The imaginary God

 In this post we will be exploring the following reasons people give for being an atheist:

Reason 1: There is no scientific evidence for God (Polled 56 votes)

Reason 2: The religion was inconsistent with reality (Polled 46 votes)

Reason 3: Real miracles don’t happen (Polled 12 votes) 

Reason 4: I couldn’t find a good reason to believe in God (Polled 11 votes)

Reason 5: Animals don’t talk (Polled 6 votes)

Reason 6: Reality is not dependent on any God (Polled 4 votes)

Reason 7: Science disproves God’s existence (Polled 2 votes)

Everything you know about the nature of the universe, all of your knowledge, exists as patterns on your brain that have developed via the input of senses. 

Unfortunately, these senses are vulnerable to being faulty or manipulated. Should they all be faulty and or manipulated, you would have no way of knowing for certain if anything you are experiencing is real. Even the five people who you ask to verify your senses could be a manifestation of your faulty or manipulated senses. 

So where does that leave us? What you are left with is that the only thing you can be even remotely certain of is that you exist. This is called Solipsism. 

Why then should we believe anything at all?

Personally, since my senses seem consistent, I can manage to pull from them some semblance of my existence potentially being meaningful, and I innately value the potential meaningfulness of my existence. 

Even should my senses start to become somewhat inconsistent, for example, should I get a brain tumor that causes me to hallucinate, so long as I can account for the defect enough to ignore it, I can manage a meaningful existence. 

So we can manage to get past our lack of certainty in reality by deriving valuable meaning from the consistency of the patterns in our brain. So naturally, any information we manage to gather through consistent observations of our universe is immensely valuable. 

Though there is an issue. Namely, the reality we observe suggests that, at some point, the universe will essentially cease to exist. Thus our existence will ultimately be meaningless making the meaning we pull from our observations paradoxical.

How tragic that everything in our observed reality points to the ultimate meaninglessness of it all. 

One may be tempted to wonder if there exists something beyond what we have observed which can save us from this seemingly inevitable fate? However, the moment we choose to believe in such a thing lacking observations, we will have rejected a piece of knowledge made meaningful through the only thing we have, consistent observation, and, in doing so, we will have rejected the value of consistent observation itself. If we choose to reject one consistent observation then why believe any consistent observation at all?

I agree with this sentiment. I choose to accept the reality I observe. That reality being that I will die and the universe will evaporate into oblivion, and any meaningful existence is to be had in the time I am privileged to be alive. I cannot accept God as a part of the reality I observe, for I have not observed God at all, let alone with any amount of consistency, thus I cannot assert to know that He exists. 

However, such a matter does not discard God’s existence from the table of possibilities. It merely categorizes the existence of God as a hypothesis and nothing more. 

Theories require some matter of consistent observable evidence and the best evidence we have is records of claims which cannot be replicated without God’s collaboration. Such collaboration, should there be any, would seem to have been withheld from public observation; restricting concrete evidence to chosen individuals. The testimony of individuals, which cannot be replicated with consistency by everyone, is not viable evidence for classification as a theory.

Therefore, God’s existence, while possible, lacks any compelling evidence which would demand belief on behalf of anyone who desires for their perception of a consistent reality to maintain meaning and value. 

Hope, on the other hand, one can find hope in the possibility of the hypothesis of God’s existence without compromising the value and meaning of consistent observations; so long as God’s existence is never asserted as anything more than a hypothesis, hope is not intellectually compromising. 

So, where my observations tell me that the meaningfulness of my life is subjectively temporary, I can combat the paradox through hope in the possibility of the existence of a benevolent God.

Likewise, I can hope for the possibility of miraculous events, a miracle hypothesis, without compromising the reality I observe.

In conclusion, our existence is meaningful because we can seem to gain knowledge of reality through consistent observations. To reject the reality we observe in favor of something we have not observed is to undermine the meaningfulness of our existence. However, where meaningful existence is threatened by what we observe, further meaning can be gleaned through hope in the hypothetical. So long as those things hoped for are never held in the place of scientific theories and laws, and so long as they do not compel you into willful ignorance, they do not compromise the meaning one gleans from that which is consistently observable.

