Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I do not accept that God must obscure his presence in order to allow us to have freedom. Adam and Eve knew God and disobeyed him. So did Judas. Satan is a fallen angel. Peter denied God three times, having seen Jesus both in real life and in the Transfiguration. Moses disobeyed God once, having been to the burning bush. I see adequate proof that the freedom to obey or disobey does not require ambiguity as to God's existence. But think about it, where is the virtue in expecting people to go on a scavenger hunt for right and wrong, if there is a God who defines objective morality?

PP. you have placed your finger on the source of my doubt. Not only did I spend a very, very long time asking questions and studying faith from every angle, I even had (insert eye rolls) a somewhat mystical experience when I felt the love of God. And yet, here I am, doubting everything, just exactly as you described. Honestly, the thing that keeps my faith around is what one of the disciples said to Jesus after he gave an exceptionally hard teaching and most of the crowd walked away. Jesus said to his few remaining friends, "What about you? Are you going to leave, too?" And his friend answered, "To whom would we go?"

Which is why I keep asking for someone to give an alternate source of objective truth about right and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?

I am not assuming my own conclusion. You are free to provide proof of God's existence. If you do, the conclusion cannot be begged.

PP, I am sorry about the brevity of my last post. I tried texting while elliptical-ing, and my experiment failed

Presenting all of the arguments for the existence of God in this forum is pretty much impossible, and my little mind is not the best one to present them. A book on my nightstand offers 20 arguments, beginning with Aquinas' five ways, and including some that claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. I will defer to greater minds.

But I have a confession to make. I started this thread because I have been struggling with doubt. And so I wanted to go back to the beginning. And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

God has filled the earth with evidence of His existence, but not His direct presence. (Hence, the PPs' request that God just open up the skies and give His morning report). His existence is reasonable, but not obvious. That ambiguity is the space for our freedom. There is a difference between proving a preposition and accepting a preposition. I might be able to prove God exists, and that there is objective right and wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt. But you could still choose to reject those prepositions.

To fall back on C.S. Lewis (sorry if that annoys anyone):

"The Irresistable and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God's] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo."

I can see how if a believer already takes for granted the existence of gods, that CS Lewis--who seems to do a good job string together a lot of reasonable-sounding assertions into the appearance of a rational underpinning--would be quite compelling.

Each of these quotes take the same form: "First, assume God exists. Further, clearly he's a Christian. Therefore, ignoring his existence would be like ignoring the symptoms of cancer. You wouldn't ignore cancer, right? You'd go to a doctor! Therefore, belief in God is rational."

It's a fig-leaf of rationality.

I do not accept that God must obscure his presence in order to allow us to have freedom. Adam and Eve knew God and disobeyed him. So did Judas. Satan is a fallen angel. Peter denied God three times, having seen Jesus both in real life and in the Transfiguration. Moses disobeyed God once, having been to the burning bush.

Okay, I'm not sure where we're going with this, but just to get out there: all of this stuff is mythological, and there's no evidence (outside of the Bible) that it ever happened. So if we're still on-topic, it's not relevant. Certainly not "evidence" of anything. I mean that with all due respect. I think sometimes folks who were raised in the Christian tradition (and who live in a culture where Christianity is the dominant religion) don't really understand what does and does not constitute "proof" when engaging with folks who are non-Christians. What you've written above is almost exactly like a neo-pagan writing that "When Loki stole Freya's hair, it was fear of Thor that compelled him go to the kingdom of the dwarves and bring back the hair forged from gold as a recompense." It has exactly that level of weight.

I see adequate proof that the freedom to obey or disobey does not require ambiguity as to God's existence.

Again, what proof? Are you seriously offering up the Fall of Lucifer as proof of the existence of God? Because that's what it comes across as.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

And to think you were accusing one of the PPs of "begging the question"!

Phew! Ok, we will back up to the beginning again. Because yes, if we are going to talk about God's authority, we need to have God in the first place. Natural law is meaningless apart from the lawgiver, Who is God. Is there any evidence there is God? The classic evidence:

#1 Argument from motion (physics)

What is in motion must be put into motion by another. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, at the beginning of the series of movers must be a being that is itself unmoved and the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.

#2 Argument from causation

Every effect must have a cause. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.

#3 Argument from necessity

If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. There must have always existed, from all eternity without any beginning, a necessary being, from whom beings that began received their existence. The necessary being is God.

