Christians love to offer any number of arguments about why they are so sure their God exists. All of these arguments rest on a host of assumptions that the Christian is either completely unaware of, or simply chooses to ignore (so much for really "believing" that our "reason" was given to us from "God" so we could find "truth.")
Some of those arguments simply try to prove, through logic alone, that God must exist. Those arguments include the "argument from design," the "argument from cause and effect," as well as from existence, from motion, from perfection, from desire, and so on. Rather than calling these "arguments," however, they should all actually be called "assumptions."
The observant reader will notice that all of these arguments are essentially the same argument with slight modifications, and that each relies on the same double standard of reasoning as all of the others. All of these arguments assume to begin with that God is the perfect, designer, causer, motion maker, who has caused existence, which is why he is the sole object of our ultimate desires.
That God is without design, or a cause, or is a "perfection" that is meaningless to such infinitely "imperfect" beings as ourselves (since we do not have an exhaustive idea of what a "perfect" human would even be), and that there are plenty of people who do NOT have an "ultimate desire" to find God - especially a very particular brand of God offered by Christianity - never gives the Christian who claims everywhere that they are searching only for "truth" a moments pause. (This alone tells us all we need to know about the many "assumptions" being relied upon to "believe" in any particular concept or brand of "God.")
The countless assumptions being relied on both fore and after, however, are staggering. Take for example, the "assumption" by "design" or of the "existence" of things. Not only must the "believer" necessarily rely on a number of assumptions about what existed prior to existence, but they must all make just as many assumptions about everything that followed the moment existence was created as well.
Prior to existence, the "believer" necessarily assumes that there was only a single "God," for example, even though there is no evidence to support such an assumption. It also assumes that whatever "stuff" may have existed prior to the creation of our own "existence" (notice the obvious contradiction here) must necessarily have been a "being," a being which was "intelligent," which was NOT created by anything or anyone else, which must have always existed, which had the specific intention to create existence, for the specific purpose of creating us, specifically out of "love," for us alone, so we could struggle all our life to get back to Him, and for basically no other reason than that we can avoid being thrown for eternity into hell by our "loving Father," if we do not at least try. And always with the understanding that we can never succeed of our own volition, but must rely exclusively on the "grace" of the God who threatens to burn us alive for eternity if we do not (if we believe the Christian narrative anyway).
Also, this "single God" had but one single purpose, from an infinite number of possible purposes, in creating this existence. It likewise assumes that our existence is the focal point of all possible existences that were or one day will be created, while also assuming that human beings are and were always the sole purpose for having created that existence in the first place. The only evidence to support such assumptions, of course, is our own biases, and nothing more.
What's more, such arguments assume that the kind of reasoning human beings possess was specifically designed for the sole purpose of allowing us to reason our way to the conclusion that we live in a monotheistic universe, and not a polytheistic or henotheistic universe, which was designed specifically by a single God only, who designed this universe exclusively for us, who happens to be a loving and merciful God toward us alone (He cares little about the countless number of animals he created), and that each of these conclusions is always superior to any other "assumption" that any human being could ever make.
These are but just some of the assumptions that the "believer" necessarily ignores in their arguments prior to existence. But after existence, the "believer" also relies on any number of "assumptions" as well. For example, how could we "know" that such a single God even survived the creation process? Or that such a God ever intended to create existence, or what the intention ever actually was? How can we know that it wasn't all "designed" for some purpose that could only be understandable to an infinite mind, not one as fallible and finite as our own?
Yet the assumptions that the Christian simply chooses to ignore in order to hold fast to their "beliefs" only actually demonstrates how much they are required to abandon their reason entirely, in order to reach the conclusions they seek. And that is why the Christian "God" is simply a answer built on a thousand assumptions, and nothing more.
Sigmund Freud once said that because of people's desires, which if allowed to be followed to their natural ends would prove fatal to so...
"Professing themselves wise they have become FOOLS." Romans 1:22 Here's why the Conservative flame thrower Ben Shapiro...
If Ben Shapiro really wants answers to his condemnations of BLM, he should start by reading a few books, and then some. For example, he can ...
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle," David Hume once wrote, "unless the testimony be of such a kind that its fal...