The question we are then left with is whether or not God is worth hoping for. In the next post, we will dive into the issue of God’s neglect and the effect that has on the worth of hope for the existence of God.

Next Post: Hide and seek losers go to Hell

Previous Post: Introduction

Questions for my readers: 

What are your thoughts about the assertion that humans are incapable of certainty? 

What are your thoughts about the reason I give for why we choose to believe our senses?

What are your thoughts about the idea that if we reject the reality we can observe with consistency in favor of something we cannot, we are undermining the meaningfulness of our existence? 

What are your thoughts about the notion that one can hope for that which remains unobserved without undermining the meaningfulness of our existence?

50 Reasons people give for being an atheist

Introduction

Approximately nine years ago, an atheist respectfully made me aware of some highly hypocritical expectations of mine.

I had approached him with the expectation that he would consider rejecting his position as an atheist in favor of Christianity. Somehow I was surprised when he requested that I also consider rejecting my position as a Christian in favor of atheism.

This simple exchange made me realize that I was asking Him to takes steps towards considering Christianity that I, as a person raised in the steeps of Christianity, had never taken. I had no idea what the journey from atheist to Christian would be like. 

When I tried to imagine how I might have become a Christian had I started as an atheist, I realized that, with my reluctance to consider worldviews outside of my own, I might have never become a Christian. In fact, with the mindset I had at the time, should Christianity be false, I would never come to discover that reality either.

I was taught to believe that my position as a Christian was the correct one by means of faith. Furthermore, to question my correctness would be to have little faith. So naturally, I was hesitant to consider atheism and question my Christianity. 

Eventually, I came to understand faith differently. I believed that truth would triumph over lies when both were placed under scrutiny. Therefore, to fear pitting my Christianity against the criticisms of atheists would be a greater lack of faith in the truth of my beliefs. So I began the journey to consider the criticisms of atheists. A journey that was not so one-sided as I had thought it might be.

This blog series exists as a record of the way this journey has shaped my present position. My intention for this series is not to convince anyone to agree with my position. After all, one of the things I have learned is that my position is both based on my limited and flawed understandings. My intention for this series is to open myself up to criticisms from both sides so that I can discover the limits and flaws of my understanding. Furthermore, so that I can garner assurance from both sides that I have given each a fair shake so to speak.

Should this blog happen to help anyone identify which side they prefer, regardless of the side they choose, I am happy I might have helped you in your journey. 

This series is the more condensed, less redundant, up to date version of another version that exists on this blog.

Please read on and leave your thoughts in the comments, and follow for updates as I continue this journey.

Next post: The Imaginary God

False Teachers

As my wife and I continue the enriching journey of spiritual rediscovery, we are finding that our beliefs are frequently changing and growing. Oftentimes these changes are exciting and comforting as they enlighten our understanding of the human condition and the hope we can have in spite of our world’s bleak fate. Other times these changes are scary and uncomfortable as they shift us away from some beliefs that we once thought of as highly important. 

It is these ladder changes that lead to a recent conversation with my wife. She expressed a fear of hers. She feared that we might lead people away from the truth by unwittingly teaching falsehoods. I could relate having wrestled with this fear various times in the past. Though interestingly, I no longer felt that same fear, and I knew why. 

There are two things I know for certain about my understanding of God. First, seeing that what is limited cannot fully comprehend what is unlimited, my understanding is incomplete. Second, seeing that God is goodness and my sin keeps me from knowing good from bad in every situation, my understanding is flawed. Furthermore, unless anyone should be without limit or be morally perfect, I assume that these two things are true about everyone’s understanding of God. 

The thing about an incomplete understanding is that you cannot know in what capacity your understanding is incomplete; same goes for a flawed understanding. Therefore, you can never be certain of the extent of the limits and flaws corrupting any lesson taught by a human. Furthermore, you cannot account for the effect of a student’s own limits and flaws on interpreting the message. In other words, there is no teaching about God without corruption through limited and flawed understanding. 

