"is obviously no less reasonable than, say, belief in materialism. "
No, materialism, atheism, or agnosticism is nonsense. So, belief in a creator is a no-brainer and follows from evidence and basic logic—both of which the materialist/atheist/agnostic does not have. The basis for atheism is the absurdity that one cannot prove a creator QED or with a slam dunk argument. Though proof of a creator comes close to a slam dunk, it is more like an uncontested layup.
There is no underlying logic that supports atheism/materialism/agnosticism.
"The hard approach, on the other hand, is to either prove some particular position absolutely correct or demonstrate that some non-religious position is totally irrational—or both. That’s really hard to do!"
But this is a foolish approach. If one goes to the end result and assumes this is the objective, the approach will be challenging. However, when one goes through various steps, all these steps are relatively straightforward. Bypassing them leads to unnecessary complications.
First, start by saying there must be a creator or first cause. Then, proceed slowly but surely to what this cause must be like. You may find that you will eventually reach the Judeo-Christian God.
"Going back to the easy approach: really, just think about it. Sure, there are objections—lots of them—that can be raised against the existence of God or Christianity in general."
There are no objections, not even a few, let alone many, to the proof of a creator.
"Theists have the problem of evil and some tricky “Does God even make sense?” problems."
No, if one defines evil, which I have never seen done intelligently, it is usually just some things that individuals would prefer not to be part of their existence. The issue here is that theists jump ahead to their chosen God and then try to second guess this God as to what is essential in the world this God has created. If one proceeds in steps, then this objection will never come up.
Before the Judeo/Christian God hypothesis, there should be several steps and by then, the issue of unwanted things might disappear. But even if they don't, there are good reasons for doubt. If there is no doubt, then existence becomes meaningless. This should be part of the next section, which was introduced a couple of weeks ago, "No Worldview Is Without Difficulties."
This is by design because, without it, existence would be meaningless in the sense that those existing want no payment for this magnificent gift.
Some objections:
"is obviously no less reasonable than, say, belief in materialism. "
No, materialism, atheism, or agnosticism is nonsense. So, belief in a creator is a no-brainer and follows from evidence and basic logic—both of which the materialist/atheist/agnostic does not have. The basis for atheism is the absurdity that one cannot prove a creator QED or with a slam dunk argument. Though proof of a creator comes close to a slam dunk, it is more like an uncontested layup.
There is no underlying logic that supports atheism/materialism/agnosticism.
"The hard approach, on the other hand, is to either prove some particular position absolutely correct or demonstrate that some non-religious position is totally irrational—or both. That’s really hard to do!"
But this is a foolish approach. If one goes to the end result and assumes this is the objective, the approach will be challenging. However, when one goes through various steps, all these steps are relatively straightforward. Bypassing them leads to unnecessary complications.
First, start by saying there must be a creator or first cause. Then, proceed slowly but surely to what this cause must be like. You may find that you will eventually reach the Judeo-Christian God.
"Going back to the easy approach: really, just think about it. Sure, there are objections—lots of them—that can be raised against the existence of God or Christianity in general."
There are no objections, not even a few, let alone many, to the proof of a creator.
"Theists have the problem of evil and some tricky “Does God even make sense?” problems."
No, if one defines evil, which I have never seen done intelligently, it is usually just some things that individuals would prefer not to be part of their existence. The issue here is that theists jump ahead to their chosen God and then try to second guess this God as to what is essential in the world this God has created. If one proceeds in steps, then this objection will never come up.
Before the Judeo/Christian God hypothesis, there should be several steps and by then, the issue of unwanted things might disappear. But even if they don't, there are good reasons for doubt. If there is no doubt, then existence becomes meaningless. This should be part of the next section, which was introduced a couple of weeks ago, "No Worldview Is Without Difficulties."
This is by design because, without it, existence would be meaningless in the sense that those existing want no payment for this magnificent gift.