It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

Well, I’m not sure how this addresses the resolution, but I think the argument is if we were void of irrational influences, which is to say if we were perfectly rational, we would believe in God. As far as I can tell, pro has not put forth any actual reason to believe this is the case, I don’t believe this is the case, nonetheless I will address pro’s arguments concerning hyperreality. Pro frames the dilemma as follows: “We can see by it's definition, that hyperreality is anything but reality, but is a method of tricking one's consciousness into believing in something that isn't real, is real. ” It is necessary to distinguish between the influence of false beliefs, and inability of the subject of false beliefs to influence. If hyperreality is the negation of reality, then it doesn’t have the ability to influence anything. It appears to be the case that pro is asserting that hyperreality is a separate entity. For example, with paranoia, if person X believes that entity Y is out to get them, and no such entity Y exists, then it is necessarily the case that Y can’t influence influence X, because Y does not exist. However, the belief itself that Y is out to get X has the propensity to affect X. Hyperreality appears to be a misinterpretation of reality, as opposed to a separate entity. So if it was the case we never misinterpreted reality, I have no reason to believe in God, I rather see it as the case that because we misinterpret reality, we believe in God. Throughout human history multiple Gods have been asserted as explanations for natural phenomena, however these Gods have been dispelled as we begin to interpret reality more rationally. Pro says: “Is it really unreasonable to behold the land, water, sky, plants, animals, and most of all human beings, who in their own facilities posses the ability to design and create, and not fathom that some greater being is responsible? No it is natural. ” Pro equivocates “natural” and “reasonable”. As aforementioned, Gods have naturally been asserted to explain natural phenomena, however once we shed off “hyperreality” or misinterpretations of reality, in retrospect we are able to say that these beliefs did not comport with reality, and as such they were unreasonable. So things that are natural aren’t necessarily reasonable. While this is not a debate about evolution, evolution is a sufficient explanation to explain all of the phenomena that pro cited. Pro says:”It is in my opinion that it's unreasonable to believe in any form of hyperreality and organized religion may be just that, but a yearning to understand who we are and why we are here is an inquiry that most thinking minds do ponder, and it seems probable (if not discouraged by hyperrealities of technology or religion) that individual inquiry may lead to the belief in a Greater Being, God, who can influence individuals from within. This is not unreasonable to believe, if we look at the complexity of our environment and the workings of our own minds. ” Once again pro equivocates intuitive and reasonable. Once again pro essentially saying it’s intuitive to believe that a God is reasonable for the complexity of the universe, however she does nothing establish this as reasonable. Pro goes on to say”When I mention that it is not unreasonable to believe in a personal God, it doesn't necessitate that I am referring to the God of the three major monotheistic religions of the world. I am referring to the Creative Energy that spawned the Laws that govern our existence like physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. “ If you recall my criteria of a personal God, which we agreed to, this definition of God does not meet this criteria. Pro is essentially asserting a deistic God, which is not the topic of the resolution. Now on an aside, I don’t see how a “creative energy” spawned the universe. Creative implies a mental state, and energy implies matter. While space and time, and subsequently matter came into existence with the universe, so I don’t know how energy could exist prior to the universe. As for disembodied minds, I would say that minds are contingent upon brains, because mental states are inextricably tied to brain states, and brain states are contingent upon the brain,which is contingent upon matter, which did not exist prior to the universe. So when pro says a “Creative energy” spawned the universe, I do not see any justification for this claim. “My point is that the consciousness can't distinguish hyperreality from reality, even if the rational mind claims it knows something is only a movie for example. ” While movies aren’t real in the sense that life is real, they are representations of things as if they are real, and I can compare my experience in reality, to things that would constitute hyperreality and see that they don’t coincide. If a rational mind claims to know something is a movie, and it is the case they actually know something is a movie, then it is the case that consciousness can distinguish between reality and hyperreality. Pro sums the argument as follows”If we were free and clear of all influences beyond reality - - the natural tendency would be to behold the complexity of our environment, and seek communion (inner knowledge) with the source of it's creation - GOD. ” Once again I see no reason to believe that if we were perfectly rational that we would believe in a God. This merely established that it would be intuitive to believe in God, however intuitive and reasonable are not the same thing. While this is not an evolution debate, evolution can account for the complexity we experience, and as such I don’t the slightest justification for invoking God, let alone that it would be reasonable to assert God as an explanation for anything. Furthermore, I don’t see how any of this addresses a personal God, but it was quite interesting.