Concluding Assumption

Concluding Assumption


a53f343618489d3c1e31c6f5215e73c4B: By the way, why shouldn’t the explanation of the Universe be a relatively simple one?  Wouldn’t a beneficent God want truth to be simple and accessible to all, even to the least-educated among us?

A: Well then why doesn’t God just come out and declare His existence to everyone?  He doesn’t seem to be making it terribly easy for anyone, let alone everyone, to find Him out.

B: I would propose that He wants us to find Him in a different way – different from processes such as the Scientific Method.  That method seems to work fine as we study less-intelligent life forms and “non-living” things, as defined by science; and it has its applications in our study of other humans (although I might argue that it has its limitations in those fields also).  But why should we think that it would suffice in our study of a higher life form, such as God?  It’s akin to an infant always using the same method to study the objects he encounters – by putting them into his mouth.  And why shouldn’t he use this method?  As it may appear to the infant, everything else in his life seems to go there.  A good parent, of course, would endeavor to teach the child that there are other methods.

In reference to the Scientific Method’s failed efforts to produce a God, it is evident to me that if there is a God, He clearly would not have us come to know Him by this method, as if He was just another creature in the Animal Kingdom, or some complicated computer or machine.  What is also clear is that a God Who can elude detection by the Scientific Method and can create planets, galaxies, and an entire universe, must surely far surpass our own relatively meager intellectual capabilities: if we attempt to come find Him, He would detect us before we could Him, and could continue to avoid us if He so desires anyway.  If God is to be discovered, it must undoubtedly be by another way – a way that is accessible to each individual of the general public and yet inaccessible to the general public itself.

A: What?!  That makes absolutely no sense.

B: Look at it this way: anything that is determined by the Scientific Method is accessible to the general public.  A science result as groundbreaking as the empirical verification of the existence of God would be known to the entire world almost immediately after its publication.  But as I was saying, it seems that God would not like to be known this way; perhaps He would rather that each of us come to Him individually, of our own accord, than that somebody take care of it all at once, for all of us.  Therefore, He may “whisper” an invitation to each person from time to time to come to know Him, and if a person – that is, anybody – wants to, he may.  In this way, potentially nobody is exempted from knowledge of Him, and yet science knows nothing about it because the Scientific Method didn’t yield that knowledge.


B: That’s about all I’ve got to say about this subject, which is, in summary: because without belief in God, life is reduced to meaninglessness, and is absent a moral authority besides, I will henceforth assume that there is a God, and an existence of some kind after we die.

A (startled): Whoa!  Easy there, fella.  Why all the bold speech?

B: I just wanted to make sure we all understood clearly why I’ve been talking so much about why it’s pointless to go through life without believing in some kind of God.  Having provided what I feel is formidable support for making this assumption reasonable, we will see that it is essential to my remaining arguments about truth and the applications thereof.


A: But what if what awaits us is entirely different?  Consider, for instance, reincarnation.

B: I don’t know much about beliefs in reincarnation, but my understanding of the idea is that we continue to live one life after another, presumably on the same Earth.  Some believe that the next life has nothing to do with this life – which gives the appeal of having the reward of immortality without any responsibility, and making this life purposeless again – while others believe the opposite; that is, that the next life will be somehow “better” based on how we lived in this life.  This latter case seems to me to be, basically, belief in a kind of God.

Observe: there are two things that we know – this life and what we can do during it.  What we may not know is what kind of life, or how many lives, await us after this one, and what we should do now to prepare for whatever is next.  All we can do now is live according to our best judgment – meaning, our own best idea of what we should do to prepare for the next life.  People can claim ignorance, that since they don’t “know” what they should be doing, they can’t be held accountable for their actions – or they may even claim that their own best judgment is to do whatever it is they feel like doing – but everybody has a conscience.  They know what they’re doing, and when they’re doing something wrong, their conscience is going to remind them about it.  It’s going to consistently pose the question before them, “what if what you do now has a bearing with how the next life goes, if there is one?”  Of course, this can get annoying sometimes.  Everybody rebels against their consciences from time to time, since nobody’s perfect.  And there are many who would rather that they didn’t have a conscience at all.  But they’d better get comfortable with it, since there’s no way to rid oneself of one’s conscience.


  1. Profet

    So i was reading your ground rules where posted all the logical fallacies. (Thanks BTW)

    I’d like to understand how this assumption you just made is not a violation of your own rules…specifically this one:

    “Proof by Statement” or “by Tautology” or “Circular Reasoning” – an argument isn’t true just because you or someone else says it is, or because it is somehow inherently so.

    • Blog Author

      I’m not quite sure I understand your question — are you wondering if I violated my own rule in the rule itself, or in the assumption I made in the current post?

      If the former, it may be that I didn’t state that rule in the best language. What I meant was that every argument made should have some kind of backing to it; that is, something to substantiate the claim.

      If the latter, I realize now that if I didn’t already, I should have explicitly mentioned earlier on that there are certain things that must be assumed for any discussion to take place. Such as in math, which require the acceptance of a few crucial axioms. In the assumption made as the subject of the current post, I’m stating that since it cannot be proven one way or the other (that is, concerning the existence of a God and a life after this one), I’m going to assume that God and a postmortal life exist, so that the discussion in the myriad posts that follow can take place.

      However, I would argue that some substantiation behind this assumption has taken place already; that is, consisting of the material in the previous several posts (currently under the sub-heading “The Futility of Atheism for Each Individual.”) See, for instance, the post “There May As Well Be a God.”


Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *