The OP seems to desire to have a rational belief but knows that he cannot support it. Others may try to support their beliefs as being rational, but fail to do so and cannot afford to understand why their arguments fail.
Just as "
hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue" in an effort to imitate or claim it, this is the homage the faith-based thinker pays reason. He wants to be seen as reasonable despite having little interest in learning critical thinking or even discovering what it is.
We also see the creationists pay homage to the science they have never been interested in or learned with sciency looking objections from apologetcs sources challenging evolutionary science, for example. They want the credit without doing the work, and seem to resent it being denied them simply because they have what they claim is critical thinking, reason, and science on their side, and can't see how it differs from what others who have learned these things require of themselves to use those terms.
This is an incoherent thought. There is only nature, and if something cannot be detected interacting with things that exist, the collection of which we call nature or reality, then it cannot be said to exist. Your claim is used to try to call something that is never seen to interact with nature in any time or place real anyway. It is used to excuse an imagined god from having to meet any criteria for existence, yet be said to exist. Usually, we are also told that God is outside of time and space, and transcending physical law and reason, all in the service of trying to explain why this god exists and yet is undetectable and does nothing that wouldn't be seen in a godless universe.
There is much that can be discussed as to how God's interaction in creation is manifested, which is contained within the given evidence. We would talking about the Spirit that is the cause of creation when we talk of God, it needs logic and reason to discuss this, not the lack of. In saying that, the interaction of God is manifested in creation which can resonate with humanity, and this interaction is manifested in many ways, humanitarian efforts are born from that interaction. All that divides humanity is born from the neglect of that interaction. That is not this OP, as it has never been the intent to provide proofs of God, just the line of evidence we need to pursue, if there is going to be meaningful discussions about God. The only evidence where the existence of God can be proved by logical and rational thought, is via the evidence provided as noted in this OP. The evidence doee provides the key lines of investigation needed. Unless people are willing to consider that faith also requires critical and analytical thought and reasoning, I doubt we will ever be able to discuss these matter's, yet our goals are for the good of all humanity.
Did you think this was a rebuttal? You have nothing here but unsubstantiated claims, meaning that you supported zero of them. Rebuttals are falsifying arguments. There is nothing in your answer that would cause anybody to change their mind about anything at all much less my argument.
Are you familiar with Hitchens' Razor, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." You use the words reason and evidence a lot, but you seem to have no sense of what those are. You just use the words. Now you've added "critical and analytical thought and reasoning." This is you paying homage to the world you chose not to inhabit when you chose faith and lost interest in academia. I'll bet you disagree, but I also bet that you can't rebut it for two reasons. You don't know what any of that really is or how to do it, and because correct claims cannot be successfully rebutted even by experts at rebuttal.
I'm going to insert a couple of terms I've learned from other critical thinkers on these threads recently relevant to these kinds of discussions
- motivated reasoning - "the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence." The critical thinker trains himself to not do this.
- critical rationalism - "an epistemological philosophy advanced by Karl Popper on the basis that, if a statement cannot be logically deduced (from what is known), it might nevertheless be possible to logically falsify it." The critical thinker rejects metaphysical claims because they are not falsifiable if they aren't testable.
- apistevist - "Someone who rejects using faith as a legitimate method to reach conclusions." That also defines the critical thinker.
I like this, "Skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) were definitively disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation…" Obviously the Dalai Lama is a very wise man.
This is you paying homage to empiricism. Nothing can be proved or disproved to a person who won't admit and dispassionately evaluate the evidence and argument provided. You can't do that. The window of opportunity for developing such skills closed decades ago. You've closed a door that you can't see any longer.
But you're far from alone. You may know that the moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked them, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Do you understand that he has cut himself off from discovering that he is wrong where it can be demonstrated?
Here's more of that phenomenon of closing oneself off to evidence from an eminent Christian apologist some consider an intellectual. I disagree because of comments like this one:
- "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
And here are a couple more fideists proudly proclaiming to the world that their minds are permanently closed for business. They consider this kind of thinking virtuous:
- “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
- “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris
) consider his words with a critical eye. Sheesh tl;dr.