It is more reasonable..

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Here is something I wrote a long long time ago. I thought it might be interesting to post it here.

--------

It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity.

This is my proposition. Now I will attempt to support it.
Here goes.

-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)

-There is precedent for people hiding in bushes. I myself have hidden in a few bushes during childhood games of hide and seek.(which also supports that people do, and can, in fact hide;supporting another part of my proposition)
-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.

-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.
-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

Clearly, it is far more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in my bushes than it is to believe in a deity. Still, I don't believe there is a man hiding in my bushes.

But lets go further. Believing in a deity is one thing, but believing in a deity and then further going on to define his attributes, absent of any evidence, is problematic.
Now I would have to believe the man in my bushes had a 12 inch knife, had escaped from a very specific sanitarium, and was on a mission to cut out my liver and sell it on ebay. Still, believing all that is more reasonable than believing in an all powerful, all loving, personal god that 'wants' us to follow jesus.
Why? as well as all the above reasons for a 'man in the bushes'(sans knife and murderous intent), there is also precedent for things such as the existence of knives, homicidal behavior, and organ removal.
Again, there is no precedent for the qualities 'all loving' 'omniscient' 'omnipresent' or pretty much any of the other attributes most believers assign their deity.

Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.

Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep worrying about that possible maniac, and given no reason to believe he is out there, why would anyone believe something far less reasonable?

 

[Riverwolf]

-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)

Deities live within the human psyche IMO.

 

[fallingblood]

The argument is completely moot. Believing in a deity can not be argued rationally, as it is not a rational idea.

The belief in a deity is irrational. So any argument against it will fail. Rational ideas to try to support the idea that it is irrational to believe in an idea that is irrational in the first place can only fail.

 

[footprints]

Here is something I wrote a long long time ago. I thought it might be interesting to post it here.

--------

It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity.

This is my proposition. Now I will attempt to support it.
Here goes.

-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)

-There is precedent for people hiding in bushes. I myself have hidden in a few bushes during childhood games of hide and seek.(which also supports that people do, and can, in fact hide;supporting another part of my proposition)
-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.

-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.
-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

Clearly, it is far more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in my bushes than it is to believe in a deity. Still, I don't believe there is a man hiding in my bushes.

But lets go further. Believing in a deity is one thing, but believing in a deity and then further going on to define his attributes, absent of any evidence, is problematic.
Now I would have to believe the man in my bushes had a 12 inch knife, had escaped from a very specific sanitarium, and was on a mission to cut out my liver and sell it on ebay. Still, believing all that is more reasonable than believing in an all powerful, all loving, personal god that 'wants' us to follow jesus.
Why? as well as all the above reasons for a 'man in the bushes'(sans knife and murderous intent), there is also precedent for things such as the existence of knives, homicidal behavior, and organ removal.
Again, there is no precedent for the qualities 'all loving' 'omniscient' 'omnipresent' or pretty much any of the other attributes most believers assign their deity.

Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.

Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep worrying about that possible maniac, and given no reason to believe he is out there, why would anyone believe something far less reasonable?

Well if nothing else, you sure did prove your imagination correct.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That's about the same reaction I get from most theists that like to imagine their belief in deity is reasonable. This little tract serves only to illustrate that belief in external deities is irrational at its core.

Pressed for time, more to come!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.

Well, there's some hearsay evidence of a god in the bushes.

-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

Why do things require "motive" in order to exist? Do other things require "motive" to exist? Rocks, for instance?

 

[S-word]

Here is something I wrote a long long time ago. I thought it might be interesting to post it here.

--------

It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity.

This is my proposition. Now I will attempt to support it.
Here goes.

-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)

-There is precedent for people hiding in bushes. I myself have hidden in a few bushes during childhood games of hide and seek.(which also supports that people do, and can, in fact hide;supporting another part of my proposition)
-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.

-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.
-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

Clearly, it is far more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in my bushes than it is to believe in a deity. Still, I don't believe there is a man hiding in my bushes.