What then separates a false teacher from a righteous one? On these premises you could make a valid argument that there is no difference and then fully embrace agnosticism. Personally, I find little to no hope in doing that. What hope is there in a belief in God who is closed to relationship with His creation, not permitting an extent of Himself to be known and not correcting the misunderstandings of those who will accept correction? 

As many atheists like to ask, “What is the difference between a disengaged God and no God at all?” In asking this it is assumed that there is no good answer. I don’t have one, so I’m not about to argue with the point. 

There is, on the other hand, a hope to be found in an engaged God, and it is in such a God that I value hope for. What then separates a false teacher from righteous ones? Here are the traits I believe qualify a false teacher:

• Someone who teaches what they believe to be false as though they believed it to be true.

• Deceivers

• Someone who is willfully ignorant, refusing to question the validity of their beliefs; they do not recognize the limits and faults of their understanding and do not seek correction.

• Idolaters of limited and faulty understanding.

How this relates to me personally. I have been trusted as a Sunday school teacher in the Wesleyan church yet I have come to hold beliefs contrary to the beliefs of the Wesleyan church. For those who may be concerned by this, be assured, I recognize that Sunday school in this case is meant to be a time to teach/learn about the Wesleyan beliefs, not a time to teach my personal beliefs. 

I have no issue teaching the Wesleyan beliefs so long as I have the freedom to make known when I disagree, of course without going into details about my personal beliefs in class. Should I teach on a Wesleyan belief that I don’t necessarily believe, I will teach saying, “Though I personally disagree with the Wesleyan church on this point, traditionally in the Wesleyan church it is believed that…” meanwhile reserving my own opinion for time not dedicated to the study of the Wesleyan beliefs.

If anyone would like to suggest a different approach to how I should handle my teaching situation I would be happy to discuss it. Thank you all for your contributions. 

Systemic Racism

The term “systemic racism” has caused a lot of controversy as of late, and honestly I was not sure what to do with it for a while. However, after much research and conversations with my incredible wife, this is the understanding I have come to hold. I want to share it as a point of discussion. Perhaps it is flawed or can be improved. So please feel free to contribute to the conversation. 

There are two kinds of systemic racism in my opinion. 

There are systems produced by racists to target people of color. For example, red lining, a system built to intentionally target black people to prevent them from being able to get home loans and government subsidies. I think that most people can agree that this is a racist system.

However there is another type of systemic racism. One that Is less understood and thus is causing the conflict. The best way my wife and I can describe it is using an analogy she came up with. Namely, just as a system which produces hamburgers is a hamburger system, so too is a system which produces racism a racist system. 

The United States has done a good job removing the fist kind of systemic racism; red lining among other things is now illegal. However the effects of those systems have made black people disproportionately susceptible to impoverished situations, which brings them up against other systems that are rigged against poor people; systems which hurt movement between income brackets. 

These systems may not have been built to target black people, however, combined with the aftermath of past systemic racism, they have helped to make the face of poverty a black face. 

Someone near and dear to me once said that they are more wary of black people, not because they are racist, but because it is just factual that black people are more proportionately impoverished and thus more likely to do something desperate. 

Though this person does not consider themselves to be racist, because they don’t believe black people are inferior racially, just more financially unfortunate, they still exhibit racist tendencies. Others will look at the disproportionate amount of people of color in poverty and draw implicit or explicit racist conclusions of superiority. 

These tendencies manifest in implicit bias’, people with ethnic sounding names not getting job call backs, people of color not being trusted, people of color being assumed to be unsafe, (feel free to add to the list in the comments) and so on. 

Therefore, because past systemic racism has made people of color disproportionately affected by other systems of inequity, making the face of poverty a black face, thereby producing racism in the population at large. These systems are systemically racist and we need to acknowledge our bias’, and work together to dismantle them, eliminating the racism that has infected our world.

So let's discuss solutions to these issues in the comments.

