For, if man abstains to make judgment and refuses to take either decision, like scientists do, he has already committed himself to disbelief. The logic here denotes that ‘disbelief is maintained as long as belief is not admitted.’
An overall typology of factors or ‘forces’ of persuasion and dissuasion for belief and disbelief can be perhaps, in the probability of general reference, reduced to the following experience:
The physical experience, where the individual is exposed to the sensible-perceptible aspect of the encounter between man and the universe (e.g. scientists, organists, mechanicists). Here the individual person does not believe in an extra-being i.e. external finality that is unseen and not subject to empiricism. Here the individual judgment decides to reject the idea of the existence of such a hypothesis.
But the argument of the sensible-perceptible is two edged weapon. The fact that we do not see or empirically establish evidence for such a hypothesis does not at all prove that it des not exist. In fact, we can argue to the contrary and present ‘what is’ as an argument for the necessity of a creator-programmer. The fact that the universe exists indicates such a conclusion, but this remains purely hypothetical,
The mental experience, where the individual is exposed to the perceptible, examines it and renders it to the intelligible. Here the individual confronts the object, or phenomenon, on an intellectual reasoning level. By examining through reason the presence of form and structure, the aspect of the ‘how’ is analyzed to conclude.
The impact of this reasoning results in confronting the same question of explanation and lack of evidence. The individual is forced by the nature of