My view, or starting point, is that anything is logically possible if it isn't self-contradictory or made nonsensical by some other absurdity. So I cannot (and do not) discount the possibility of gods, spirits or 'God'. But while I cannot discount the possibility that these things might exist, I cannot on those terms alone allow belief in them. To commit one's self to believing in a possible God is an absurd notion, since a possible God is no God at all; for if there is a God he must be actual rather 'possible', but no god or gods are demonstrable. That is the logical view of my scepticism.
And now for the empirical ones: First of all, can we suppose the existence of a supernatural being from nature? In other words, if God is supernatural can we reasonably argue backwards from our world to something that is by definition totally otherworldly? For no matter what we experience it remains just that: an experience in the world of experience. And to claim a special experience is still to make the case for a feature of our world and not a supernatural one. Surely...surely, it is quite plain that by placing God in the world of experience we make God dependent upon the world of experience for his existence, which is absurd.
So far I've looked at the objective arguments. Now for the subjective reasons, and finally a logical conclusion. I ask myself, if there were an almighty single power, a supreme being who caused the existence of the world, one who ultimately carries responsibility for it, would I consider him (or it) worshipful or worthy of an emotional commitment? When we look about we see pain, suffering and great hardship. We also see happiness, satisfaction, love and contentedness. But of course the former conditions are not in the least mitigated by the latter conditions. To all of us will come indescribable sadness at the loss of those who are close to us, our own illness and deaths causing pain to those we leave behind. We live in a world where animals kill and eat other animals, where man kills and eats animals and where men kill each other. This is not a world designed by a being worthy of worship and love.
But now to a logical proof, and one that is easily demonstrated. Every living person can conceive of a world without pain and suffering; and we don't contradict ourselves in any way by such a conception. So we must ask ourselves this: if we, as imperfect, contingent creatures can conceive of such a world, why has the Creator not made it so? There is no answer that can conclude the necessity of pain and suffering because we've just demonstrated that there is no necessity. Therefore, if there is a God, he/it will not be a loving or beneficent being. And that doesn't of course disprove the existence of a supreme being; it only tells us what he/it is not, and that, in plain terms, is to say there is no loving God.
Cottage
And now for the empirical ones: First of all, can we suppose the existence of a supernatural being from nature? In other words, if God is supernatural can we reasonably argue backwards from our world to something that is by definition totally otherworldly? For no matter what we experience it remains just that: an experience in the world of experience. And to claim a special experience is still to make the case for a feature of our world and not a supernatural one. Surely...surely, it is quite plain that by placing God in the world of experience we make God dependent upon the world of experience for his existence, which is absurd.
So far I've looked at the objective arguments. Now for the subjective reasons, and finally a logical conclusion. I ask myself, if there were an almighty single power, a supreme being who caused the existence of the world, one who ultimately carries responsibility for it, would I consider him (or it) worshipful or worthy of an emotional commitment? When we look about we see pain, suffering and great hardship. We also see happiness, satisfaction, love and contentedness. But of course the former conditions are not in the least mitigated by the latter conditions. To all of us will come indescribable sadness at the loss of those who are close to us, our own illness and deaths causing pain to those we leave behind. We live in a world where animals kill and eat other animals, where man kills and eats animals and where men kill each other. This is not a world designed by a being worthy of worship and love.
But now to a logical proof, and one that is easily demonstrated. Every living person can conceive of a world without pain and suffering; and we don't contradict ourselves in any way by such a conception. So we must ask ourselves this: if we, as imperfect, contingent creatures can conceive of such a world, why has the Creator not made it so? There is no answer that can conclude the necessity of pain and suffering because we've just demonstrated that there is no necessity. Therefore, if there is a God, he/it will not be a loving or beneficent being. And that doesn't of course disprove the existence of a supreme being; it only tells us what he/it is not, and that, in plain terms, is to say there is no loving God.
Cottage