The Legitimate Points of Rhett McLaghlin

On Monday 2/3/2020, Rhett and Link released the most recent podcast episode in a series where they break down their spiritual journeys. I listened to it and would highly recommend anyone do the same. Though make sure you start with the first episode entitled “Our Lost Years” (you can find a link at the bottom of this post). Fair warning, this series of podcasts may shake your beliefs, but if you intend to make an informed decision about God then you owe it to yourself, and anyone you try to share the Gospel with, to listen to this. Yesterday, today is 2/4/2020, was Rhett’s story and Next Monday is Link’s story, which I look forward to. 

I’m going to be straight with you all, my story is a lot like Rhett’s. I’ve asked the same questions and suffered through the same crises. I relate to Rhett’s story a lot, and in yesterday’s episode, Rhett presented the most respectful, rational, honest, and valid list of reasons I have ever heard to not be a Christian. I agree with him on every point, and yet, there are a few key differences between his story and mine that are why I remain a Chistian. No, I am not better than him because of this. My reasons are no more or less valid than his. They are just different. Whether my reasons for remaining a Christian are better than his reasons for leaving is a matter up for each person to decide for themselves, but this blog post is not about that. This blog post is going to be less a criticism of Rhett’s story and more of a criticism of modern Christianity in light of the very legitimate criticisms Rhett has brought to the table. 

Let me start by posing this question to all of my Christian readers. Is it possible for a limited and flawed human being, to have a complete and flawless understanding of an unlimited and flawless God? I suspect that most would be inclined to answer “no”, if not, I’m not sure anything I have to say will mean anything to you. If you answered “no”, then that would mean that you recognize a difference between God as you understand Him and God as He actually is. This means that there will come a time when you stand before God and find that He is not exactly who you expected Him to be. 

You may be more correct than others were, but you will still be faced with the fact that you were wrong to some extent. I have no way of knowing how this will be resolved, but I imagine God will know whether you truly desire Him as your Lord or if you prefer the idol of your limited and faulty understanding.

Let me pose you another question. What then makes you any different then the non-Christians who will find themselves standing before a God they do not know? If your answer is that you accepted Jesus and your Lord and Savior and they didn’t, read my first question again but this time replace the word God with the name Jesus. He remains the only way to life, the only truth, but suddenly humanity is on a more level playing field; there is truly not one who is fully correct and fully faultless, whether you are a Chistian or not.

These questions reveal a lot. However, I want to focus on the point that there is no one with a complete and faultless understanding of God; you and I, and everyone else, is wrong about God to some extent, unless there is no God, in which case only the atheists are right. Pair this with my first blog post in the “Exploring 50 reasons to be an atheist” series, my “The Value of Meaning” post, and every point Rhett makes, and suddenly it becomes clear that certainty in anything is not a luxury allotted to human beings. 

Therefore, let us stop requiring Christians to assert that they are 100% certain in what they believe. Jesus, did not require 100% certainty of any of His disciples prior to entering a relationship with them. In fact, Jesus seemed less concerned with the certainty of his disciples and more concerned with their confidence. Furthermore, He was well aware that neither certainty nor confidence are a binary thing but each exists on a spectrum, hence His regular referral to “little faith” or mustard seed size faith; faith being synonymous with confidence, as it is the confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11:1).

It is not a sin nor is it wrong in any way to have little faith/confidence. So let us stop acting like it is. From personal experience, I’m not even sure “big” faith is something we are all meant to have. Lately I’ve gotten the feeling that the main reason God has not been obvious with me about His existence is because of the burden He has placed on my heart for all of the people who wrestle with the fact that they lack certainty. If I never had to wrestle with lacking solid evidence then I might not have been able to truly hear and understand where the atheists and agnostics are coming from. 

Much like Rhett, I have exchanged my attempts to be certain for my desire to have hope. However, unlike Rhett, in spite of all of the Holy Bible’s flaws, I still find that its narrative, brings a more appealing Hope than I have found anywhere else. Granted, my take on the Holy Bible is not widely agreed upon, as you will learn should you follow my blog. There are many understandings of Christianity that present a hope that I do not find appealing, some even, like some mentioned by Rhett, that I find appalling. So I cannot blame people for rejecting Christianity. Furthermore, I still have yet to address the 475 contradictions in the Bible.This blog is mutually my effort to seek a greater Hope than what I have, and an effort to offer the hope I have to anyone who needs it. So we will see how my stance changes as I take that journey. 

