Thread: What moments/things make you think of that God exists?

Even if you are not religious, even if you are an atheist - Do you still have some moments when you think that God may exist?
Example: I wonder the man/woman thing - A man needs to get an orgasm to seed a woman to make more people - makes me kinda think that what for is it like it is. Also, the eyes make you able to see and ears make you able to hear - why did evolution make those parts when propably the very first living being on this planet didn't have eyes or ears at the beginning. How does evolution know that people need to hear and see?

Originally Posted by deep'n'dark

Even if you are not religious, even if you are an atheist - Do you still have some moments when you think that God may exist?
Example: I wonder the man/woman thing - A man needs to get an orgasm to seed a woman to make more people - makes me kinda think that what for is it like it is. Also, the eyes make you able to see and ears make you able to hear - why did evolution make those parts when propably the very first living being on this planet didn't have eyes or ears at the beginning. How does evolution know that people need to hear and see?

Oh my, someone gets things backwards, don't they.
Evolution doesn't "know" anything.
If it had come up with some other senses that proved "useful" to the species then THOSE senses would have been the ones we'd have had.
And then you'd probably be asking "How did evolution know that people need to squirkle and fronk?"

We don't "need" (in the sense you mean) to be able to hear and see, that's just how things turned out.

In fact it's questions like that that just confirm to me there is no god. He would have made people smarter...

Well to answer you: The eyes and ears shoulda never happen at all. Even if I'd confirm that God doesn't exist you have not answered the question. Why would ears and eyes function at all if there wasn't no life long long time ago. It's too good to be true that they would be possible.

Originally Posted by deep'n'dark

Well to answer you: The eyes and ears shoulda never happen at all.

Really? How do you work that out?

Why would ears and eyes function at all if there wasn't no life long long time ago.

Huh?
Eyes and ears didn't exist when there wasn't any life. They developed as life developed. What's your point?

It's too good to be true that they would be possible.

And there you go displaying the basic ignorance again.
HOW is it "too good to be true" that they're possible?

Oh, to answer the question: Do you still have some moments when you think that God may exist?
No.

Originally Posted by deep'n'dark

Even if you are not religious, even if you are an atheist - Do you still have some moments when you think that God may exist?

Never.

Also, the eyes make you able to see and ears make you able to hear - why did evolution make those parts when propably the very first living being on this planet didn't have eyes or ears at the beginning. How does evolution know that people need to hear and see?

I think you might have a small spelling mistake there. I think what you meant to write was: I don't know anything about evolution. Could someone explain how complex organs evolve.

You might want to post that question in the Biology forum.

When you spend decades learning about natural processes, you no longer find much to attribute to a higher power. There are more logical conclusions to most problems.

That's as much of an answer as I can muster for someone who suggested orgasms are acts of God...

Erm...
people knows god exist when improbable stuff start to happen. For example, when phone number coincide with your car number or lottery and stuff get improbably luckly that your life is soo good that god or bigger forces is the only explaination. This things do happen, and when this happen then then god just exist for this people, and neither the idea about evolution or the idea about the function of our organ or any religious sermon has this much power.

When people talk about 'this' fact and 'that' fact as prove of god then they are not truthful. That is not the proof. Those ideas has no power at all toward believing, and when everybody cared about religion is just because of the community (that's all), but the only powerful force that convince them of god is their experience (things soo big/meaningful like stranded at desert and survive, ect).

People do experience this things.
Its not the facts. Its the experience.
Nobody believe in god just because they hear facts.

P/S: and its not about 'feeling you being watched == god' either. That's psychotic.

P/P/S: believing in god is all about "religious experience". People has been discussing for long time "What is the religious experience? is exorcist a religious experience?", and some argue its result of brain malfunction induce-able by electric stimulation to cause feeling of 'being watched by god!'. This is not it. I have point out what it was and you know this can be true in some cases, but now you may wonder whether its just another psyche state or another brain malfunction or was it what people really saw?

Originally Posted by msafwan

Erm...
people knows god exist when improbable stuff start to happen. For example, when you phone number coincide with your car number or lottery and stuff get improbably luckly that your life is soo good that god or bigger forces is the only explaination. This things do happen, and when people experience them then god just exist, and neither the idea about evolution or the idea about the function of our organ or any religious sermon has this much power.

I do, very sincerely, hope that this is an attempt at irony.
Otherwise it's a complete and utter fail.

Ah, okay, your subsequent edit makes it clearer.

Does anyone else actually get a little irritated when someone has a near death experience and is saved by the hard work, training, and diligence of a medical facility only to have that person appear on the news and thank God for saving them?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Does anyone else actually get a little irritated when someone has a near death experience and is saved by the hard work, training, and diligence of a medical facility only to have that person appear on the news and thank God for saving them?

Yes and I'm surprised to hear you say this.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Does anyone else actually get a little irritated when someone has a near death experience and is saved by the hard work, training, and diligence of a medical facility only to have that person appear on the news and thank God for saving them?

Yes and I'm surprised to hear you say this.

Why is that?

As a scientist, I am fully supportive of credit where credit is due.

If you believe God is a force which drives you to live a better life, more power to you. If you thank God for mowing your lawn and don't tip Gary, you're being rude.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Why is that?

As a scientist, I am fully supportive of credit where credit is due.

If you believe God is a force which drives you to live a better life, more power to you. If you thank God for mowing your lawn and don't tip Gary, you're being rude.

Because it's having your cake and eating it, too.

I am of the opinion that a large percentage of believers don't really believe in an actual being that watches their every move. I know this can be offensive, but it is not meant to offend. The thing is that when you think about it, do people really act as if the creator of the universe is watching everything they do, think or feel, the same entity that could chuck them into the unimaginable torture of hell if he so chooses? I don't think so. I suspect the God concept is a very abstract, go-to concept in people's lives. They imagine a person that has the power to do every good thing for them that they might require if He/She/It so chooses, an ultimate alpha person if you will.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Why is that?