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

#5 Argument from design

The order of the universe and the workings of creation give evidence of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is God.

#6 Argument from contingency

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist (space and time). What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. What it takes for the universe to exist is God.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design)

We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

#8 The argument from truth (Platonic forms)

Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth resides in a mind. The human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Then there is Descartes' argument from the origin of the idea of God, Anselm's ontological argument, argument from universal belief, argument from miracles, argument from religious experience...

#9 The argument from conscience

Even the subjectivist thinks he should follow his conscience. Where does the conscience get such absolute authority? From something less than me (natural instinct), from myself (who is not an absolute being), from others equal to me (society is not an absolute being), or from something above me (God)? The only source of absolute moral obligation must be a superior being. This is God.

OK, I have probably taken up an entire page. But this is a start. Yikes, there are other questions I need to go back to now!

Surely you know that there are counter-arguments to each. Before we start tearing into this list, which of these arguments do you believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

An observation and a question.

1. Morality is an adaptive trait.



So morality is just part of the evolutionary struggle for survival. Morality can be explained by natural selection. Those humans who treated each other well survived, and those who did not figured out it does not work because they did not survive.

I offered a refutation to the "morality as instinct" alternative earlier, but quickly, think of instincts or human traits as musical notes, and morality as the sheet music. Morality tells us how and when to play the notes; it is not the notes themselves. Further, instincts often contradict each other, and treating other humans badly often betters the ones who behave badly.



2. I agree that god has filled the world with evidence of his existence but not his presence, assuming there's a god. But then why did he bother with all the prophets and sending Jesus and performing miracles? If you don't need evidence for faith, why did God give evidence to some and not others? In your view, the apostles were the least faithful christians that have ever existed. By definition they had no true faith.

I have tried to stay away from arguments about particular religions, but as to why God would reveal Himself to some people spectacularly and refuse to speak to some who loved Him dearly (Mother Teresa)...our finite minds cannot grasp infinite intelligence. But the amount of evidence out there is astounding. Some events are witnessed by large numbers of people (the miracle of the sun), and many others are experienced personally. Some can be subjected to scientific study (medical miracles, the tilma from Guadalupe), others are hidden within the moments of death. But all bits of evidence serve the purpose of allowing us to decide whether or not to believe the evidence.

[Anonymous]

OK, going for quality over quantity:

#1 Argument from motion (physics)

What is in motion must be put into motion by another. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, at the beginning of the series of movers must be a being that is itself unmoved and the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.

Sure, but this gets you no further to the goal. You've simply defined some phenomenon you know nothing about, and called it "god". Even the theoretical physicists who've posited that our universe was spawned by a black hole in another universe have gotten us closer to "truth". It's one thing to claim "The Big Bang is God". It's another thing to show that this God has agency. You're just substituting one blank spot on the map with another, and pretending it's revealing something.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design)

We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

This is just a variant of Creationism (Intelligent Design). No one has argued it's blind chance. But the current model of evolutionary theory explains how an arbitrary level of complexity can derive from simplicity. There's literally no significant (or trivial) argument that's been made against the modern theory of evolution that has been compelling in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

And to think you were accusing one of the PPs of "begging the question"!

Phew! Ok, we will back up to the beginning again. Because yes, if we are going to talk about God's authority, we need to have God in the first place. Natural law is meaningless apart from the lawgiver, Who is God. Is there any evidence there is God? The classic evidence:

#1 Argument from motion (physics)

What is in motion must be put into motion by another. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, at the beginning of the series of movers must be a being that is itself unmoved and the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.

#2 Argument from causation

Every effect must have a cause. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.

#3 Argument from necessity

If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. There must have always existed, from all eternity without any beginning, a necessary being, from whom beings that began received their existence. The necessary being is God.

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

#5 Argument from design

The order of the universe and the workings of creation give evidence of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is God.

#6 Argument from contingency

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist (space and time). What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. What it takes for the universe to exist is God.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design)

We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

#8 The argument from truth (Platonic forms)

Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth resides in a mind. The human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Then there is Descartes' argument from the origin of the idea of God, Anselm's ontological argument, argument from universal belief, argument from miracles, argument from religious experience...

#9 The argument from conscience

Even the subjectivist thinks he should follow his conscience. Where does the conscience get such absolute authority? From something less than me (natural instinct), from myself (who is not an absolute being), from others equal to me (society is not an absolute being), or from something above me (God)? The only source of absolute moral obligation must be a superior being. This is God.