As you can imagine, researching 475 contradictions takes a lot of time and effort, and presently I can only give what little freetime I have toward conducting it. If you have found my blog to be valuable, please consider buying me more time to work on this by supporting me on Patreon (follow the link at the top of the page). If things start picking up I may even be able to start offering additional rewards to those who choose to support me. Regardless of if you can give or not, thank you for supporting me by reading, sharing, and providing pushback/feedback. 

The Earbiscuts Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCgz-MiNE4

EarBiscuts on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3j9nu2qpJrUxEXp5qMudM7 

Pointless Hot Topic Issues: Debates that will only ever be a waste of time

Once upon a debate, I came to the realization that debating certain popular topics was often a pointless endeavor. I have known this for some time but it was not until recently that I finally developed an effective way of explaining why debating these topics is just a waste of everyone’s time.

I had just gotten in touch with an atheist to address a question he had asked broadly to theists. We had a pleasant conversation which lead to him asking for my thoughts on another post of his. 

The post merely asked if humans are moral by nature or if our morality is to be attributed to religion. He made the claim that if it is natural, then that would mean religions are falsely atributting natural moral progress to their religious influence.

The trouble with asking, “which is correct” with regards to this question of ethical development, is that both positions are completely valid with respect to their fundamental worldview. 

If God does not exist then all moral development can be attributed to human development. 

Furthermore, if God does exist then, speaking specifically from the Christian worldview, perfect ethics has its roots in the ethics defined by God in the time before humanity's rebellion.

So what we have is a debate between two positions where the validity of each position is based upon what position you take on a related topic; namely whether or not you take the position of God existing. Even worse, the validity of which position you take regarding the related topic is rooted in the position you take in yet another related topic; namely is God’s existence possible. 

The resulting debate is an unproductive tennis match between two people who think they are winning over their opponent when in reality neither agrees upon how the game is supposed to be played in the first place. 

Therefore, if someone takes a different position than you on a topic, do not debate them on the matter unless you can first both agree on all of the same determining points. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, or worse, deafening the ears of your opponent to any sensible thing you may have to say in the future.

This same principle applies to just about every hot topic issue.

If God does not exist, then evolution is a given with regards to explaining how life began. 

If God does exist, then evolution is not necessary to explain how life began, though it may or may not still be an active part of the how biological life works. 

If God does not exist then the ethics of abortion are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress.

If God does exist, and if He dictates that unborn life is of equal value to that of the mother’s life, then abortion may be considered on par with murder. 

If God does not exist, then the ethics of LGBTQ topics are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress. 

If God does exist, and if He dictates that the LGBTQ movement is harmful to humanity, then the LGBTQ moevment should probably be opposed. 

If God does not exist, then the Holy Bible is full of crazy impossible myths, and should never be taken seriously. 

If God does exist, then the Holy Bible is full of very possible events that could be a part of our history and essential to how we prepare for the future. 

If God does not exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. 

If God does exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not still depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. Please reserve church pulpits for topics pertaining to God and salvation so as not to drive people away from God with unrelated opinions. Also, God’s promise not to flood the whole earth again does not protect us from human caused flooding, nor would global warming result in the “whole” earth being flooded.

If the evidence for global warming is true, then global warming is a serious issue that we should take action to prevent. 

If the evidence for global warming has been manipulated, then the consequences of abusing the environment may not be as dire as claims suggest. Regardless, taking care of our environment improves the quality of life for people present and people in the future. So we ought to take care of the environment as a way to love our neighbors. The fact that the world is going to end someday does not mean we shouldn’t bother doing good by others.  

Both sides of each above topic is completely valid with respect to the position taken on the determining topics (the determining topic in this case being the existence of God). Unless you first agree with someone on all root points preceding a topic, do not waste your time and hurt your rapport by debating it. 

