I took a few ethics & epistemology courses getting my ba
Aquainus has sound reasoning based on the observable world; his reasoning and logic are very good. I think that my largest issue with his thinking is his formation of the omnipotent singularity, God. The arguments in the Five Ways are incredible. I do agree; I can't believe how many people don't at least give this thought consideration. Maybe they are too distracted by "life" and are unable to maintain a level of security (i.e. Maslow's hierarchy) to have the luxury of self-reflection upon what is and why. I think that's why organized religion works. It can distill down heavy concepts into themes. I see your credentials, and please forgive my ignorance in the subject of religion; I hope I am speaking kindly.
I was initially drawn to philosophy for answers. I self-described growing up as staunchly atheist. Plato was a beautiful read, but I found Aristotle harder. Through Aquinas and Descartes, I realized that I could not know for sure the presence or lack of the omnibeing, and that agnostic is a better term for myself. I think my main hesitation with the omnipresent is that it removes free will or brings it into question. If an outside entity knows what I will do or how it will turn out, how do I have the ability to choose? It's the reason I liked elements of Utilitarianism; it gave me as a simple individual a way to quantify moral choices. It can be a very dangerous ideology, as majority "positivities" can create strange outcomes that I think on a singular level are very worrisome. I think I need to go back and reread Russell with a lens that violence is not necessary.