Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

nope, you claimed it would not apply in this argument, because the argument supposes an unknown. But the thing is, every hypothesis ever formed, supposes the unknown, that's what a hypothesis is about. You are saying, literally, that occams, a philosophy on answering questions, is invalid because questions are unanswered. Again, logic seems to have eluded you.

And... What you continue to insist is "unknown" has been known and comprehended by billions of people for 70,000 years. You reject it as "unknown" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature.

in assuming an unknown, you lose explanatory power, since you can not explain the unknown, hence making the theory less valid than theory in which a complete unknown is not assumed, and for which all variables are accounted for. It has nothing explicitly to do with physical versus supernatural. It just sk happens the supernatural is an unknown variable, so any theory containing the supernatural automatically loses out to one which doesn't, by the precepts involved in ocamm's razor. Occam's razor says, if you have two theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It doesn't guarantee correctness, and it isn't a replacement for deductive logic.

first of all, every hypothesis has an unknown variable, this is the purpose and function of a hypothesis, to examine possibility for something unknown. Furthermore, nothing in science is ever "known" if you define this by "known certainty." everything in science is probability and predictability, nothing is ever concluded.

You keep pretending spirituality is an "unknown" but we've been over this, it's certainly not unknown to billions of humans over 70k years, it is very much known, understood, comprehended, connected with, communicated with, and worshiped. It's not "known" physically, and it never will be, because it's not physical.

Occams razor does not say anything about "if you have two theories." it says, whenever answering hypothesis, that simplest explanations are the most logical and likely, and evaluation should begin from there... "until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." so far, the only greater explanation you've offered is mass delusion spanning 70k years. I don't think this is a very powerful explanation, because it defies logic as well as theories of darwinism. "to explain the unknown," also not a very powerful explanation, since most everything has been explained with regard to the "unknowns" of ancient man, and spirituality remains as prevalent as ever. "no physical evidence," again, not a very powerful explanation, since a spiritual entity wouldn't logically have any.

The simplest explanation for why humans are so spiritually connected, is because a spiritual realm exists, and humans connect with it.

Perhaps Politico had the right idea in the beginning of this thread when he simply wrote...

No.

You have simply doubled back on your misunderstanding and misapplication of Occams Razor, evolutionary theory, and everything else you mentioned. Again, making a mistake a second time doesn make it any more correct. Occam's razor says NOTHING about which hypothesis is most "logical". It uses logic to cut away superfluous hypothesis' that have the same explanatory power but exhibit less parsimony (less efficient or economical). I used "two theories" to make it easier for you to understand. It could be any number of theories that are being compared. And no, not all theories have unknown ASSUMPTIONS in them, either at all or to the same extent as another. This is a copout. A theory is an attempt to explain facts we see. There' doesn't have to be an unknown at all. For example, Occam's Razor cut away Ptolemy's geocentric model and its complex epicycles for Copernicus's heliocentric model of the universe which required only concentric circles, because although they explained and predicted things identically, Copernicus's model was much simpler.
There is no "unknown" assumption here, as you are positing when you throw in a spiritual realm that them needs to be explained. Again, Occam's Razor is not a replacement for deductive logic, which is the bedrock for ascertaining truth, especially in scientific inquiry. It doesn't tell you what is necessarily correct: that is deductive logic. it simply tells you what is likely not correct, all things being equal, hence why it is called a "razor" and not a "formula." In your case, all things are not equal between a naturalistic account for religious belief and a supernatural one, so Occam's razor doesn't even apply. Your theory is automatically thrown out because of the introduction if the supernatural, which is completely unknown, hence, making it almost infinitely less parsimonious. You need to now explain what the supernatural is, where it comes from, etc...

It does not defy the theory of evolution (not sure why you are referring to Darwin) to say that humans religious belief is a delusion. This theory would say nothing of the veracity of religious belief. Here, you are making several logical leaps without demonstrating the intermediate steps. I do not grant your conclusion, until you demonstrate how you got there, which you have not done. All you do is cite "Darwin" and "logic." How is it illogical that humans are mistaken about reality?

 

[newpolitics]

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, OTHER than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

It is an argument from popularity. "X amount of people believe Y, therefore Y is true." What people believe is not NECESSARILY true. In fact, far from it, most of the time. It is special pleading to say that only in the case of religious belief, are people actually correct, but in other areas they are not (ie... Aliens). Humans are not truth machines. They are mating machines, who are programmed for survival, not truth. We are not omnipotent, therefore everything we believe is not true, simply because we believe it.