But lets go further. Believing in a deity is one thing, but believing in a deity and then further going on to define his attributes, absent of any evidence, is problematic.
Now I would have to believe the man in my bushes had a 12 inch knife, had escaped from a very specific sanitarium, and was on a mission to cut out my liver and sell it on ebay. Still, believing all that is more reasonable than believing in an all powerful, all loving, personal god that 'wants' us to follow jesus.
Why? as well as all the above reasons for a 'man in the bushes'(sans knife and murderous intent), there is also precedent for things such as the existence of knives, homicidal behavior, and organ removal.
Again, there is no precedent for the qualities 'all loving' 'omniscient' 'omnipresent' or pretty much any of the other attributes most believers assign their deity.

Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.

Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep worrying about that possible maniac, and given no reason to believe he is out there, why would anyone believe something far less reasonable?

I believe that the best model for the origin of the universe, according to the data that has so far been accumulated by the mind of man, is the theory of the Big Bang.

All that this universe is, was once contained in a singularity which was infinitely dense, infinitely hot and infinitesimally small, and it was spatially separated by the animating principle that pervades all that is, which animating principle, has neither mass or electric charge, but carries angular and linear momentum.

Until a better theory comes along, I will continue to believe that the singularity of origin has become all that has ever existed, all that now exists, and all that will ever exist. That which was in the beginning, has become "Who I Am" who is a physical enclosure of all the spirits of my ancestors, human and pre-human. "Who I Am," is connected to the singularity of origin by an eternal genetic thread of life. "Who I Am," was in the beginning and has never experienced death, and there is no reason for me to believe that "Who I Am," can ever die.

If I, who am the mind/spirit that develops in this body that is "Who I Am," through the experiences and information that is taken in through the senses of this body, remain true to and one with and an extention of, "Who I Am," then I will continue to live in him long after this physical corruptible body of matter has returned to the animated universal elements from which it was formed. A facsimile of "I," the mind/spirt that has developed in the enclosure of my ancestral spirits, will have been imprinted upon the eternal and divine animating principle that pervades all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be.

I believe also, that mankind who is the Lord of creatures, and currently the Most High in the creation and the temporary tabernacle/tent of the height to which the evolving mind of the singularity of origin has attained, is not the end of the evolutionary process, and that a new species will evolve from the body of Mankind, and that new species, which will be the "Son of Man" will be one with his origin and will and has already visited his dead past.

I believe that he is the first and the last, the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, The Father and the Son, who are the one being that exists over the vast expanse of time within this period of universal activity. This universal body, in which the Godhead that evolves is the "Son of Man," will descended into the Great Abyss, into that seemingly bottomless pit, "The Black hole," where all that was, is ,and will be, is condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which will be resurrected to continue in the eternal process of growth/evolution.

I believe that it is more reasonable to believe in a personal God, than it is to believe that there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible.

 

[Dunemeister]

The following assumptions are simply banal (and bordering on stupid):

1. Religious believers have no evidence whatsoever for their beliefs.
2. Evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief.
3. Any position that entails or involves mysteries of any sort are to be ruled out.
4. Atheism is not such a position as described in 3.

 

[Mr Cheese]

One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants.
he saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him.
Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied,
“A piece of truth.” “Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?”
his attendant asked. “No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
From 108 Treasures for the Heart: A Guide for Daily Living by Benny Liow