As a scientist, I am fully supportive of credit where credit is due.

If you believe God is a force which drives you to live a better life, more power to you. If you thank God for mowing your lawn and don't tip Gary, you're being rude.

Because it's having your cake and eating it, too.

That's my second favorite thing to do with cake.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

That's my second favorite thing to do with cake.

Because on the one hand, you argue that it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a person to suffer from the God Delusion; you argue that to even call it a 'delusion' is negative, yet you complain about the very results of that delusion that others point out as to one of many, many reasons the delusion detracts from critical thinking in daily life.

Well, let's not pretend I accept the idea of God as a delusion. That's your medical diagnosis, not mine.

Some people may be delusional and that may apply to their religious beliefs, but I don't feel there is enough supporting evidence (nor do I have the medical qualifications) to support the idea that believing in God is a medical condition.

If you choose to believe in God, go for it. That's your prerogative. However, I would suggest tempering that belief with a little logic as well.

How I see it is that someone can believe God is a force which binds all other forces or created all the laws of the natural world that we know, but giving him credit for starting your heart up again instead of the EMT who gave you CPR is disingenuous.

I'm not trying to "have my cake and eat it, too", I'm just not black and white on all issues. I don't think believing in God and understanding the natural world are mutually exclusive, I just don't think they're logical bed partners.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Well, let's not pretend I accept the idea of God as a delusion. That's your medical diagnosis, not mine.

Did I say Medical? I think that's part of the problem here.
Again, why are fairies, leprechauns, goblins, conspiracy claims, 9-11 inside job, Moon Hoax, etc all delusions but God isn't?
You have no answer for that- the reason is because so many people partake in the delusion, it's political incorrect to refer to it as such.
I don't care- get over it. I'm not going to be dishonest in order to pander to your refusal to observe objective reality based on a political absurdity.

Belief in deities, sprites, dragons, and the like is and always was a delusion.
You're also doing what I exposed earlier- Interpreting what I say in the most negative or what have you light you possibly can as a fallacy to support your claims.
I, myself, did not say it is a Medical Delusion.
Although I would claim it as such if basic psychology classifies as medical. It's irrelevant to you assuming it and then using it to support your own conclusions. Maybe because I defended another poster that said it.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

If you choose to believe in God, go for it. That's your prerogative. However, I would suggest tempering that belief with a little logic as well.

Politically correct mumbo jumbo. There is no logic to the God delusion. None. Period.
Zero.
There is no logic to the Leprechaun delusion and pots o' gold at the end of the rainbow. Either you believe it or you do not- it's an illogical belief.

It's not about thinking in black and white. You're straddling the fence to cover your butt.

I am also uncomfortable with using the word "delusion" in a medical sense in regards to the religious. I use it more in a colloquial sense, but am open to a more accurate descriptive word. The "delusion", in my opinion, is just an extension of naturally evolved mechanisms that are present in all humans. Some just make more extensive use of it than others. We are prone to filling in the blanks in any working hypothesis we have about a certain issue. With the question of God, a variety of other evolutionarily developed mechanism come into play as well, forming the whole of religious belief, like our social structure mechanisms.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I am also uncomfortable with using the word "delusion" in a medical sense in regards to the religious. I use it more in a colloquial sense, but am open to a more accurate descriptive word. The "delusion", in my opinion, is just an extension of naturally evolved mechanisms that are present in all humans. Some just make more extensive use of it than others. We are prone to filling in the blanks in any working hypothesis we have about a certain issue. With the question of God, a variety of other evolutionarily developed mechanism come into play as well, forming the whole of religious belief, like our social structure mechanisms.

My issue here is that the same can be said for any other/ all other delusions. This smacks of an excuse.
Pareidolia is prevalent but controllable.
Evolved doesn't mean- out of our control.
Evolved to have a delusion doesn't mean we just must accept them.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Belief in deities, sprites, dragons, and the like is and always was a delusion.

(Don't really want to get sucked into this black hole again but ...) it may be worth noting that people can be (medically) delusional about a single, very specific thing but entirely rational and undeluded about every other aspect of their life and reality. Maybe religion is like that (which is why I worry about the idea that being religious suggests wider "problems").

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Pareidolia is prevalent but controllable.

Not completely. In some cases, once you have seen an image you can't un-see it. (Of course, that doesn't mean you have to think it is meaningful - which is what delusion refers to. But I don't think people who do see random things as significant have any choice about it either.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Belief in deities, sprites, dragons, and the like is and always was a delusion.

(Don't really want to get sucked into this black hole again but ...) it may be worth noting that people can be (medically) delusional about a single, very specific thing but entirely rational and undeluded about every other aspect of their life and reality. Maybe religion is like that (which is why I worry about the idea that being religious suggests wider "problems").

See my post in the X-Ray thread, I just made it a minute ago.
Drop the "medical" straw man when replying to my posts. All of you. I'm getting fed up with having words put in my mouth.

The second bit is the use of "maybe."
Yes, maybe with some or maybe many or maybe most- that applies. I do not know the statistics.

However, I do not believe it is "most" or even possibly "many." While a person can easily be delusional about one aspect of a life and totally 'undeluded' about every other- that's increasingly difficult with a religion that literally demands to and does infuse itself with all aspects of your life.
Verse of the Day
25 Encouraging Bible Verses | Uplifting Bible Verses | Encouraging Scriptures
Bible Verses for Hard Times
Inspirational Bible Verses for Singles Who Want to Be Married - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
20 Popular Bible Verses About Life
31 Healing Scriptures
12 Helpful Scriptures for Healing
Scriptures On Healing

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Drop the "medical" straw man when replying to my posts. All of you. I'm getting fed up with having words put in my mouth.

It wasn't intended to be either a strawman or a specific response to your post. I just thought it was an interesting facet of delusion (in the medical sense). And then I thought "maybe" it could relate to religious belief ("maybe" because I hadn't given it any thought - and don't intend to now).

