Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[mgb]

Please explain exactly what the difference is between a profound belief in god (such as might be found in people who have religious experiences like your own) and belief after witnessing objective evidence for god.

There is all the difference possible. A person who has profound beleif has made a commitment based on free choice. For such people there is no turning back because they understand that meaning is in God not in inferior modes of being (egoism etc.). They have accepted truth and have no interest in 'unaccepting' it. A person for whom objective proof exists is in a quandry if they have not already chosen God. They would feel they must choose God because anything else is wrong. They would feel they have no real choice.

Since we know true believers do sin and sometimes commit heinous crimes, we can conclude that objective proof of god’s existence would not force people to be good.

I doubt that people who commit heinous crimes truly believe in God. Belief is not a 'God hypothesis' it is faith and loyalty to God demonstrated by a virtuous life. Yes, objective proof of god’s existence would not force people to be good. It may force them to pay lip service to goodness and this is not what is required. People can only choose God if they are free to choose something that is not God (self-service, for example).

So god providing objective evidence of its existence would have a beneficial effect. Some people will act righteous but by your definition, not actually be righteous, whilst others will actually be righteous. Of course, your god will know which people are truly righteous and, in the meantime, the world will be a better place because people will behave better.

But would it really? This is a humanist perspective but look at the price that would be paid for this humanist 'goodness'. Imagine a world where proof existed. It would be unimaginably different from ours. Like some exotic world Star Trekkers come across in their travels: a justice system based on 'the proof'; education centered on 'the proof'. Every school child would learn this proof, it would be enshrined in constitutions, it would be everywhere. Such a world would be utterly different from ours. But do you really think it would be better because people effectively have free choice taken from them? How could a person reject God in such a world without being constantly humiliated and guilt ridden? People must be free to reject God if they are to choose Him. Part of our growing into adults involves our confrontation with right and wrong, with good and evil. We need to be free to make adult decisions, otherwise we would be children forever.

We have shown above that there is evidence that honest and total belief in god still allows people to sin so our free will ...is left intact.

Agreed. But the choice between sin and virtue is not the same as the initial choice to believe in God. Sin in a person who has, what you call 'total' belief, is not a rejection of belief in God. It is an abberation. A moment of weakness or wrong thinking.

Let me put this another way. I assume you agree that those people who go to heaven will have objective proof that god exists. Are you then arguing that heaven will deprive people of free will?

In effect, yes. But they will be deprived of nothing since God is all and the alternatives that 'free' will offers are illusions. True goodness is turning from illusion to reality, which is ultimately God. We cannot fall away from God in the sense of a man falling off a cliff (but this imagery is useful). Falling away is really a question of attention. Falling away means giving our attention to something that is not God. But since God is all that is ultimately real we, when we look away from God, must be looking at illusion. This is what the ego is, it is an illusory perspective on existence centered on self. When illusion is rejected it is rejected forever because it is seen to be nothing.