Atheism: Faith in God, part 2

A argument states that any sort of theism, at least Christianity, is irrational because of the lack of evidence of a God outside of "the Bible says so." Fair enough.

It is fair to debate the form of God. whether He is a he or a she. Whether He of the nature to be refered to using capitalized pronouns. His form, size, power, limitations, and quintessential nature. Because of his apparent absence from human affairs, it is fair to debate whether he is Jehovah, Allah, Christ, Zeus, or someone else. This is up to debate like the particular color of the skin of certain dinosaurs.

To assume God's form, let alone existence, is irrational. Just as irrational, however, is atheism that assumes God's nonexistence. Or, at least the nonexistence of a force that fills the shoes of God.

*Tangential note: we can assume this force to have a conciousness because we, people, have individual consciousnesses. God needn't set out to produce specific creatures*

Dr. Albert Ellis, I believe, explained his atheism by saying the existence of a God is so improbable as not to be worth anyone's attention. Even if I am quoting him out of context, let's analyze this argument anyway. To assume the probability of the existence of an object requires knowledge of that object. Eg. The probability of a pipe leaking, the probability of a car running out of gas after a certain amount of driving. Now, we can observe the form of a pipe or gas tank. The existence of God presents a different problem. If He exists, we, in general, fail to notice him in any meaningful way.

He cannot be observed as does a pipe or gas tank. In order to consider the probability of His existence, we must narrow down something of His 'Godness.'
To compare, consider the bottle of Mountain Dew I am drinking. Whether the bottle contains urine can probably be proven. Scientists have analyzed the components of urine. If urine was introduced into the Dew during production (say, an unruly employee pees in the mixture of the drink, and the urine gets so deluted that it cannot discolor or make the drink smell or taste bad) we could find it out. Provided, however, I cannot note the urine with my naked senses, I will choose to leave the matter at faith, and continue to drink the drink. The probability is so improbable, I believe, that that it is hardly worth my attention.

Not so with God. For as long as I am uncertain about the nature of God, I should stay away from passionate declarations about the probability of His existence.

A good place to start in considering his existence would be science and related topics. Biology, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy, other subjects, and how these subjects interact. Especially how they interact. Learning more about the world can show us its origins. Perhaps the more interesting discovery ever will be discovering the nature of consciousness. How it works, how and when and why it arrives at birth, how and when and why and where it ends at death. What changes during certain situations. How consciousness differs between individuals, and between species.

Perhaps a better understanding of consciousness will lead to a better understand of God. Without this understanding, then any belief or nonbelief in God remains faith-based.