>There's a certain IQ threshold for that, as it requires the de novo construction of a new metaphysics.
I am sure that a lot of atheists are flattered hearing this, but come on, they heard about it online, or even from the community's conniptions about outsiders. For that matter "what if what I see with my eyes is what is real" does not take a big I.Q. to think of.
Maybe but our perception should not be assumed to be correct.
The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.
I'd be surprised if our eyes give us a truthful perception of reality. They give us a functional understanding that allows us to thrive here but nothing more.
But that's exactly my point, or at least an exemplification of it. If you want to marshal arguments for believing in things which are totally hidden from us, you're doing things like quoting "mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash." I would argue that believing in anything but immediate reality is what takes the most verbal or mental exertion.
I am sure that a lot of atheists are flattered hearing this, but come on, they heard about it online, or even from the community's conniptions about outsiders. For that matter "what if what I see with my eyes is what is real" does not take a big I.Q. to think of.