Originally Posted by Strange

(Don't really want to get sucked into this black hole again but ...) it may be worth noting that people can be (medically) delusional about a single, very specific thing but entirely rational and undeluded about every other aspect of their life and reality. Maybe religion is like that (which is why I worry about the idea that being religious suggests wider "problems").

Hmm, and then I remember a certain recent prime minister who got us embroiled in a war because "god told him it was the right thing to do".

Originally Posted by Strange

And then I thought "maybe" it could relate to religious belief ("maybe" because I hadn't given it any thought - and don't intend to now).

Maybe you really should. I don't say it because you may conclude that it does, but rather, because I think you've put more feeling than thought into the topic as a whole.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I think you've put more feeling than thought into the topic as a whole.

I'm quite sure I have (and I don't feel particularly strongly about it, either). I really will avoid these threads in future...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I am also uncomfortable with using the word "delusion" in a medical sense in regards to the religious. I use it more in a colloquial sense, but am open to a more accurate descriptive word. The "delusion", in my opinion, is just an extension of naturally evolved mechanisms that are present in all humans. Some just make more extensive use of it than others. We are prone to filling in the blanks in any working hypothesis we have about a certain issue. With the question of God, a variety of other evolutionarily developed mechanism come into play as well, forming the whole of religious belief, like our social structure mechanisms.

My issue here is that the same can be said for any other/ all other delusions. This smacks of an excuse.

I am not concerned with making excuses, I just want to figure out what is going on. I am also not looking to find reasons to blame people for their beliefs (not saying you are). I don't believe in free will, so my concept of blame is different than most. Religious belief is a complicated concoction of mechanisms working together and influencing each other. If a person is immersed in a certain environment since birth, he WILL turn into a fundamentalist theist, or whatever. He has no real choice. I'd like to know how that works.

Pareidolia is prevalent but controllable.

Sure, but first you need the ability to be able to want to control it in the first place.

Evolved doesn't mean- out of our control.
Evolved to have a delusion doesn't mean we just must accept them.

Agreed, and I am very happy indeed that I am lucky enough to have the capacity to evaluate myself and the world around me in the way I do, but I understand that some people just can't do that, at least not on their own. I want to help them reach that capacity and in a way that they don't feel they lose anything by doing it. I have been quite militant a few times in the past, but I realise that that attitude alienates more than it accomplishes. Still, on a forum such as this you just won't ever get through to most people, no matter how nice you are about it.

Drop the "medical" straw man when replying to my posts. All of you. I'm getting fed up with having words put in my mouth.

Wasn't my intention. Some atheists do claim it though and some theists do infer it, even when it is not meant that way. We just need to be clear about that when engaging with theists.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I am also uncomfortable with using the word "delusion" in a medical sense in regards to the religious. I use it more in a colloquial sense, but am open to a more accurate descriptive word. The "delusion", in my opinion, is just an extension of naturally evolved mechanisms that are present in all humans. Some just make more extensive use of it than others. We are prone to filling in the blanks in any working hypothesis we have about a certain issue. With the question of God, a variety of other evolutionarily developed mechanism come into play as well, forming the whole of religious belief, like our social structure mechanisms.

The word delusion for me gets emotions charged and can pull people into becoming emotionally motivated to speak their mind, in a sense we can perhaps widen the defnition to 'illusion' or a 'psycholoigcally created illusion' of faith, or illusion of 'religion is bad', perhaps. We need to do research on this scientifically and see what parts of the brain religion and other beliefs such as alien abduction etc that are non-rational/empircal effect our congition and see if we can actually redefine what 'beliefs' actually are and if they are grounded in the same way knowing facts are.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Pareidolia is prevalent but controllable.

Not completely. In some cases, once you have seen an image you can't un-see it. (Of course, that doesn't mean you have to think it is meaningful - which is what delusion refers to. But I don't think people who do see random things as significant have any choice about it either.)

I think you have said something very basic/very core to the believe in god. If someone can view random things as significant then he/she will definitely lead to believe that god exist (ie: if random non-related stuff start to have meaning, then the only explaination is the power of omniscient & omnipotent force, aka god, which control them all). It's like "Synchronicity": where people thought random coincidence has meaningful existent and crudely associate them with force of destiny.

A quick look at "Synchronicity": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
(A really good example that clearly point out that such psyche state is real)

P/S: the synchronicity wikipedia is a MUST READ!! it astonish me soo much that soo much work has been done.

I think Illusion is a good word in this context. It quickly allows parallels with things like Optical Illusions or the Introspection Illusion or any such number of rather common states that is prevalent among humankind; after all, optical illusions are things pretty much all of us can admit we fall for even if we know how a particular one works, while delusion is more a word that most will vehemently argue against suffering from. Especially with how most of us suffer from the illusion that our minds are far more reliable and far more capable than evidence would suggest - just note how the term "optical illusion" tries to point the blame towards optics rather than what we know the actual culprit to be.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Pareidolia is prevalent but controllable.

Not completely. In some cases, once you have seen an image you can't un-see it. (Of course, that doesn't mean you have to think it is meaningful - which is what delusion refers to. But I don't think people who do see random things as significant have any choice about it either.)

I think you have said something very basic/very core to the believe in god. If someone can view random things as significant then he/she will definitely lead to believe that god exist (ie: if random non-related stuff start to have meaning, then the only explaination is the power of omniscient & omnipotent force, aka god, which control them all). It's like "Synchronicity": where people thought random coincidence has meaningful existent and crudely associate them with force of destiny.

A quick look at "Synchronicity": Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(A really good example that clearly point out that such psyche state is real)

I'd say a more accurate description of what is going on is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jung's idea is a bit woo for my liking.

Originally Posted by Kompi

I think Illusion is a good word in this context.

Except that, to be picky, "illusion" is defined as distortion of the senses. A delusion is a distortion of/ by the mind.

just note how the term "optical illusion" tries to point the blame towards optics rather than what we know the actual culprit to be.

