OK. Well for me, part of it is that I find physicalism/materialism implausible. It doesn't fit with scientific discoveries of the past century as well as other theories of reality, like "
virtualism." Quantum mechanics doesn't necessarily mean there is a "God" but for me it does mean that the non-physical is real. There is a "ghostly world" of quantum mechanics. It's not a huge stretch to call it a "spirit world." For me, its existence is the only sensible interpretation of QM. I don't believe there are doppelgangers of me on parallel earths and all that as described in the many worlds hypothesis, which is the most popular interpretation in the mainstream scientific community right now.
I don't claim that materialism is necessarily true, but I also don't stick strongly to any alternative theory. If you make stuff up like that it seems likely that you will get it wrong. To me it just sounds like you are making stuff up, but what do you mean by a spirit world for QM?
So there is that. I also believe in life beyond death. I guess what convinces me most is Near Death Experience research. A lot of people have a different interpretation of this data but I find it compelling evidence.
They could easily be explained by the brain dying or waking up. There is no need to make up magical other worlds. But I would be happy to hear why you disagree.
As far as God, I have no idea what God is, but I'm sort of OK with that. It's something like "awareness / consciousness / being / life / love / peace." We know from experience that those things exist and in my belief that's evidence of God because we and everything else are a part of God.
Well if mean God is just consciousness then God does exist, but that isn't what most people mean by God. It sounds like you are unnecessarily making up definitions. If you are going to say God is consciousness, then why not just use the word consciousness?
Why use the word God at all?
If you mean that God is more than the things we experience then obviously they can't be evidence for God because they could exist without God.
I don't believe that all of that stuff arises from random physical processes. For me, matter arising from a non-physical observer substrate makes more sense. Maybe I go on intuition for it. Think of two things in order: 1. Awareness, 2. Matter. Which seems primary or fundamental? For me it's 1.
Well consciousness didn't evolve until recently, so what was it that existed before then? Matter.
So the following three things don't have to be related but for me they are. So that's why I brought up 1 & 2.
1. the non-physical is real based on QM.
Why does that mean there is something non-physical? QM is physical so any connection to it is probably also physical.
2. there is life beyond death based on NDEs.
Which sounds a bit like saying there must be a God because what else explains lightning and the movement of the planets. It's based on ignorance and bias.
But again, if you can argue why NDE are more than the brain then go ahead.
3. God is real based on intuition but God is only dimly understood by the thinking mind. However, it is possible to "know" God in other ways, such as when you have a sense of peace, which is often the result of some form of meditation such as mindfulness.
So what you mean is that you have no reason to believe in God, it just makes you feel good?
As far as NDE testimony, I see it as being a lot like stories of ET visitation or UFOs, which I also believe. It's subjective, circumstantial evidence but that doesn't necessarily make it unreasonable to believe in or uncompelling. People are sent to the chair based on eye-witness testimony.
Eye-witness testimony is known to be unreliable.
Just because someone says they saw a dragon doesn't mean dragons are real. They could have unknowingly have eaten a drug or chemical. They could be mistaken. They could be dreaming. They could be in sleep paralysis. They could have a mental problem.
Considering there could be psychological reasons for it, it is silly to just believe them. So yes, it is unreasonable for you think think aliens have visited people. There is no evidence for it. Just people with their weird human and fallible minds.
Yeah, I have assumed that because materialism cannot adequately explain how random processes create phenomena such as life and awareness, it means there must be a God behind it.
Materialism can probably explain life, but I agree it might not be able to awareness. That doesn't mean there is a God behind it though.
I think that for debate purposes, atheism is a stronger position than theism because atheism is a null hypothesis, which is very hard to argue against. Anything attributed to God can be attributed to God of the gaps. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. However since it is so hard to argue against a null hypothesis like atheism without scientifically reproducible evidence to the contrary, I don't bother trying. I was only trying to explain why I believe in God. As far as God and the afterlife, believe what you want, I'm not arguing for their existence.
Then you have no reason to believe in God. You don't have to argue against atheism, you just have to give good reasons why to believe. If there are no good reasons, there is no reason to believe in God.
But unlike atheism, materialism makes an positive claim: that all phenomena are material interactions. This claim is completely contradicted by reproducible scientific tests of quantum phenomena like entanglement, superposition, quantum tunneling, wave particle duality etc. So I will debate until the bitter end over THAT one. For example, in entanglement, what is the material interaction between the entangled particles? There is none!
I don't know, and I can be ok with my ignorance. Making stuff up is good for deluding oneself.
What you say doesn't go against materialism, it just poses a problem. Gravity could have been questioned like that in the past. How could the Earth attract the Moon when they don't touch? There is no material touching so materialism must be wrong. But then of course Einstein solved that problem. Perhaps the change in entanglement is somehow material, but we don't know how yet.
The past should teach us not to jump to fill the gaps with highly speculative theories.
When it comes to QM, you can use some kind of version of God of the gaps to hold on to materialism, such as "we don't fully understand it yet, but let's not jump to conclusions." But to me that is just a cop out and an over-reliance on the God of the gaps argument. Like I said, QM doesn't prove God or the afterlife exist but it does at least prove there is more to reality than physical interactions. Therefore physicalism cannot be true.
It doesn't prove anything any more than gravity in the past would have proven materialism incorrect.
It isn't 'god of the gaps' to say not to jump to conclusions. I'm not claiming knowledge. Science has worked out stuff like this in the past, so we should give it time to see if it will again. We don't have to take a firm position about things we don't know.