Why don't theists simply state that they believe because they believe and that that's their only real argument?

Home - Quora Link

Before I proceed with my answer, a disclaimer is required. I’m not referring to all atheists. I’m specifically referring to the sort that want to have conversations about “proving” God. Nowhere near all atheists bother with this silly question. I’m specifically talking to the ones that do, and it’s too much of a hassle to qualify every single mention of ‘atheists’ in such a way. If you want such a qualification, please substitute in your mind ‘proof-obsessed atheists’ everywhere you see ‘atheists’. Thanks and enjoy the show.

Because there’s more to rationality than proof. Proof is the standard that atheists (the ones that go on an on about proof anyway) have collectively decided to adopt for acceptance of the need for belief.

Let’s look at a real system of real justice for a second here. US law defines at least 10 different standards for the burden of proof. When it comes to applying the law, you don’t get to wait around for the truth to beat you over the head with it. You need to come to a reasonably quick determination about whether events are likely to be true and move on.

When the stakes are extremely high, like when you’re about to convict someone of a crime that’s going to follow them around for the rest of their lives, your standard is as high as possible. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

But this is still not as high as the standards that atheists set out for acceptance of the reality of the spiritual world. No, atheists want an even higher standard. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means that there’s still a realm in which you haven’t proven your case yet.

No, what they want is proof beyond unreasonable doubt. They want God to appear in front of them or something. They want some kind of event that will take away, not just all reasonable doubt, but all possible ways in which someone could ever disbelieve the existence of God. Atheists want the murderer to convince the cops that he did it.

They want the murderer to walk into the police station, set down the bloody knife he used to kill his wife with, take the cops back to where he put the body, and describe in detail how he placed each individual stab. While the cops are sitting around wondering whether it’s possible someone else could have jumped in, conked him on the head, done the job themselves, and framed him.

They don’t want this for just any idea. In fact, they don’t ever need this kind of proof for anything else. There is only one thing imaginable that atheists need this kind of proof for. It would be easier to prove the existence of aliens, bigfoot, or actual, honest-to-God unicorns than it would be to get them to accept God. Because all they would need here is some kind of physical evidence. But God is not physical, so they don’t just need God to become physical, they also need proof that God became physical.

I am more than willing to admit that I believe in God despite the nonexistence of proof beyond an unreasonable doubt. In fact, if you want to go look at the Wikipedia page for standards of proof, I can tell you that at least for me, I didn’t need any standard of proof at all in order to explore the world of spirituality and religion. I was even able to join a small coven despite retaining disbelief. I didn’t start gathering evidence until years later. You’d be surprised how far meditation will get you down the path, while still pushing aside the need to believe.

When I finally accepted the reality of God, I had gone past reasonable suspicion, and was well into ‘reasonable to believe’ territory. Since I’ve accepted belief, I’ve been able to gather what would amount to a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.

I do not expect to ever get much farther than that. Clear and convincing is just not something that God does.