 

[G.T.]

A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.

Demonstrably false.

Demonstrate it, then.

No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false.

It's not that hard.

 

[S.J.]

Those who demand proof of God's existence will never get it because the proof comes in spiritual form, and if you don't seek God, he is not going to show himself to you. Why should he? If you don't want to know him, why should he waste his time on you? He has no obligation to "win you over".

 

[Boss]

That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too. That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus. I got lotsa presents from Santa..

You have to wonder how much less selfish and self-centered you'd have turned out, if Santa had withheld those presents until you learned to respect others.

But here again, we have you illustrating your projection of hate for religion on god. You refer to god a "he" and you indicate "he picks and chooses" which is in reference to religious morality. What we clearly see in your remarks, is a disdain for religion. What is interesting is you and I have virtually the same opinion regarding organized religions.

Spirituality is not religion. Religions are a manifestation of man's spirituality, and an attempt to comprehend something they don't understand. Jews believe they are "god's chosen people" but the "god" I believe in, doesn't choose people, has no need to choose, and doesn't care. God is supposedly "omnipotent" so why would god need for you to behave a certain way? Couldn't omnipotent god just make you fucking behave how god wants you to? God could have just created a world of perfect people who never do wrong or sin, because god is god, and has such power.

In order for humans to connect spiritually, certain disciplines must be practiced. The desire to connect spiritually comes naturally to humans, the ability to do so, requires development. In order to bring these disciplines into some kind of order for an entire group, religious doctrines were created and established. Attributes familiar to man, were used to construct a perception of god in the image of a human, a man. This man is then assigned the role of moral judge. This creates a rational perception of a god that can be followed and worshiped, because humans can relate to human-like attributes.

In spite of organized religion, man can still connect spiritually. God does not have to conform to our preconceived notions or adhere to attributes we've assigned. A spiritual god can exist, who is not a judge, doesn't have feelings of love or anger, doesn't spite or punish, and simply exists in a spiritual sense, as a source of power for those who can connect. Of course, if you totally reject spiritual nature, you'll never recognize this power.

 

[newpolitics]

Imagine a sinking ship at deep sea as the result of a hole in the hull : what boss is doing in his use of Occam's, is the equivalent of plugging up the hole, while creating an even more massive hole. The ship still sinks, and more quickly.

The point of an explanation, is to not have any more "leaks" when you are done, or at least make the epistemic holes smaller, not larger.

 

[Boss]

You have simply doubled back on your misunderstanding and misapplication of Occams Razor, evolutionary theory, and everything else you mentioned. Again, making a mistake a second time doesn make it any more correct. Occam's razor says NOTHING about which hypothesis is most "logical".

Sorry, I didn't say Occam's compares hypothesis. It doesn't. It says the most logical place to begin evaluation, is the most simple explanation. The only way another legitimate hypothesis can be introduced, is if it meets the criteria of "greater explanatory power." Otherwise, we only have the one simple hypothesis.

It uses logic to cut away superfluous hypothesis' that have the same explanatory power but exhibit less parsimony (less efficient or economical).

It does no such thing. It only allows for another hypothesis if it contains GREATER explanatory power. Parsimony is simply "economy in the use of means to an end." The most "economical" means to the end, on a question of spiritual human connection spanning the existence of the species, and tied intrinsically to it, is that a spiritual realm exists. You've offered nothing of "greater explanatory power" so there is only the one hypothesis.

You want to violate Occam's Razor, to introduce a hypothesis which is much more complicated and difficult to prove, and has weaker explanatory power, because it defies general logic.

I used "two theories" to make it easier for you to understand. It could be any number of theories that are being compared.

No, it can't be. Occam's has nothing to do with "comparing" theories. It maintains the starting point of evaluation should always begin with the simplest theory, and only theories which contain greater explanatory power can be introduced as valid. So we start with the simplest theory, and if we can't find a greater explanation, we remain with the simplest theory.

And no, not all theories have unknown ASSUMPTIONS in them, either at all or to the same extent as another. This is a copout. A theory is an attempt to explain facts we see.

Nope! A "theory" is an attempt to answer a question. A question exists because something is not known to be fact. Theories often have little to do with what we see. There is no need to "explain" something that is a fact, it is proven, that's what makes it a fact. A theory is often used to try and explain a phenomenon. Anytime there is a phenomenon that requires explaining, there is a question, an unknown.