OK, I have probably taken up an entire page. But this is a start. Yikes, there are other questions I need to go back to now!

Surely you know that there are counter-arguments to each. Before we start tearing into this list, which of these arguments do you believe?

Oh, have mercy! My mommy brain has already been worked to death the past 24 hours, and I have almost used up my baby's nap entirely! Yes, I know there are counter-arguments. I also know some are more logically sound than others. Look, rather than begin the final battle of belief versus nonbelief, can I just ask you a question?

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

[Anonymous]

# 10 The argument from quiescence.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? God.

# 11 The argument from unknowability.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? God.

# 12 The argument from Wayne's World.

Asphinctorsayswhat? God.

# 13 The argument from Houston.

How will I know if he really loves me? God.

[Anonymous]

In Olympos, Turkey, there is a mountain where fire spouts from holes in the ground. The legend is that a great beast called the Chimera (a monstrous fire-breathing female creature composed of the body of a lioness with a tail that ended in a snake's head, the head of a goat arose on her back at the center of her spine) is buried in the mountain and the fire is its breath. Scientists have been unable to determine exactly what it is about the gas released from the mountain that causes it to spontaneously ignite.

Does the Chimera exist? Your arguments are effectively like saying that the fire spouts from the mountain, therefore the Chimera exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I have tried to stay away from arguments about particular religions, but as to why God would reveal Himself to some people spectacularly and refuse to speak to some who loved Him dearly (Mother Teresa)...our finite minds cannot grasp infinite intelligence. But the amount of evidence out there is astounding. Some events are witnessed by large numbers of people (the miracle of the sun), and many others are experienced personally. Some can be subjected to scientific study (medical miracles, the tilma from Guadalupe), others are hidden within the moments of death. But all bits of evidence serve the purpose of allowing us to decide whether or not to believe the evidence.

This has been fun and all, but judging from the pattern of using of Christian mythology as "evidence" of a god, to calling what I'm assuming is "the sunrise" a miracle, etc, etc... I think it's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith. At this point, I think you're just looking for validation by engaging in all this flurry of obscurantism and sophistry.

I hope that your original question has been answered to your satisfaction, though: we don't believe in any gods because there's not a shred of evidence that one exists, at least in any of the commonly understood sense of a being with agency, intelligence, etc... Enumerations of arguments that were rebutted a half a millennia ago don't contribute much. It's the fallacy of <i>ad auctoritatem</i>. Augustine is great to read as literature--he was a really clever fellow for pre-Enlightenment. CS Lewis less so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Okay. But as I said before, you're engaging in the fallacy of conflating physical "truths" with moral "truths". As many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. Moral truths are fluid. That's why the question "How can you have morality without God" is a nonsensical one. Morality is a byproduct of consciousness. It is by definition subjective.

Your only response to this seems to be that, no it's objective. And God is its arbiter. Therefore he exists.

Obviously, this is a completely unpersuasive argument unless you've got an existing attachment to the God Hypothesis. Perhaps why CS Lewis (assume he agrees with you) is so compelling to true believers, and so uncompelling to non-believers.

Earlier, I made the distinction between physical truths and moral truths. Religious skeptics and subjectivists are not universal skeptics (no truth is knowable) or universal subjectivists (all truth is subjective). Religious skeptics and subjectivists concede objective truth is knowable in nonreligious fields. Just not in morality. The statement "moral truths are fluid" is the definition of a religious subjectivist.

You mentioned one version of religious subjectivism: morality is a byproduct of consciousness. We learn God from our mothers. We learn values from society. The origin of values is not something objective outside of human minds, but within the minds themselves. What comes from humans is subjective.

This confuses our opinions about morality with morality itself. If there is an Absolute Authority on morality (God), then our opinions about morality are not the same thing as morality.

You would say they are, in fact, one and the same. Our opinions about morality are morality, sum total. That is why morality is fluid.

That is possibly true. But then the Aztecs were perfectly right to rip those babies' hearts out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

And to think you were accusing one of the PPs of "begging the question"!

Phew! Ok, we will back up to the beginning again. Because yes, if we are going to talk about God's authority, we need to have God in the first place. Natural law is meaningless apart from the lawgiver, Who is God. Is there any evidence there is God? The classic evidence:

#1 Argument from motion (physics)

What is in motion must be put into motion by another. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, at the beginning of the series of movers must be a being that is itself unmoved and the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.