Um, I'd have thought that it's called an optical illusion because it can only be perceived optically i.e. it's specific to sight, likewise an auditory illusion can only be perceived by the ears, tactile illusion by touch...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Kompi

I think Illusion is a good word in this context.

Except that, to be picky, "illusion" is defined as distortion of the senses. A delusion is a distortion of/ by the mind.

A good point. My counterpoint is the existence of the Introspection Illusion and Cognitive Illusions.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Um, I'd have thought that it's called an optical illusion because it can only be perceived optically, likewise an auditory illusion can only be perceived by the ears, tactile illusion by touch...

And the observation that we categorise them based on sense rather than their means of action does seem to suggest something about which interpretation we find the most intuitive.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I'd say a more accurate description of what is going on is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jung's idea is a bit woo for my liking.

Whatever the explaination, "synchronicity" is really astonishing experience since you can see pattern and coincidence which otherwise you don't see in everyday life. Quoting wikipedia: "When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes." -Jung

Its the ultimate religious experience IMO.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Kompi

I think Illusion is a good word in this context.

Except that, to be picky, "illusion" is defined as distortion of the senses. A delusion is a distortion of/ by the mind.

just note how the term "optical illusion" tries to point the blame towards optics rather than what we know the actual culprit to be.

Um, I'd have thought that it's called an optical illusion because it can only be perceived optically i.e. it's specific to sight, likewise an auditory illusion can only be perceived by the ears, tactile illusion by touch...

Mental illusion then? Conceptual illusion? Perceptional illusion?

Common sense illusion?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Common sense illusion?

Is it common sense to doubt the religious sense of a majority?

Originally Posted by msafwan

Whatever the explaination, "synchronicity" is really astonishing experience since you can see pattern and coincidence which otherwise you don't see in everyday life. Quoting wikipedia: "When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes." -Jung

Its the ultimate religious experience IMO.

The marvelling over unexpected juxtapositions is at once the mark and the diversion of banal minds, and most of them do not require very remarkable happenings to constitute coincidences.
Philip Ward - The Dictionary of Common Fallacies Oleander Press

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Common sense illusion?

Person experiencing "synchronicity" are well aware of the improbability/probability of things to occur, that's why they are impressed that it even happen at all.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Common sense illusion?

Is it common sense to doubt the religious sense of a majority?

I was being snide: if illusions are distortions of the senses then religion/ belief in god is a distortion of "common sense". (As opposed to optical/ auditory etc.)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

The marvelling over unexpected juxtapositions is at once the mark and the diversion of banal minds, and most of them do not require very remarkable happenings to constitute coincidences.
Philip Ward - The Dictionary of Common Fallacies Oleander Press

You do not appreciate "synchronicity" because you have never seen it. I has experience them myself, its remarkable.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Common sense illusion?

Person experiencing "synchronicity" are well aware of the improbability/probability of things to occur, that's why they are impressed that it even happen at all.

They shouldn't be though. In a life filled with uncountable happenings that gets noticed you are sure to witness many extraordinary coincidences.

Originally Posted by msafwan

You do not appreciate "synchronicity" because you have never seen it.

Please don't make facile assumptions. It just makes you look silly.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

They shouldn't be though. In a life filled with uncountable happenings that gets noticed you are sure to witness many extraordinary coincidences.

Exactly. As per Terry Pratchett: everyone knows that million-to-one shots happen nine times out of ten.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

The marvelling over unexpected juxtapositions is at once the mark and the diversion of banal minds, and most of them do not require very remarkable happenings to constitute coincidences.
Philip Ward - The Dictionary of Common Fallacies Oleander Press

You do not appreciate "synchronicity" because you have never seen it. I has experience them myself, its remarkable.

Err, we all have. It is cool, sure, but hardly indicative of anything supernatural going on, unless you really want it to be.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I was being snide: if illusions are distortions of the senses then religion/ belief in god is a distortion of "common sense". (As opposed to optical/ auditory etc.)

As an atheist, yes I agree mostly. I just don't like the use of "common sense" in this context.

I think atheist just missed all those visual effect and thought everything is random and has no meaning. Honestly, it was really cool. I even thought there must be somekind of retrocausality happening*, or something.

*That's why I was really really astonished of the wikipedia article when Jung mention something like: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards". Wow, I thought: this must be something really real happening.

Retrocausality in non-science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroca...s_para-science

Originally Posted by msafwan

I think atheist just missed all those visual effect and thought everything is random and has no meaning. Honestly, it was really cool. I even thought there must be somekind of retrocausality happening*, or something.

*That's why I was really really astonished of the wikipedia article when Jung mention something like: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards". Wow, I thought: this must be something really real happening.

Do you still think so? If not, why not?

And remember, yes, we also notice extraordinary coincidences from time to time. Everyone does.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Do you still think so? If not, why not?

And remember, yes, we also notice extraordinary coincidences from time to time. Everyone does.

Why not? Because it doesn't mean anything. People get nothing from it. Its just cool experience.

failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.Failure to recognise that evidence and proof are different is ignorant.Failure to consider that evidence for a god has little connection with support for a god of the standard religions is sloppy.

Originally Posted by John Galt

failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.Failure to recognise that evidence and proof are different is ignorant.Failure to consider that evidence for a god has little connection with support for a god of the standard religions is sloppy.

Nonsense. What evidence is there to support some form of a God? What you mean to say is that there is room for speculative doubt.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by John Galt

failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.Failure to recognise that evidence and proof are different is ignorant.Failure to consider that evidence for a god has little connection with support for a god of the standard religions is sloppy.

Nonsense. What evidence is there to support some form of a God? What you mean to say is that there is room for speculative doubt.

There is evidence, though not unambiguous evidence. For instance, one piece of evidence is the Goldilocks nature of our universe. Just like evidence in court cases, one piece of evidence does not prove anything by itself and with something as complicated as existence and life, there is a huge multitude of data points that often can serve as evidence for all sorts of viewpoints simultaneously. On balance though, the case for God is not a very convincing one imo.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

For instance, one piece of evidence is the Goldilocks nature of our universe.

