Transcendentalism and a belief in a "higher power"							

	We do not have good reasons to believe in something
transcendental. Most of the arguments in favor of God, or a
so-called "higher power" are based on faith and emotion, and not
a clear logical argument. In fact, these arguments are often in
favor of throwing logic out the window. In many ways, this
question is similar to someone attempting to prove the existence
of an invisible elephant. It is far easier to prove that the
elephant does not exist than it is to prove that it does.

	Socrates' principle of examination states that we must
carefully examine all things. The tools we humans use to do this
are logic and the scientific method. In order to believe in
something transcendental, you cannot examine your beliefs using
logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove the
existence of a higher power. 

	The primary argument against the existence of a Judeo-Christian
all-knowing, all-powerful, righteous God is the argument from
evil. This argument argues against the presence of a higher
power using facts of ordinary life. This argument states that
most would agree that some of the pain and suffering (evil) in
this world is unnecessary. To be considered a necessary evil,
the occurrence must be the only way to produce something good,
which outweighs the evil. Many events, such as infant deaths,
would not be classified in this category.

	If such an all-knowing deity existed, it states,  He would know
that this evil was occurring. If He was all-powerful, He would
have the power to stop this evil. If He was righteous, He would
stop the evil from occurring   Therefore, the existence of evil
cannot be compatible with the existence of this type of God.

	The primary response to the argument from evil is the appeal to
human freedom. This argument states that God sees evil as
necessary so that we humans may be free to choose our own path.
The fatal flaw in this argument is that there are evils that
exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evils such
as floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes serve no purpose according
to this definition, and are therefore unnecessary evils.

	A theist might respond to this with another weak rebuttal,
stating that every evil produces compassion and understanding in
others, and creates good in that regard. This is an overly
positive, almost delusional view of evil. Almost everyone will
be able to come up with at least one example of someone who has
suffered an evil that has not directly or indirectly led to
anything good.  

	 The other argument for something transcendental is the
argument from faith. It is, however, also a weak argument. It
states that we will never be able to find direct evidence of
God's existence through logic or natural science, so we must
find an alternate method. This argument requires us to suspend
Socrates' basic philosophical principle of examination. The
argument from faith asks us to leave this idea alone, and simply
believe that it works. This basic lack of logic and reasoning
makes this a weak argument.

	Another of the arguments is the design argument. This states
that the universe is far too structured and complex to be
derived from a big bang, or another random sequence of events. A
transcendental "watchmaker" is the only explanation for the
complexities of the universe, say proponents of this argument. 

	The weak link in this argument is that for the many structured
things that exist, there are just as many chaotic things. Not
everything in the universe serves a purpose, or has an efficient
design. Again, this is connected back to the argument from evil.
Some evils are unnecessary flaws in the watch's design. Thomas
Paley, a critic of the argument, asked why a higher being design
a flawed watch with so many pointless features. There is no good
counter to that argument.

	Another argument is the First Cause argument. This argument
states that everything that exists had a separate cause of its
coming into existence. This creates a causal chain, extending
backward in time, which cannot be infinite. If it is not
infinite, then there must be a first cause, which must be God.
This seems like a reasonable argument, but one of its premises
is shaky. There is no good reason to state that there cannot be
an infinite series of causes. Scientists might argue for the Big
Bang theory as a beginning to our universe, but it also could
have had a cause. 

	Another shaky premise of the argument is the last one. Why does
the end of the chain have to be the Judeo-Christian god? It
could also be a transcendental force, without the many traits
associated to a god. It is also remarkably self-centered for one
religion to believe it has the monopoly on God. Why could the
first cause not be Allah, Buddha, or the like?

	Two other minor arguments try to connect physical reality to
the existence of God. The first is the argument from miracles.
This argument states that many people have a legitimate belief
that they have experienced miracles. With so many unexplained
phenomena in this world, they argue, it is probable that God
must be causing these remarkable events.

	The next argument is the argument from religious experience.
Proponents argue that many people claim to have been "touched"
by a higher power. Because of this direct contact, we must
believe in the existence of a transcendental being. Many people
have very similar stories of walking into a bright light in
near-death experiences. 

	With all of these occurrences, supporters argue, we must be
able to see the existence of a god. The response to both of
these arguments is that there is not one bit of concrete
evidence to support either claim. Every time we have tested
so-called articles of religious miracle, such as the Shroud of
Turin, they have not lived up to their claim. We also cannot
prove through any scientific method that anyone has ever been
touched by a transcendental force. These near-death experiences
are probably a simple lack of blood to the brain.

	The only tools that we have to prove or disprove the existence
of a transcendental power are our senses, the scientific method,
and logic. With all of our technological advances, we have never
been able to find substantial evidence that this power exists or
ever did exist. We also have not found a logical argument to
prove its existence. Without this substantive proof, we cannot
say that we have logical or reasonable reasons to believe in
something transcendental. We humans have not found the invisible
elephant, but have already created the circus for it.