“I can hear it now,” laughed the Red Horseman. “You’re about to feed me the old lie about God’s very perfection necessitating the fact that He exists. After all, part of being a perfect entity is perfect existence, so if we define God as the greatest of all beings imaginable, anything that does not exist cannot be God, because we could always imagine something greater (a God that actually did exist).”
“That’s not what I’m going to say at all. My line of argumentation is actually along altogether different lines.”
“Then stop dawdling and get to it.”
With a glance toward the Lamb, I took a deep breath and began.
“I will, of course, never be able to definitively prove the existence of God to you or to anyone else. But I can at least provide good reasons to think that though atheism and theism in their purest forms are both irrational, nevertheless if we consider the evidence for or against God, the evidence for Him is in fact greater than the evidence against Him.
We need to remember from the outset that atheism in its purest form—sureness that God does not exist—is just as improvable as theism in its purest form—certainty that God definitely exists. For this reason, as I’ve said before, it’s most rational to approach the question from the point of view of some sort of an agnostic: someone who admits that he is in fact unsure about the existence of God.
Now, as I define the term, the purest sort of agnostic would believe the evidence for God is equal either way, and not lean in one direction or another. Some agnostics, though, are more persuaded of God’s non-existence than his existence, and this is because, admitting that they can never know the fact of the matter for certain, they still think that the preponderance of evidence goes against God; at the same time, others might lean in the direction of God’s existence, thinking that the preponderance of evidence is actually in God’s favor. (Thus, many people who call themselves atheists are in fact types of agnostics, though leaning strongly in favor of non-existence.)
Either choice seems more rational to me than the madness of claiming dogmatic sureness on the issue one way or another.
So, to be clear, what I am about to specifically advocate is a type of agnosticism that leans strongly in favor of God’s existence. From this starting point, I’ll show you why it seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is in fact in God’s favor. Keep in mind, however, that I am not necessarily talking about God as He is specifically defined by any single religion—nor am I claiming that God is omnipotent (for how could He create a rock He couldn’t lift, or make a square identical to a circle?). I am, however, talking about a benevolent and wise higher power, and the possibility of paradise on earth.
Now, consider these four reasons carefully why, from an agnostic starting point, a rational man should lean toward being a theist rather than the opposite state of affairs…
Next Entry 9/11/2011