This is just a perception because we evolved in this Environment. There is nothing about it that is "Goldilocks" - this is not evidence.

I'll bite:

Originally Posted by John Galt

failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.

And that evidence would be...?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

For instance, one piece of evidence is the Goldilocks nature of our universe.

This is equivalent to the puddle claiming there must be a god because the hole in the ground is shaped so perfectly for it.
We are a product of our environment: were it to be totally inimical to life there wouldn't be any, were it to conducive to some other form of life "we" would be "aliens".

Just like evidence in court cases, one piece of evidence does not prove anything by itself and with something as complicated as existence and life, there is a huge multitude of data points that often can serve as evidence for all sorts of viewpoints simultaneously. On balance though, the case for God is not a very convincing one imo.

Except in the case of religion it's not evidence - it's "we don't know, therefore god".
Not having a definitive answer (at this moment) is not evidence for god - it's evidence of our ignorance.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

For instance, one piece of evidence is the Goldilocks nature of our universe.

This is just a perception because we evolved in this Environment. There is nothing about it that is "Goldilocks" - this is not evidence.

Consider that if some of the rules of our universe were different, we would never have been here and we don't know yet why the rules are as they are. IF a supreme being had designed the rules of our universe, he obviously would have made a universe where we could exist.

So, the fact that we are here at all is evidence for a supreme being. Not very convincing, I agree, but still.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Consider that if some of the rules of our universe were different, we would never have been here and we don't know yet why the rules are as they are. IF a supreme being had designed the rules of our universe, he obviously would have made a universe where we could exist.

So, the fact that we are here at all is evidence for a supreme being. Not very convincing, I agree, but still.

"We" as we know it may not be here, but something else could very well be. It's pure and utter speculation and as such- is not evidence.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Consider that if some of the rules of our universe were different, we would never have been here and we don't know yet why the rules are as they are. IF a supreme being had designed the rules of our universe, he obviously would have made a universe where we could exist.

So, the fact that we are here at all is evidence for a supreme being. Not very convincing, I agree, but still.

"We" as we know it may not be here, but something else could very well be. It's pure and utter speculation and as such- is not evidence.

If you were to sit down with two propositions: 1) A creator God exists, 2) No creator god exists, you would start making lists of what evidence you would expect to find for each proposition, one of which would be that a God would design our universe so that we could exist in it for option 1. That evidence is found. To be sure, there is evidence for both sides and the evidence for option 2 outweighs that of option 1 by a huge margin imo, but it still exists.

Think of the opposing propositions of the Big Bang and the Steady State universe. There is evidence for both, but that for the big bang outweighs that for SST by a large margin, so it is favoured among cosmologists. Similarly, consider a court case. Each side presents evidence for opposing positions, but that doesn't mean that the evidence of the losing side is suddenly no longer considered evidence once the other wins the case.

I am slightly puzzled by your usage of the term "evidence". Evidence is those data points that shed light on a speculation. Evidence informs the enquiry.

Speculation is not evidence. You used SST as an example- yet observable hard evidence that fits, even if other observations don't is evidence- albeit poor evidence.
Whether a designer created the universe for us is not observed because there is no frame of reference whatsoever as to what is "needed" for any form of life, even that which may be nothing like us.
It's pure speculation, not observation.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Speculation is not evidence. You used SST as an example- yet observable hard evidence that fits, even if other observations don't is evidence- albeit poor evidence.
Whether a designer created the universe for us is not observed because there is no frame of reference whatsoever as to what is "needed" for any form of life, even that which may be nothing like us.
It's pure speculation, not observation.

We know that if you shift some parameters, galaxies could never form, or stars could never form, so there would never be an "us" possible. Is that not evidence that our universe is at least broadly tailored for life?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Consider that if some of the rules of our universe were different, we would never have been here and we don't know yet why the rules are as they are. IF a supreme being had designed the rules of our universe, he obviously would have made a universe where we could exist.

So, the fact that we are here at all is evidence for a supreme being. Not very convincing, I agree, but still.

Here ya go.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Consider that if some of the rules of our universe were different, we would never have been here and we don't know yet why the rules are as they are. IF a supreme being had designed the rules of our universe, he obviously would have made a universe where we could exist.

So, the fact that we are here at all is evidence for a supreme being. Not very convincing, I agree, but still.

Here ya go.

Yeah, that is what makes the most sense to me too. I am not saying the Goldilocks piece of evidence is very convincing, just that it qualifies as evidence.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

We know that if you shift some parameters, galaxies could never form, or stars could never form, so there would never be an "us" possible. Is that not evidence that our universe is at least broadly tailored for life?

It only means the conditions would be different from what we "know" and would affect how life "as we know it" would exist. The "as we know it" is very relevant.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

just that it qualifies as evidence.

It doesn't. It's like asking how an electron "knows" it's being observed. Your example is the same: It's evidence for the Intelligence of electrons.
Except- it is not evidence at all.
It's just faulty wording.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Yeah, that is what makes the most sense to me too. I am not saying the Goldilocks piece of evidence is very convincing, just that it qualifies as evidence.

You maybe missed a bit - I'm not sure from your final sentence: " only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld".


I vaguely remember something about the "possibility" of multiple universe forming (each and every one distinctly separate from all the others, with no interaction possible). If this is valid then, given a sufficient number of universes, it's probable(?) that life will arise in one or more - and in each case there'll be people saying "Hey we're alive in a universe that supports us! We're special, let's invent something we can call god and credit him with our existence."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

We know that if you shift some parameters, galaxies could never form, or stars could never form, so there would never be an "us" possible. Is that not evidence that our universe is at least broadly tailored for life?

It only means the conditions would be different from what we "know" and would affect how life "as we know it" would exist. The "as we know it" is very relevant.