There' doesn't have to be an unknown at all. For example, Occam's Razor cut away Ptolemy's geocentric model and its complex epicycles for Copernicus's heliocentric model of the universe which required only concentric circles, because although they explained and predicted things identically, Copernicus's model was much simpler.

Occam's simply establishes the prevailing hypothesis as the simplest, until a hypothesis of greater explanatory power is presented.

There is no "unknown" assumption here, as you are positing when you throw in a spiritual realm that them needs to be explained.

But the spiritual realm doesn't need to be explained, it's spiritually present, it exists spiritually, not physically. You demand it be explained physically, which is just plain illogical.

Again, Occam's Razor is not a replacement for deductive logic, which is the bedrock for ascertaining truth, especially in scientific inquiry. It doesn't tell you what is necessarily correct: that is deductive logic. it simply tells you what is likely not correct, all things being equal, hence why it is called a "razor" and not a "formula." In your case, all things are not equal between a naturalistic account for religious belief and a supernatural one, so Occam's razor doesn't even apply.

"Scientific" inquiry has little to do with spiritual evaluation, since science doesn't deal with spiritual existence. Occam's is not confined to JUST questions of science. It is a "razor" which means it's a philosophy, and the purpose is to establish logical starting points for any evaluation of any question. It has no caveats or restrictions to physical sciences, although, physical science can certainly provide greater explanatory power in many cases. In the case of human spirituality, it simply can't. The most logical and simple explanation for 70k years of human spiritual connection, is not "mass delusion."

Your theory is automatically thrown out because of the introduction if the supernatural, which is completely unknown, hence, making it almost infinitely less parsimonious. You need to now explain what the supernatural is, where it comes from, etc...

Again... not unknown to billions and billions of spiritual humans who've existed for 70k years. Supernatural is that which is not within the physical realm. It does not have to be confirmed from where it comes, you can't even do that with the physical universe. You continue to demand evidence that is simply illogical.

It does not defy the theory of evolution (not sure why you are referring to Darwin) to say that humans religious belief is a delusion.

We're not debating "religious belief" here, we are talking about human spiritual connection which has been a prevailing attribute in our species as long as we've been a species. It certainly defies Darwin to claim a species has been "deluded" into a behavior for all of it's existence, which is purely superficial and serves no fundamental purpose. No other living thing we've ever studied, is "duped" into a behavior of any kind. To the contrary, every living thing we've ever observed, exhibits behaviors inherent to the species, for a valid and legitimate reason.

This theory would say nothing of the veracity of religious belief. Here, you are making several logical leaps without demonstrating the intermediate steps. I do not grant your conclusion, until you demonstrate how you got there, which you have not done. All you do is cite "Darwin" and "logic." How is it illogical that humans are mistaken about reality?

Again, we're not talking about man-made religions, which are highly flawed and imperfect. These are simply manifestations from man's incontrovertible connection to a spiritual realm. My conclusion is simple, humans are spiritually connected and always have been.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too. That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus. I got lotsa presents from Santa..

Amazing erudition.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Demonstrably false.

Demonstrate it, then.

No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false.

It's not that hard.

I see. God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Demonstrate it, then.

No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false.

It's not that hard.

I see. God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

It is an argument from popularity. "X amount of people believe Y, therefore Y is true." What people believe is not NECESSARILY true. In fact, far from it, most of the time. It is special pleading to say that only in the case of religious belief, are people actually correct, but in other areas they are not (ie... Aliens). Humans are not truth machines. They are mating machines, who are programmed for survival, not truth. We are not omnipotent, therefore everything we believe is not true, simply because we believe it.

No, it isn't an argument from popularity, nor is it special pleading, as I've ably pointed out. The flaw in your thinking is that you fail to believe people when they relate first hand knowledge to you.

It is you who is engaging in logical fallacy -- an argument from ignorance and an egocentric one at that.

You're position is that anyone who reports experience of God is a liar, insane, or delusional. That is clearly not the case.

Besides, if you believe people are programmed, who does the programming?

Don't tell me you're an advocate of intelligent design.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false.

It's not that hard.

I see. God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

I don't have a deity. Why would you think that? Do you think God is Clark Kent? Are you that silly? Are you going to start blabbering about Loki and Thor?

Are you going to ask me if God can make a rock he can't lift?

Why do the benighted constantly build strawman anthropomorphic gods and then destroy the strawmen?

The universe either has meaning or it does not. If you believe that it does not, that makes you a nihilistic, lost senseless person who doesn't believe in God because he lacks the mental capacity grasp the concept.

