VenomFangX admits what he does in bed and what he dreams about. Woof!
1. Belief in God is highly likely
in a world where God exists
2. Belief in God is an abnormality/anomaly and highly unlikely
in a world where God does not exist
:. Therefore, God is more likely to exist than not
in a world where people believe in God
A popular response has been:
1.Belief in a flat earth is highly likely in a world where everyone believes the earth is flat.
2. Belief in a flat earth is an abnormality/anomaly and highly unlikely in a world where the earth is not flat.
3. Therefore, the earth is more likely to be flat than not flat.
Strawman. Belief itself does not make something true nor is that the argument, we understand why people did believe the earth is flat given strictly a view from the ground. It is possible to make good observations (the horizon is flat) and make bad conclusions (the earth is flat). However if belief in God arose because of observations, then it must have been God that was observed. Notice that "earth" and "flat" both exist and were observed, and thus caused belief in "flat earth". So if observed "flatness" and "earth" made people believe in "flat-earth", then something of God must have been observed to cause the belief.
The issue is that if there is no God, then there is nothing that should logically give rise to the belief in it. The next objection looks like this;
1. Belief in Santa Clause is highly likely
in a world where Santa Clause exists
2. Belief in Santa Clause is an abnormality/anomaly and highly unlikely
in a world where Santa Clause does not exist
:. Therefore, Santa Clause is more likely to exist than not
in a world where people believe in Santa Clause
The issue here is that a) We know Santa Clause was invented by Coca Cola and is a fictional character b) children are the only ones who believe and are not sophisticated enough to have justified true beliefs based on reason c) The existence of Santa Clause requires first the existence of God, seeing as how Santa Clause would both be a human being and thus contingent in a created universe, and is able to perform supernatural acts which require a realm of the supernatural, and thus presupposes the existence of God.
The issue terminates in this; what caused belief in God? Some say it was "The need to explain things we couldn't otherwise explain. We used to think that rain, thunder, floods, earthquakes, etc, were caused by a God or Gods. The need to have an explanation for something is what caused the first belief in God." Notice this is neither a historical or scientific fact, but only wishful thinking on the part of God rejecting atheists. First you need the idea of "God" in order to ascribe divine causation to the rain, thunder, and floods. You don't look at rain and think "God", you look at rain and think "rain". So the idea of God must come before the ascribing of divine causation to natural elements, but this idea of God is without cause, in the atheists case, and thus is utterly distinct from the flat earth, santa clause, and any other idea you can think of which has elements of observed natural phenomena. Even Santa Clause requires things like "Saint Nick" who was a real person, presents, the north pole, snow, human, and all other things observed compiled into the fictional character.
There is no reason for belief in God to exist in a world where God does not exist, because no natural phenomena can adequately cause belief in a being who isn't natural to begin with.
Loading...
4:06
Venomfangx....God Damn it not again part 3by emptywithoutbrain2,525 views
lame
yehyehyeh 11 months ago
@yehyehyeh No, sir, that would be your theories that would be lame.
BornAgayn 11 months ago