Well, yes, we don't know everything, which is why we are free to speculate and look for evidence for those speculations until we get a definitive picture. We can't imagine a way for life to develop without stars, certainly nothing that can compare with us. What we do know is that we exist and that our universe as it is now makes that possible. So if a creator existed, we would expect him to have made it that way. It is poor evidence in my view and there are many arguments against the quality of that evidence, but nothing that refutes it definitively.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

but nothing that refutes it definitively.

Unable to prove it wrong doesn't make it evidence...
I can conceive that little leprechauns wonder around the Irish country side snapping up bits of gold and causing mischief.
The 'evidence' for this is that people believe it.
I cannot prove it wrong.

Now, is that really evidence? Or is it just unsubstantiated, unobserved and unsupported conception?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Yeah, that is what makes the most sense to me too. I am not saying the Goldilocks piece of evidence is very convincing, just that it qualifies as evidence.

You maybe missed a bit - I'm not sure from your final sentence: " only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld".


I vaguely remember something about the "possibility" of multiple universe forming (each and every one distinctly separate from all the others, with no interaction possible). If this is valid then, given a sufficient number of universes, it's probable(?) that life will arise in one or more - and in each case there'll be people saying "Hey we're alive in a universe that supports us! we're special, let's invent something we can call god and credit him with our existence."

I am saying I agree with that. Just for clarity's sake, I am an atheist, I don't believe an Abrahamic god created anything. The anthropic principle is sufficient as an explanation for "why" we are here. I agree and understand with your last paragraph as well.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Now, is that really evidence? Or is it just unsubstantiated, unobserved and unsupported conception?

Very poor evidence indeed, but evidence nonetheless.

Do you have a threshold after which something can qualify as evidence? What are you basing this on?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well, yes, we don't know everything, which is why we are free to speculate and look for evidence for those speculations until we get a definitive picture. We can't imagine a way for life to develop without stars, certainly nothing that can compare with us. What we do know is that we exist and that our universe as it is now makes that possible. So if a creator existed, we would expect him to have made it that way. It is poor evidence in my view and there are many arguments against the quality of that evidence, but nothing that refutes it definitively.

Like I said earlier: the only thing it's evidence of is our current ignorance.
Of course we're free to speculate, but to assign an "answer" and stick, rigidly (religiously?), to that answer for a couple of thousand years is foolishness. To claim that the initial answer is infallibly and incontrovertibly correct is... sheesh. The mind boggles.

Ah, okay: just read your last post.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I am saying I agree with that. Just for clarity's sake, I am an atheist, I don't believe an Abrahamic god created anything. The anthropic principle is sufficient as an explanation for "why" we are here. I agree and understand with you last paragraph as well.

This is known and understood. However, that doesn't mean your arguments in this thread make sense.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I am saying I agree with that. Just for clarity's sake, I am an atheist, I don't believe an Abrahamic god created anything. The anthropic principle is sufficient as an explanation for "why" we are here. I agree and understand with you last paragraph as well.

This is known and understood. However, that doesn't mean your arguments in this thread make sense.

That was for Dywyddyr. I edited my post to answer you after you made your last post.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Do you have a threshold after which something can qualify as evidence? What are you basing this on?

Evidence, in this distinction, is observation that can be confirmed or verified.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Do you have a threshold after which something can qualify as evidence? What are you basing this on?

Evidence, in this distinction, is observation that can be confirmed or verified.

Ok, but given our lack of a full understanding of the universe, there are many instances all through science where there is evidence for more than one opposing hypothesis. Where does this fail using this criteria? We know we exist and that the universe has to conform to a range of rules for us to be here at all. We know this to a high degree of certainty. We can come up with all sorts of explanations for why this might be so, explanations that would use this bit of knowledge as evidence. A creator god is one. A race of advanced aliens from another universe is another. The anthropic principle another. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ok, but given our lack of a full understanding of the universe, there are many instances all through science where there is evidence for more than one opposing hypothesis. Where does this fail using this criteria?

All observational.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

We know we exist and that the universe has to conform to a range of rules for us to be here at all. We know this to a high degree of certainty.

"We" being purely subjective.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

We can come up with all sorts of explanations for why this might be so, explanations that would use this bit of knowledge as evidence. A creator god is one. A race of advanced aliens from another universe is another. The anthropic principle another. Wouldn't you agree?

I've covered this many times, now. The claim of our own evolved perspective being the only form of possible existence is not evidence.

Well, I think we should just agree to disagree on this then. We see the "evidence" for a god creator as equally unconvincing. We only differ on the definition of "evidence". At least you understand now what John meant (presuming he agrees with what I said).

Failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.

Agreed, it depends on the 'evidence' and indeed the 'form' of 'god' we are reffering.

Failure to recognise that evidence and proof are different is ignorant.

A mountain of evidence would be close to proof as possible, evolution for instance. Shreds of evidence would suggest a likely scenario as to evolution when it first began and indeed still possible to refute before DNA was discovered.

Failure to consider that evidence for a god has little connection with support for a god of the standard religions is sloppy.

I think when it comes to scientific understanding and rational thought evidence for god is what you go on.
Support for a god of the standard religions by people is purely psychological as there is no empircal evidence for god(s) and supernatural claims that you can consider rationally. In other words belief in something that has no empircal evidence is irrational. I think there is a lot of stigma on the word irrational as well, people often take a personal stance in response to hearing that word put forth to them.

Originally Posted by Quantime

I think when it comes to scientific understanding and rational thought evidence for god is what you go on.
Support for a god of the standard religions by people is purely psychological as there is no empircal evidence for god(s) and supernatural claims that you can consider rationally. In other words belief in something that has no empircal evidence is irrational. I think there is a lot of stigma on the word irrational as well, people often take a personal stance in response to hearing that word put forth to them.

Bingo.

