Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aryu2 t1_j2ngyzb wrote

"Ultimately, William James argument in favor of the belief in God can be boiled down as:
“God is real because he produces real effects.” (p. 517)"

By anology the believe in Santa Claus by a child might have a positive and real effect on that child life the same way the believe in God does to some people.However that doesn't make Santa Claus real.

4

zaceno t1_j2osfaf wrote

But that’s not quite analogous. The argument as I read it is more along the lines: “We might as well consider God real, because when we act as God is real, it produces effects as if God is real”

The same cannot be said of Santa Claus. I can’t wait up on Christmas Eve by the fireplace and expect to have a close encounter.

Since acting like Santa Claus is real is pointless, it is also pointless to think of Santa Claus as real, and pointless to discuss Santa Claus as if he were real.

4

NewPackage3269 OP t1_j2nigmc wrote

Like most rational people, I'm agnostic about Santa Claus.

0

aryu2 t1_j2o7e3t wrote

Agreed,it wasn't a good argument.I tought about another one which I hope makes more sense:“God is real because he produces real effects.” If correct this conclusion can be applied to justify the existence of any other thing including an entity that is contrary to the existence of God(let's call it No-God),something on the lines:The believe in No-God produces real effects in the world therefore he is real.But No-God and God can't be both real therefore this conclusion can't be used to justify the existence of God.(this is a mere tought and probaly has strong counter arguments)

Another thing is that in the conclusion presented(God is real because he produces real effects.) it's not God that is producing the effects is the believe in God.

2