In Buddhism Mara is the lord of misfortune, sin, destruction and Death. Mara is the ruler of desire and death, the two evils that chain man to the wheel of ceaseless rebirth. Mara reviles man, blinds him, guides him toward sensuous desires; once man is in his bondage, Mara is free to destroy him.
Buddhist tradition holds that Buddha encountered Mara on several occasions. When he abandoned the traditional ascetic practices of Hinduism, Mara reproached him for straying from the path of purity. Mara later reappeared as a Brahmin, criticising him for neglecting the techniques of the yogins. At another time, Mara persuades householders in a village to refuse to give alms to the Buddha. Mara also accuses Buddha of sleeping too much, and not keeping busy like the villagers.
In a famous incident similar to the temptation of Jesus in the Christian religion, Mara urges Buddha to become a universal king and establish a great empire in which men can live in peace. He reminds Buddha that he can turn the Himalayas into gold if he but wishes so that all men will become rich. Buddha replies that a single man’s wants are so insatiable that even two such golden mountains would fail to satisfy him.”
While Mara is unable to subjugate Buddha, he is more successful with Buddha’s followers, even approaching the Buddha’s own brother, Ananda. As the source of evil, he causes misunderstanding between teachers and pupils, casts doubt on the value of Buddha’s sayings by calling them nothing but poetry, or encourages monks to waste their time on abstruse speculations. Worse, he appears in the guise of a monk, nun, relative or prominent Brahmin, bringing false news that a disciple is destined to be a new Buddha. If the disciple succumbs to the temptation, he will be filled with sinful pride. Mara could even appear in the form of Gautama Buddha in order to confuse Buddhists or lead them astray.
Mara is lord of all men who are bound by sense desires. His origin, according to Theravada commentators, was as a rebellious prince who seized control of our world from the supreme god of the highest heaven. As prince of this world, Mara can boast of possessing great majesty and influence. Though he has only a spirit body, he is endowed with the five modes of sensual pleasure, has plenty to eat and drink, and lives to amuse himself.
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/mara.html

Reflection for January 29, 2008:A piece of truth « Prayers and Reflections

 

[Smoke]

One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants.
he saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him.
Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied,
“A piece of truth.” “Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?”
his attendant asked. “No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
From 108 Treasures for the Heart: A Guide for Daily Living by Benny Liow

Krishnamurti told a variation on that story when he dissolved the Order of the Star in the East in 1929:

You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket.

The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?"

"He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil.

"That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend.

"Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it."

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. ...

Your prejudices, your fears, your authorities, your churches new and old -- all these, I maintain, are a barrier to understanding. I cannot make myself clearer than this. I do not want you to agree with me, I do not want you to follow me, I want you to understand what I am saying.


​

 

[Storm]

The following assumptions are simply banal (and bordering on stupid):

1. Religious believers have no evidence whatsoever for their beliefs.
2. Evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief.
3. Any position that entails or involves mysteries of any sort are to be ruled out.
4. Atheism is not such a position as described in 3.

I have to agree that these are major flaws in your argument.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.

-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

What was the understandable motive for the big bang?
What was the understandable motive for life to start on this planet?
What is my motivation for listening to a small minority of people that believe there is no deity because they have antiseptic views of their existence?
There is hundreds of thousands of years worth of cultures that have believed in such things and they all have or had their reasons, provable or otherwise.

Also
I agree with Riverwolf: “Deities live within the human psyche IMO.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also
I agree with Riverwolf: “Deities live within the human psyche IMO.”

So do knife-weilding psychopaths who hide in bushes (though they don't exclusively live there).

2. Evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief.

I've got a quibble with this. I would say that evidence of a forensic nature (interpreting the term broadly) is required to have a warranted belief about a physical thing. And I include any physical manifestations or ramifications of an otherwise-supernatural god in the realm of "physical things".

A couple of qualifying notes, though:

- this evidence doesn't necessarily need to be shareable with others (though because people can be fooled, personal experiences aren't necessarily conclusive evidence of the thing perceived).
- it's understandable that a completely non-physical god would have no forensic evidence whatsoever (though this does bring up the question of how any of us would know about such a god in the first place).

 

[Storm]

I've got a quibble with this. I would say that evidence of a forensic nature (interpreting the term broadly) is required to have a warranted belief about a physical thing. And I include any physical manifestations or ramifications of an otherwise-supernatural god in the realm of "physical things".

Fair enough. But another flaw of the OP is that it doesn't seem to consider alternative theologies like my own or pantheism at all. (He did say theists, admittedly, but that's so widely misused to mean all believers that I don't know whether that's what he meant or not.)

Anyway, in the case of such theologies, is the cosmos itself not forensic evidence? The data is unchanging, it's all about interpretation.

- this evidence doesn't necessarily need to be shareable with others (though because people can be fooled, personal experiences aren't necessarily conclusive evidence of the thing perceived).

So you would count my theophany, for instance, as forensic evidence, just not conclusive?

- it's understandable that a completely non-physical god would have no forensic evidence whatsoever (though this does bring up the question of how any of us would know about such a god in the first place).