I think there is a lot of stigma on the word irrational

Yes. I think using any word that is commonly associated with problematic behaviour in other non-religious areas leads to an unnecessary amount of heartache and hurt feelings. Irrational and illogical apply quite definitely to gambling, for instance, because anyone who believes they can beat the odds is being both illogical and irrational. As are people who make silly decisions about finance and investments or business and sometimes, employment. People can be really obstinate about the gambling thing with their 'systems' and other self-deceiving notions. They can be defensive or even angry about other things that have gone wrong through their own irrational folly.

Irrational and illogical are quite accurate (in my view) descriptions of the content of people's religious beliefs. But that's really missing the point. It gets people angry and defensive, and it only exacerbates things to use those and other words which might be technically applicable, like delusion or hallucination (when talking about reports of meditation, prayers, visions and the like) where people get distracted by the perceived accusation that they're suffering serious mental illness, when it's not about the person at all. It's about the nature and the content of the things they say they believe in - it's not about aberrant behaviour.

The point of religious belief or faith is the fact that it relies on belief or faith. To me, it doesn't matter what you believe or have faith in, the problem is that you're not using evidence or critical thinking to work out what is best to rely on. And that's the crucial difference between (reasonably thoughtful) atheists and adherents of religions.

Sometimes, I wish I was all good at that talking thing where making sense just kinda happens instead of the gibbering I'm adept at.

Originally Posted by adelady

To me, it doesn't matter what you believe or have faith in, the problem is that you're not using evidence or critical thinking to work out what is best to rely on. And that's the crucial difference between (reasonably thoughtful) atheists and adherents of religions.

No, I don't think that is the crucial difference - the difference is the things that they are irrational about. For example, I think that many if not most atheists hold irrational beliefs about morality. Though they have ditched the religious basis of their morality, they still think of it as absolute, or perhaps having a rational basis - which it doesn't.

Originally Posted by deep'n'dark

Even if you are not religious, even if you are an atheist - Do you still have some moments when you think that God may exist?

God no not "God" exactly, such a loaded concept at the present time, i prefer intelligent initiator.

If one ponders the movement of mankind's evolving intelligence then it seem most natural that the movement/order is one of attempting to fully 'understanding nature',then if one understands nature one can move on and 'eventually manipulate', and [not us you understand, we will never be good enough] an evolving intelligence may rise to creator.

Understand, manipulate, create.

Paul

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Though they have ditched the religious basis of their morality, they still think of it as absolute, or perhaps having a rational basis - which it doesn't.

I have actually given this some thought, and have arrived at the personal understanding that there isn't an absolute in the topic of morality. What I have managed to figure out so far for myself is that it (morals) has to do with the values we have assigned. This realization have led me to the awareness of that which is called Value Theory, and while there are some common and perhaps shared lines amongst individual value systems, the values we assign to them seems to rely/grounded on earlier arbitrary rationales that seem to stem from a subjective desirable benefit it brings to the individual or group.

This is one of the reasons why I have suggested in the "misconceptions made by some atheists" that if a theistic belief system can be considered irrational, perhaps we can delve deeper to discover if other forms of belief systems; such as political, cultural, moral belief systems can be similarly considered irrational, or worse; delusional. One that I would enjoy reading and participating in (if the participants are able to refrain from making overly hasty conclusions, and look at the subject from a purely academic/intellectual point of view). But I wonder which subforum would a thread like that be suited for; the Behavioral and Psychology subforum, or the Philosophy subforum?

No, I don't think that is the crucial difference - the difference is the things that they are irrational about. For example, I think that many if not most atheists hold irrational beliefs about morality. Though they have ditched the religious basis of their morality, they still think of it as absolute, or perhaps having a rational basis - which it doesn't.

Yeah. I put that "reasonably thoughtful" qualification in to stop myself writing a treatise on the range of totally unreasonable, irrational and obviously silly things some atheists claim in moral or political areas while simultaneously claiming that their sceptical insight, critical thinking and impeccable logic led them to atheism.

Actually it is theologically reasonable for a supreme being to not provide empirical evidence for His existence.

Theologically, it is far more reasonable for God to want to reveal His presence, and His nature to people at the same time. Thus, a person cannot "know" that God exists without also knowing God.

Christian theology says that at one time the angels "knew God existed", yet many still chose to follow the devil.

So it makes no sense to think that God would repeat a process that He knows does not work e.g.. let beings know of Him without knowing Him.

The only ways I am aware of theologically to know that God exists is to:

1. seek God
2. have someone intervene on a person's behalf through prayer etc.

The result seems to be a "perceptual change" as well as a lifestyle change. People see God in events that hitherto he / she would have attributed to luck or chance. Often there also is a lifestyle change where people seem to turn away from some vices.

Of course the evidence for this comes from testimony, not from controlled studies as far as I know.

Science is not equipped to answer all questions in all disciplines.

Nearly every other moment when I was a believer, say at ten years old or so. I haven't had that sort of thought in more than twenty years, regardless of how endangered my life, or how emotionally moved I've been by beholding something amazing, wonderous or beautiful.

Science is not equipped to answer all questions in all disciplines.

But it is uniquely equipped to get to those answers for real things.

Originally Posted by adelady

No, I don't think that is the crucial difference - the difference is the things that they are irrational about. For example, I think that many if not most atheists hold irrational beliefs about morality. Though they have ditched the religious basis of their morality, they still think of it as absolute, or perhaps having a rational basis - which it doesn't.

Yeah. I put that "reasonably thoughtful" qualification in to stop myself writing a treatise on the range of totally unreasonable, irrational and obviously silly things some atheists claim in moral or political areas while simultaneously claiming that their sceptical insight, critical thinking and impeccable logic led them to atheism.

