basic knowledge?
Now that said. I believe there is other proof of a designer and creator. The thing is proof of a designer and creator doesn't tell he is ultimate greatness or ultimate morality.
A proof of design I believe is consciousness. I don't believe evolution can account for consciousness appearing out of non-conscious. There is no process leading from one to other. There has to be a step where there is no consciousness and then there is consciousness, but that is too complex for it to happen by a mutation, so the step will never happen.
I also believe things like butterfly wings couldn't have evolved. Something coming out of the side of a bug is not going to jump right away or even be able to be moved, until many mutations, but natural selection will not favor it. In the same way 1/999th of a butterfly wing wing will not be more advantageous of 1/1000th wing, and it's not heading by natural selection towards a wing. The process won't lead to it.
I believe the same is true of many things in creation. Sure if you take big steps and just say evolution lead from one step to other, then it can appear that everything evolved, but when you look at the small steps in the begining, will it be guided by natural selection towards the design, I think you will realize many things are impossible by this process.
Now other proofs go on the line that I think an infinite chain of cause and effects, is an effect it self, because of chains of effects are effects themselves. This means there needs to be a cause outside chain of effects, and this includes even if it's infinite chain of effects. This as well as that I don't think infinite time before is possible in the same way we cannot get to an infinite time in the future from the present. This tells me there is a finite regression of time. Now the only question is what was there at point zero, before time existed. I think something material couldn't have just started to cause time and motion, while there was no time and motion before. The notion of powerful spiritual being that can cause time makes more sense to me.
Also reflecting on morality, tells me that morality itself has eternal bais, and has ultimate morality as it's source to be true. This again is not hard to accept if it's true that source of morality is God, then the nature of morality would be based on his essence. That would be the nature, and we would see it like that. I believe without it having an eternal basis, it becomes rather an illusion, and becomes arbitrary. We can easily see this when we think what if the Creator created morality and decided morality without knowledge of it before hand...this would make it arbitrary and unreal in the sense we understand morality to be.
At the end, however, it's not arguments I rely upon for knowledge or belief in God. I think it's rather properly basic knowledge of God that is ingrained in me.
However I still believe in God and purpose of life. What is my belief based upon? Well I think primarily that knowledge of God is ingrained in humanity. It is a properly basic knowledge. In the same way belief there is objective morality or real morality, is properly basic. Now person might ask if it's properly basic, why do so many people not believe in God? Well just like there is things in morality we can disagree upon but some can have the correct knowledge of the matter, I believe it's the same in the case of knowing God. The issue also is that their can be inside knowledge of God but it's being suppressed.
For example, in Islam, hadiths, both sunni and shia teach killing people whom leave Islam is a command of God. Now a lot of Muslims would disagree with these hadiths, yet a lot accept them. Some people believe it's wrong and some people believe it's right. Now can anyone know it's wrong? I would imagine most people would agree we can know it's morally wrong to kill people for leaving a religion, be it the true one or not. We can also believe deep down inside people whom support it, know it's wrong, but suppress that knowledge because hadiths support it and they wish to support what the hadiths teach.
In the same way, it can be that knowledge of God is properly basic, but it's yet disputed for other reasons than that we have no way of knowing him. Another objection is how come people differ about God if God is properly basic. Well just as people differ on what is great and what is moral, yet that doesn't mean there is no such thing as greatness and morality, the same can be true of Ultimate Greatness. Our conception of Greatness can differ but at the end, we may know Ultimate Greatness exist, and know some things about Ultimate Greatness and can know right things about it, even if people differ.
This is not hard to believe if you accept the notion of a Creator is plausible. If a Creator exists, why would he not ingrain us with properly basic knowledge of himself in the same way we are ingrained with other properly basic knowledge?
Now that said. I believe there is other proof of a designer and creator. The thing is proof of a designer and creator doesn't tell he is ultimate greatness or ultimate morality.
A proof of design I believe is consciousness. I don't believe evolution can account for consciousness appearing out of non-conscious. There is no process leading from one to other. There has to be a step where there is no consciousness and then there is consciousness, but that is too complex for it to happen by a mutation, so the step will never happen.
I also believe things like butterfly wings couldn't have evolved. Something coming out of the side of a bug is not going to jump right away or even be able to be moved, until many mutations, but natural selection will not favor it. In the same way 1/999th of a butterfly wing wing will not be more advantageous of 1/1000th wing, and it's not heading by natural selection towards a wing. The process won't lead to it.
I believe the same is true of many things in creation. Sure if you take big steps and just say evolution lead from one step to other, then it can appear that everything evolved, but when you look at the small steps in the begining, will it be guided by natural selection towards the design, I think you will realize many things are impossible by this process.
Now other proofs go on the line that I think an infinite chain of cause and effects, is an effect it self, because of chains of effects are effects themselves. This means there needs to be a cause outside chain of effects, and this includes even if it's infinite chain of effects. This as well as that I don't think infinite time before is possible in the same way we cannot get to an infinite time in the future from the present. This tells me there is a finite regression of time. Now the only question is what was there at point zero, before time existed. I think something material couldn't have just started to cause time and motion, while there was no time and motion before. The notion of powerful spiritual being that can cause time makes more sense to me.
Also reflecting on morality, tells me that morality itself has eternal bais, and has ultimate morality as it's source to be true. This again is not hard to accept if it's true that source of morality is God, then the nature of morality would be based on his essence. That would be the nature, and we would see it like that. I believe without it having an eternal basis, it becomes rather an illusion, and becomes arbitrary. We can easily see this when we think what if the Creator created morality and decided morality without knowledge of it before hand...this would make it arbitrary and unreal in the sense we understand morality to be.
At the end, however, it's not arguments I rely upon for knowledge or belief in God. I think it's rather properly basic knowledge of God that is ingrained in me.