Reasons 1-7 people give for being an Atheist: The Imaginary God

Let’s begin with the most common reason people have for being an atheist along with a few related reasons (commonality as determined by a poll I made to the Atheists Facebook page. Participants voted for the reasons they had to become an atheist upon becoming an atheist. Any reasons they acquired after were to remain unchecked. Bear in mind that I try not to come off as a Christian in my posts to this page so as not to create needless barriers to conversation. 

This group is private for the safety of its members and any mention of individuals in this group or others like it will be kept confidential. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/185348921846461/permalink/892642764450403/).

Reason 1: “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God.” (Polled 56 votes)

Reason 2: “The religion was inconsistent with reality.” (Polled 46 votes)

Reason 3: “Real Miracles Don’t Happen.” (Polled 12 votes)

Reason 4: “I couldn’t find a good reason to believe.” (Polled 11 votes)

Reason 5: “Animals Don’t talk.” (Polled 6 votes)

Reason 6: "Reality is not dependent on any god." (Polled 4 votes)

Reason 7: “Science has disproved God.” (Polled 2 votes)

So far as I am aware, there is indeed no scientific evidence that proves God exists. 

I am aware of many Christian apologists who point to certain scientific laws, or examples of logic, which, in their minds, point to God, and they very well might. However, we don’t know that for certain. Just because the thing these facts point to remains undiscovered, does not mean we should assume they point to God.

Other apologists point to historical claims as though they were evidence. However, there are a number of problems with this, but what it all boils down to is that you cannot prove the Bible is not historical fiction, like Forrest Gump. 

Considering the fact that historical fiction injects a fictional story into a highly historically accurate setting, you cannot assert that the presence of some historical facts prove the other claims are true as well.

Even if you were to find archaeological evidence that one of the miraculous events in scripture actually happened, you cannot assume that God is the true explanation for how it happened.

Then there are those who assert their personal experiences of God, Miracles, or other supernatural phenomenon as proof. 

On one hand, it is not my place to invalidate other people’s experiences. If someone claims to have experienced those things it is possible they have. I cannot blame them for believing what they experienced is as it appeared.

However, when the expectation is that I am too agree with them about the truth of their experiences, I need to consider the other possibilities. When it comes to other possibilities, by definition, even the most improbable natural explanation is more probable than a super natural one. So these things could be caused by anything ranging from a strange natural phenomenon to a brain tumor.

So, even though I cannot accept the supernatural explanation as the absolute truth, it is not intellectually compromising to subjectively hope that the supernatural explanation is true, so long as it remains a possibility and no other possibilities become confirmed (a hoped for explanation should never take precedence over a proved explanation).

Furthermore, a hoped for explanation should never keep you from seeking out the truth of the matter; giving equal consideration to each possibility and maintaining an open mind to more possibilities should they arise.

Additionally, to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery is to rob one’s self of the ability to live a life that can better humanity. So why hope for the supernatural?

“Hope”, regardless of its source, provides real and measurable benefits to those who have it. As detailed in this article from Psychology Today:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure-proof/201303/5-ways-hope-impacts-health-happiness

It is common for atheists to find their hope in both themselves and the goodness of humanity. This is a very valuable hope to have, and I would encourage anyone to have this hope if they can bring themselves to do it. However, not only are there many who have lost the ability to find hope in themselves or the goodness of humanity, but hope in oneself will pass with one’s dying body (or dying energy source given the possibility of transhumanism), and hope for the the goodness of humanity will pass with the life of the last human or other living thing. 

In the face of these inevitable realities, it would appear to me that both hope in one’s self and hope in the goodness of humanity are temporary and conditional. So given the possibility of a non-conditional hope, one that overcomes death, and one that does not require you to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery, why shouldn’t I have that hope, at least until something better comes along? 

One possible non-conditional hope I have come across is hope in a God. However, in order to be a source of hope in this case, this God would have to have the following attributes: 

1. A God that is not subject to entropy and thus must transcend a material form. Similar to the way a game developer transcends the binary that makes up the fabric of the virtual world they create.