#2 Argument from causation

Every effect must have a cause. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.

#3 Argument from necessity

If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. There must have always existed, from all eternity without any beginning, a necessary being, from whom beings that began received their existence. The necessary being is God.

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

#5 Argument from design

The order of the universe and the workings of creation give evidence of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is God.

#6 Argument from contingency

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist (space and time). What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. What it takes for the universe to exist is God.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design)

We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

#8 The argument from truth (Platonic forms)

Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth resides in a mind. The human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Then there is Descartes' argument from the origin of the idea of God, Anselm's ontological argument, argument from universal belief, argument from miracles, argument from religious experience...

#9 The argument from conscience

Even the subjectivist thinks he should follow his conscience. Where does the conscience get such absolute authority? From something less than me (natural instinct), from myself (who is not an absolute being), from others equal to me (society is not an absolute being), or from something above me (God)? The only source of absolute moral obligation must be a superior being. This is God.

OK, I have probably taken up an entire page. But this is a start. Yikes, there are other questions I need to go back to now!

Surely you know that there are counter-arguments to each. Before we start tearing into this list, which of these arguments do you believe?

Oh, have mercy! My mommy brain has already been worked to death the past 24 hours, and I have almost used up my baby's nap entirely! Yes, I know there are counter-arguments. I also know some are more logically sound than others. Look, rather than begin the final battle of belief versus nonbelief, can I just ask you a question?

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have tried to stay away from arguments about particular religions, but as to why God would reveal Himself to some people spectacularly and refuse to speak to some who loved Him dearly (Mother Teresa)...our finite minds cannot grasp infinite intelligence. But the amount of evidence out there is astounding. Some events are witnessed by large numbers of people (the miracle of the sun), and many others are experienced personally. Some can be subjected to scientific study (medical miracles, the tilma from Guadalupe), others are hidden within the moments of death. But all bits of evidence serve the purpose of allowing us to decide whether or not to believe the evidence.

This has been fun and all, but judging from the pattern of using of Christian mythology as "evidence" of a god, to calling what I'm assuming is "the sunrise" a miracle, etc, etc... I think it's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith. At this point, I think you're just looking for validation by engaging in all this flurry of obscurantism and sophistry.

I hope that your original question has been answered to your satisfaction, though: we don't believe in any gods because there's not a shred of evidence that one exists, at least in any of the commonly understood sense of a being with agency, intelligence, etc... Enumerations of arguments that were rebutted a half a millennia ago don't contribute much. It's the fallacy of <i>ad auctoritatem</i>. Augustine is great to read as literature--he was a really clever fellow for pre-Enlightenment. CS Lewis less so.

The "miracle of the sun" occurred in Portugal on October 13, 1917. Although I do think a sunrise is a beautiful thing, that is not what I was referring to. And I just mentioned some miracles that I am familiar with, but medical miracles and near-death experiences transcend any particular religion.

I do very much appreciate everyone who took the time to share their reasons for not believing. I have found the whole thread enlightening (no pun intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

Because you want to convince me I should not believe in God? (Trying to figure out how to choose)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

Because you want to convince me I should not believe in God? (Trying to figure out how to choose)

No, as a matter of fact I personally believe in God. But I do not want to have a conversation with a book. I want to talk to a person who thinks about and believes in an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

Because you want to convince me I should not believe in God? (Trying to figure out how to choose)

No, as a matter of fact I personally believe in God. But I do not want to have a conversation with a book. I want to talk to a person who thinks about and believes in an argument.

I personally believe in each of the arguments to varying degrees. Each argument had a part in convincing my intellect that is it reasonable to believe in God. But my final "therefore, I believe" was an act of the will, not of the intellect. And each of these arguments utilizes the intellect, rather than the will.

So in that sense, the atheists here are right. I cannot prove God exists, because I can inform the intellect, but I cannot force the will, and since we do not live face to face with God, "I know" does become "I believe."

That is why there is the faith of a child, the faith of a simple person, and the faith of an intellectual giant. I am no intellectual giant. So I relish a discussion about any argument for the existence of God, but readily admit I may not be up to the task. I would prefer an argument based on physical objective truth, such as the laws of physics, because most rational people accept there is objective truth, just not moral objective truth.