Easy: every such theology I'm even glancingly familiar with holds to the idea of a non-physical (spiritual) level of reality. A strictly spiritual God would reveal itself by spiritual means.

 

[Alex_G]

Here is something I wrote a long long time ago. I thought it might be interesting to post it here.

--------

It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity.

This is my proposition. Now I will attempt to support it.
Here goes.

-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)

-There is precedent for people hiding in bushes. I myself have hidden in a few bushes during childhood games of hide and seek.(which also supports that people do, and can, in fact hide;supporting another part of my proposition)
-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.

-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.
-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.

Clearly, it is far more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in my bushes than it is to believe in a deity. Still, I don't believe there is a man hiding in my bushes.

But lets go further. Believing in a deity is one thing, but believing in a deity and then further going on to define his attributes, absent of any evidence, is problematic.
Now I would have to believe the man in my bushes had a 12 inch knife, had escaped from a very specific sanitarium, and was on a mission to cut out my liver and sell it on ebay. Still, believing all that is more reasonable than believing in an all powerful, all loving, personal god that 'wants' us to follow jesus.
Why? as well as all the above reasons for a 'man in the bushes'(sans knife and murderous intent), there is also precedent for things such as the existence of knives, homicidal behavior, and organ removal.
Again, there is no precedent for the qualities 'all loving' 'omniscient' 'omnipresent' or pretty much any of the other attributes most believers assign their deity.

Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.

Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep worrying about that possible maniac, and given no reason to believe he is out there, why would anyone believe something far less reasonable?

Maybe the deity is hiding out in a bush in the garden behind your mind? A voyer of thought, or a serial killer of conciousness

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. But another flaw of the OP is that it doesn't seem to consider alternative theologies like my own or pantheism at all. (He did say theists, admittedly, but that's so widely misused to mean all believers that I don't know whether that's what he meant or not.)

Well, I doubt he knew your theology when he wrote the OP. And I think pantheism is more of an explanation for why there isn't any evidence than an evidence-based claim anyhow.

Anyway, in the case of such theologies, is the cosmos itself not forensic evidence? The data is unchanging, it's all about interpretation.

Sure, it's evidence. What is it evidence for, besides just the existence of the cosmos?

So you would count my theophany, for instance, as forensic evidence, just not conclusive?

I don't know. I'm not really in a position to judge its quality as evidence, not having seen it for myself. Speaking for myself, though, if I were to experience something very astounding but apparently unique to me, I don't think I could discount the possibility that the cause of the experience was internal to me and not an external phenomenon.

Easy: every such theology I'm even glancingly familiar with holds to the idea of a non-physical (spiritual) level of reality. A strictly spiritual God would reveal itself by spiritual means.

Except we're physical beings. If something's perceived by us, then IMO this implies some sort of physical manifestation to be perceived, even if it's just a matter of that god inducing current in certain neurons in our brain to trigger a particular thought.

 

[Storm]

Well, I doubt he knew your theology when he wrote the OP.

That's why I include pantheism.

And I think pantheism is more of an explanation for why there isn't any evidence than an evidence-based claim anyhow.

My kneejerk reaction is to reject this, but I'll ask you to elaborate first.

I can see how you would say that for the "sexed up atheism" version, but there are others.

Sure, it's evidence. What is it evidence for, besides just the existence of the cosmos?

That's where the interpretation comes in.

I don't know. I'm not really in a position to judge its quality as evidence, not having seen it for myself. Speaking for myself, though, if I were to experience something very astounding but apparently unique to me, I don't think I could discount the possibility that the cause of the experience was internal to me and not an external phenomenon.

Fair enough, but it's not unique to me. Countless others have had similar experiences, throughout history.

Except we're physical beings.

Uncontested. However, whether we're EXCLUSIVELY physical beings is not so obvious, and contested rather hotly.

If something's perceived by us, then IMO this implies some sort of physical manifestation to be perceived, even if it's just a matter of that god inducing current in certain neurons in our brain to trigger a particular thought.

And we're back to interpretation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My kneejerk reaction is to reject this, but I'll ask you to elaborate first.