There's a reason religious people consider you to be in darkness.

 

[newpolitics]

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

It is an argument from popularity. "X amount of people believe Y, therefore Y is true." What people believe is not NECESSARILY true. In fact, far from it, most of the time. It is special pleading to say that only in the case of religious belief, are people actually correct, but in other areas they are not (ie... Aliens). Humans are not truth machines. They are mating machines, who are programmed for survival, not truth. We are not omnipotent, therefore everything we believe is not true, simply because we believe it.

No, it isn't an argument from popularity, nor is it special pleading, as I've ably pointed out. The flaw in your thinking is that you fail to believe people when they relate first hand knowledge to you.

It is you who is engaging in logical fallacy -- an argument from ignorance and an egocentric one at that.

You're position is that anyone who reports experience of God is a liar, insane, or delusional. That is clearly not the case.

Besides, if you believe people are programmed, who does the programming?

Don't tell me you're an advocate of intelligent design.

Alright. I'm not going to keep ongoing back and forth. Demonstrate how a human belief equates to truth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?

It is an argument from popularity. "X amount of people believe Y, therefore Y is true." What people believe is not NECESSARILY true. In fact, far from it, most of the time. It is special pleading to say that only in the case of religious belief, are people actually correct, but in other areas they are not (ie... Aliens). Humans are not truth machines. They are mating machines, who are programmed for survival, not truth. We are not omnipotent, therefore everything we believe is not true, simply because we believe it.

No, it isn't an argument from popularity, nor is it special pleading, as I've ably pointed out. The flaw in your thinking is that you fail to believe people when they relate first hand knowledge to you.

It is you who is engaging in logical fallacy -- an argument from ignorance and an egocentric one at that.

Ironic!

You're position is that anyone who reports experience of God is a liar, insane, or delusional.

That is clearly not the case.

Besides, if you believe people are programmed, who does the programming?

Don't tell me you're an advocate of intelligent design.

No amount of "first hand" anecdotal "experience of God" equates to a single provable FACT.

 

[Boss]

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

 

[newpolitics]

Anecdotal evidence, which is all "spiritual evidence" could ever be, is entirely subjective, and therefore unreliable. It does not hold up by itself in court, unless corroborated by the objective facts, and neither does it here. To say anecdotal evidence should hold up by itself when it comes to god, is special pleading.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I see. God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

I don't have a deity. Why would you think that? Do you think God is Clark Kent? Are you that silly? Are you going to start blabbering about Loki and Thor?

Are you going to ask me if God can make a rock he can't lift?

Why do the benighted constantly build strawman anthropomorphic gods and then destroy the strawmen?

The universe either has meaning or it does not. If you believe that it does not, that makes you a nihilistic, lost senseless person who doesn't believe in God because he lacks the mental capacity grasp the concept.

There's a reason religious people consider you to be in darkness.

Asked and answered.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men?

Probably because of your OP.

Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument?

Which religion claims not to have an omnipotent deity?

Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

Everyone is born an atheist too. Having spirituality does not equate to the existence of a deity. Why do you have so much trouble with a concept this simple? Is it because it exposes your entire premise as totally and utterly bereft of any basis whatsoever?

 

[edthecynic]

Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?

No God is omnipotent!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

Well, YOU did when it served your purpose to make your spiritual entity omnipotent!

Of course, after I shot down omnipotence, suddenly Gods have nothing to do with omnipotence.

And that spiritual nature we are born with is existential. You have yet to PROVE the existence of a metaphysical spirit, omnipotent or otherwise. Without proof of the metaphysical you have no "definitive proof that GOD exists."

 

[Hollie]

So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.

Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.

It’s really silly to suggest that ”we are all born with inherent spiritual nature”.

I am looking for a paradigm I’ve not yet heard that might support and external assertion of the existence of gods. But what we’re truly getting at here is the obvious absurdity of the position of the theist. Admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless asserts attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.

This is again a paradox you volunteer for. I do not place you there. Asserting bibles and “Books of the Dead” only establishes yet more mythology, and in my opinion, I have to ask if you rely on such, are you truly touched by this entity you assert or have you learned of it through a book (and familial / social conditions), and this book alone (whatever “this book” happens to be). Empirically / objectively / externally speaking, you believe in gods because you read it in a book. If you had never come across the book or exposed to religion by way of happenstance of birth in a particular location, you would not have these beliefs or you would have different beliefs.


Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs seem to be externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.