...The fact that most civilisations through history have created some higher being shows only that humanity is pathetically flawed and is unable to fully cope with their enhanced cognitive faculties. Christian faith is a pain-killer, it eases the pain of life and eases one's fear of death... because death is not the end... in fact, it's a good because heaven awaits....
You're starting with an
a priori assumption, and rather than acknowledging that it's an assumption you're using it to "prove" your point. In essence, you're doing the same thing as a Christian who tries to prove something by quoting the Bible.
On the other hand, you can't ever prove something doesn't exist -- can't prove a negative, so the burden does kinda fall on the believers to provide
something to support their beliefs. I'm no master theologian or apologist, but I've thought a lot about these issues and I think there are several points worth making. (BTW, as a latecomer to the thread I'm exercising the assumed right to not read all 8 pages before posting!
Apologies if I resort to ground that's already been covered.)
1. One of the oldest evidences for the existence of a god notes that humans have a distinct MORAL sense, which assumes the existance of an overarching framework of right and wrong. Note that this is entirely different from an instinct, which in itself is neither moral or immoral. In other words, we have a set of instinctual urges that drive our behavior, like the need to eat or sleep or have sex or stay alive. ON their own, these are neither considered good nor bad -- and in most circumstances we decide between those instincts with an automatic prioritizer so we don't (for example) try to rob a tiger of its kill. Instincts fit right in to "nature" and seem to be entirely part and parcel of the physical world.
On the other hand, the sense of morality acts like it is from a different plane altogether. It tells us what we
ought to do, and assumes that it has an authority instinct simply lacks...doing what is "right" stands on an altogether different plane than choosing which instinct is most functional at a given time. Even more troublesome from an empiric, naturalistic standpoint is the fact that moral actions OFTEN require actions that REDUCE the likelihood of the individual surviving. And even when statistically speaking some rationale for altruistic behaviors can be explained (ie imagine a drive to help related individuals, which would tend to preserve the altruism genes in relatives) -- you can easily argue that this evolutionary altruistic instinct is not the same thing at all, because it results in benefits! If that were the whole story, we should have a "moral" drive to help those most like us, when
in reality what we find our inward morality really respects is the truly unselfish act that shows no direct or indirect benefit to ourselves. If that doesn't come from
outside ourselves, how can we explain the way we find ourselves admiring actions that reduce the likelihood of passing on genes?
Bottom line -- the very fact that we see something as "right" or "wrong" (instead of effective, or helpful, or natural) provides evidence that there is a level of existance outside the natural world.
Will stop here to avoid "Unread Wall of Text" syndrome.