2. A God with power over life, death, and the entropy of the universe.

3. A God with goodwill for humanity, whatever that would look like.

I have run these points by many atheists, and surprisingly a vast majority take no issue with the idea of hoping our reality is one wherein a benevolent God exists. Granted, and as could only be expected, there are a number of caveats tied to this exception.

1. That hope should never be presented as proof or evidence.

2. No one should ever be expected to share in that same hope.

3. So long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now.

4. Only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending death/doom.

5. The thing you hope for should be possible.

However, hope for God can meet all of these caveats.

First, that hope should never be presented as proof or evidence. I do not present my hope for God as proof or evidence. So check.

Second, no one should ever be expected to share in that same hope. I do not expect others to share in my hope. I may offer my hope, present my case, as I am here, to those who are interested or to those searching for hope, but they can choose to reject it without judgment from me.

Third, so long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now. There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the notion of “letting God be the driver of your life”.

Letting God drive does not mean you do nothing. It means that you do anything you can without resolving to a means that brings about more suffering. 

For example, letting God drive the way you get money does not mean you sit around until you get money. It means that you do anything you can to get the money except anything that would require hurting someone else, even fractionally (I understand that there are some Old Testament laws in the Bible that demand penalties of suffering and death, I will address those in a later post). 

The only time I imagine God would ever make something happen by supernatural means is if it cannot be done by natural means or without hurting someone. An exception to this would be if God explicitly, and without a shadow of a doubt, told me to wait and do nothing, though I may still try to get a brain scan as soon as possible.

Furthermore, all of these same things apply to helping other people. Never just pray for someone. In addition to prayer, make sure you have done anything within your power to help them or to point them to someone more qualified to help them.

Fourth, only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending doom/death. I have already addressed the possibility that hope for a benevolent God can stand in the face of life's inevitable end.

Fifth, the thing you hope for should be possible. This is where we must address the notion that science has disproved the existence of God. First, science cannot prove non-existence, very few people disagree with this. However, some people claim that, since humans have, or soon will have, holistic knowledge of how the universe works, and that understanding does not require God, God therefore does not exist.

The universe may not necessitate a God, but that does not mean one does not exist, though one could make the argument that it does render hope for a God to be pointless.  

Others claim that humanity has eyes on every means of communication, so if God did anything, we would detect it. Now I have addressed these notions on a previous blog post, and rather than go over the whole thing again, here is a link (https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-value-of-meaning.html). This post essentially explains how human beings are biologically unable to be certain that our senses, the only means by which we have to know anything about reality, are giving us a holistic knowledge of reality let alone correct knowledge. Essentially the post posits the idea of Solipsism. Thus, as long as God cannot be disproved, He remains a possibility.

In conclusion, it is valid to hope for God so long as the hope meets certain caveats. However, it is also valid to be atheistic should the existence of God provide no hope. In following posts we will be exploring ways God’s existence may or may not be something that provides hope.

Furthermore, since hope provides both physical and mental benefits, it is valuable in a real and measurable way to hope for God, again within certain caveats.

Finally, non-existence can not be proven nor are humans biologically capable of holistic knowledge of the universe. Thus God’s non-existence cannot be proven and His existence remains a possibility. 

With the possibility of God’s existence there also comes the possibility of the existence of miraculous events. Such a God could have admin privileges to our reality enabling it to bend and break the natural laws of the reality it made as it sees fit. However, considering the consistency of the natural laws, it would seem that this God, should there be one, does not take to bending and breaking them very often, thereby not undercutting the value of such laws. 

In addition, although there are certain scientific laws that suggest our reality should not exist the way it does unless some great intelligence was involved, we cannot assume that a great intelligence is the answer. Furthermore, compounding historically accurate details does not act as proof for historical claims.

It should also be noted that the argument from hope is different from Pascal’s wager in where Pascal considers the possibility of benefits from a belief in God, this considers the very real benefits of hoping for God’s existence.

Next Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist.html

Previous Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist_31.html