Humans are theogenic, God ethicogenic.

There is an argument for the existence of God, which I call the ‘argument from need’. We need God to exist in order to have the hope that those who we most care about will not one day be only ‘vanity of vanities’. This is in some sense not a proof and it is possible to argue it is the opposite of a proof, since it shows the strong impulse of human beings to ‘make up’ the existence of such a God.
It seems to me however that the need is an expression of human will and hope. It is not a proof in the existence of God in a two plus two equals four sense. But rather something like a decision to believe in and trust in God, an act of will on our part.
The proof for God’s existence is in our wagering on the existence of God.
And the paradox is that out of this wager and out of this belief can come a relationship which gives ‘proof of God’s existence’ in other ways. i.e. as for instance in prayer when we somehow ‘know God is listening’when we are truly praying.
So what ‘belief’ means is not simple intellectual assent it means ‘life- decision’.

Freedman you in-effect refuted your own argument you said : “There is an argument for the existence of God, which I call the ‘argument from need’”…”This is in some sense not a proof and it is possible to argue it is the opposite of a proof”.

Are you proposing an argument for God (Which in this case fails as it is a fallacy to assume need therefore equals existence) or not?

At some point in my life as a young adualt I made a leap of faith that I would be happyer. Surprisingly this worked rather well actualy. It became a self fulfilling prophecy.

This is what it sounds to me that people are doing w these arguments, trying to manufacture a god thru act of faith alone. While this worked reasonably well w me being a bit happyer, I donot see that this works in creating any actual god tho, any more than faith in a refrigerator sized diamond buried in my back yard makes that a reality.

Unless one is willing to define god as mearly a state of mind, then isnot this more like an imaginary huge diamond?

This paragraph is funny

These comments here though are a huge pile of horseshit.

2. If Jews did not ontologically exist back then, did they ever exist?

3. If Judaism exists as a culture, as a way of life, as a set of practices and rituals, but only ontologically as make-believe, is the Jewish identity justified, especially when we consider the amount of wars fought over such identities and when the Jewish identity itself is not even monolithic, promoting conflict between so-called Jews with different sets of practices and rituals, ways of life, and cultures?

Let’s hope she asks questions like these.

I loved your book on Spinoza. In fact it inspired me
to write a novel about a philosophy professor who teaches Spinoza at the University of Montana. The professor gets into an argument with an Israeli doctor over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, is challenged to a duel by the doctor, accepts the challenge, goes to a particular pass in Glacier park where the duel was supposed to take place, and is badly mauled by a grizzly.

What would Spinoza make of that? He had friends who kept him from the mauling mob by tying him to his bed.