I can see how you would say that for the "sexed up atheism" version, but there are others.

Well, I think it all comes from the rationale for pantheism. We can all acknowledge that the universe and everything in it exists, but the pantheist wants to call it "God"; why?

That's where the interpretation comes in.

Indeed.

Maybe I can put it another way: how is "the cosmos" evidence for God?

Looking at it in one way, I can see how it can be one step in an evidentiary chain: the claim "the cosmos was created by God" does imply the existence of God, and the claim does fail if no cosmos exists. However, without other evidence, we've got no compelling reason for the "God" part of the claim. It might as well be "the cosmos was created by Theodore Roosevelt" or "the cosmos was created by pixies", because mere existence of the cosmos works equally well as "evidence" for all these claims.

Fair enough, but it's not unique to me. Countless others have had similar experiences, throughout history.

And countless people throughout history have experienced astounding, compelling things that were completely internal to themselves. If it were me, I think I'd have at least some uncertainty about which category I belonged to.

Uncontested. However, whether we're EXCLUSIVELY physical beings is not so obvious, and contested rather hotly.

Fair enough. However, most gods that people actually believe in do have physical ramifications and manifestations, whether as creators of the universe or as ongoing intervenors and miracle-wielders. Dunemeister objected to the idea that "evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief." Meanwhile, many of the believers in his god do cite forensic evidence (or what they consider forensic evidence) as justification for their beliefs. For example, there's no shortage of churches were you can find collections of relics such as purported pieces of the "true cross".

 

[Storm]

Well, I think it all comes from the rationale for pantheism. We can all acknowledge that the universe and everything in it exists, but the pantheist wants to call it "God"; why?

I don't feel comfortable speculating on others' motives for their theologies.

However, to answer the question from my own perspective, I believe it's a conscious being. I don't have any deep-seated psychological need to believe this, it's just what makes the most sense to me.

Indeed.

Maybe I can put it another way: how is "the cosmos" evidence for God?

Well, from the perspective of the theology itself, it borders on tautology. Of course, that's interpretation, too.

Looking at it in one way, I can see how it can be one step in an evidentiary chain: the claim "the cosmos was created by God" does imply the existence of God, and the claim does fail if no cosmos exists. However, without other evidence, we've got no compelling reason for the "God" part of the claim. It might as well be "the cosmos was created by Theodore Roosevelt" or "the cosmos was created by pixies", because mere existence of the cosmos works equally well as "evidence" for all these claims.

Granted.

And countless people throughout history have experienced astounding, compelling things that were completely internal to themselves. If it were me, I think I'd have at least some uncertainty about which category I belonged to.

1) It's difficult to articulate, as the certainty is part of the experience.

2) Nevertheless, I've tested it to the best of my ability and been satisfied by the results.

Fair enough. However, most gods that people actually believe in do have physical ramifications and manifestations, whether as creators of the universe or as ongoing intervenors and miracle-wielders. Dunemeister objected to the idea that "evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief." Meanwhile, many of the believers in his god do cite forensic evidence (or what they consider forensic evidence) as justification for their beliefs. For example, there's no shortage of churches were you can find collections of relics such as purported pieces of the "true cross".

True, foolishness abounds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't feel comfortable speculating on others' motives for their theologies.

However, to answer the question from my own perspective, I believe it's a conscious being. I don't have any deep-seated psychological need to believe this, it's just what makes the most sense to me.

Okay... but what about the universe suggests to you that it is a conscious being?

Well, from the perspective of the theology itself, it borders on tautology. Of course, that's interpretation, too.

So, if I get your meaning, it works something like this?

- the cosmos is God (or part of God)
- the cosmos exists
- therefore God exists

Is that it? If that's the case, then I think the part where evidence would be useful is the first point.

1) It's difficult to articulate, as the certainty is part of the experience.

Okay, but feelings of certainty are not guarantees of correctness, are they?

2) Nevertheless, I've tested it to the best of my ability and been satisfied by the results.

Fair enough.

True, foolishness abounds.

Relics aside, there are no shortage of claims about the physical world in Christianity... or most religions, for that matter. And physical effects create the potential for physical, i.e. forensic, evidence.