I think even "reasonably thoughtful" people have delusions about their moral beliefs. That includes myself. I just accept it as part of being a human being. If you didn't think your moral beliefs were special somehow, you'd probably be a psychopath.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

This is one of the reasons why I have suggested in the "misconceptions made by some atheists" that if a theistic belief system can be considered irrational, perhaps we can delve deeper to discover if other forms of belief systems; such as political, cultural, moral belief systems can be similarly considered irrational, or worse; delusional. One that I would enjoy reading and participating in (if the participants are able to refrain from making overly hasty conclusions, and look at the subject from a purely academic/intellectual point of view). But I wonder which subforum would a thread like that be suited for; the Behavioral and Psychology subforum, or the Philosophy subforum?

My guess is that philosophy would be the best fit. If you want to start a thread like that, I will keep the trolls at bay.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I will keep the trolls at bay.

Be careful with such promises. You would need to define what a "Troll" is. And if you're going to use a SciForums definition, you'll qualify yourself as easily as anyone else.

Rather, your only clear bet is to let the issue be discussed by those presenting their arguments, instead of labeling anyone that posts more times than you feel comfortable with or even, possibly arguments you won't agree with, as Trolls.
Edit^The above appears to say I believe you are planning such a thing. I don't believe such but I also have no idea if you will and fear that you might.

I don't think I've ever found myself wondering if God exists because of those types of questions. Usually when I have a question like that, I'll try and find the answer. The times I can't find the answer, or the answer is over my head, I ask on here (sometimes I'm just lazy).

The times I do wonder about whether or not God/a God - whichever you prefer - exists is when I do not have the skill set to explain something I bear witness to or experience. You ever experience a coincidence that just blows your mind? Or get in a situation that could've ended horribly, but somehow you came away unscathed? Things like that get me thinking about whether I want to say I was just lucky, or if I want say that something out there is looking out for me.

Sometimes minor things get me going to, except about the paranormal. Like if I see something out of the corner of my eye, or am half convinced I saw or heard something. I can explain such experiences away to varying degrees: I'm tired, I'm just hearing things, my eyes are playing tricks on me, and so on and so forth. Then again it could even be something paranormal: ETs, Atomic Yetis, Alex Jones, etc. The thing that annoys me is that I'll think something like, "My eyes are playing tricks," and I'll know that is the only reasonable conclusion, but not being to say that I know it for a fact - now that just pisses me off.

Originally Posted by stander-j

I don't think I've ever found myself wondering if God exists because of those types of questions. Usually when I have a question like that, I'll try and find the answer. The times I can't find the answer, or the answer is over my head, I ask on here (sometimes I'm just lazy).

The times I do wonder about whether or not God/a God - whichever you prefer - exists is when I do not have the skill set to explain something I bear witness to or experience. You ever experience a coincidence that just blows your mind? Or get in a situation that could've ended horribly, but somehow you came away unscathed? Things like that get me thinking about whether I want to say I was just lucky, or if I want say that something out there is looking out for me.

Sometimes minor things get me going to, except about the paranormal. Like if I see something out of the corner of my eye, or am half convinced I saw or heard something. I can explain such experiences away to varying degrees: I'm tired, I'm just hearing things, my eyes are playing tricks on me, and so on and so forth. Then again it could even be something paranormal: ETs, Atomic Yetis, Alex Jones, etc. The thing that annoys me is that I'll think something like, "My eyes are playing tricks," and I'll know that is the only reasonable conclusion, but not being to say that I know it for a fact - now that just pisses me off.

I had a situation like that recently, where a strange word I never use popped into my head, quite arbitrarily. I paid no attention to it until later, when an event that is closely related to that word happened. I had a brief moment of wondering if I was psychic or clairvoyant or something.
Of course, the great many events I do not predict by having a related random word pop into my head out of the blue grossly outweighs the one time I did. As a psychic, I'm an epic failure.
Needless to say, the effort put into 'wondering' was put in the form of a joke to myself and then dismissed until this post reminded me of it.

God exist because all those strange coincidence is not acknowledged as how the world work, so it is god.

Originally Posted by msafwan

God exist because all those strange coincidence is not acknowledged as how the world work, so it is god.

My brain is a little bit dumber for having read this post. Please stop hurting my brain.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My brain is a little bit dumber for having read this post. Please stop hurting my brain.

No, it made you more genius.

Let just say universe is meant to have coincidence. Lets say its physic must coincide to create life, lets say people must experience synchronicity (as described by Carl Jung) as part of life, and lets say luck must exist. If this is how world work, then how do you say this thing is caused by god anymore? (People accept those thing as miracle/god because it threw away the idea that the universe is working like a clockwork/a machine that need no god).

Ok, so it wasn't just me, then...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ok, so it wasn't just me, then...

No... everyone experience that.

You think you had psychic? are you crazy.

Originally Posted by msafwan

You think you had psychic?

No, quite the contrary.
But what I referred to is something far more deeply ingrained in human behavior that a moment of wondering.
It's pareidolia.

Pareidolia is a wonderful gimmick for survival.
It's better to see a predator that is not there, than to not see one that is.

But, pareidolia is not so great for understanding the world.
This is the name given for finding patterns; imagined clues into the nature of things. Consider your post, above.
In it, you say that there must be luck and there must be coincidence, as this is how the world was created in order for it to function. Simply because you say so. You started out with the belief, then fit the facts to conform to it.

Imagine for a moment, though, that you have a brilliant insight into physics and build yourself a machine that will bypass the speed limit of light and carry you to distant stars.

What might you encounter on your journey? We can only speculate and a great deal of it may be wrong. Maybe you will encounter strange plasma clouds, living on the surfaces or stars, intelligent wisps of vapor that find it amazing and odd that this little tiny visitor can withstand the extreme cold depths of space. These beings had never ventured from their star, because they "knew" that life could not exist in such cold.
To them, it would seem as though the stars existed only for life such as themselves. And they aren't so far off...

You travel again and come across an expanse of stellar dust- a nebula. And within it, you find tiny crystalline life forms, based on the emergent properties of rare compounds spewed into space and a dying stars last act. Your visit startles these beings far more than the super-heated life forms on the previous stars surface. Because they believed that stars only purpose was to manufacture and refine the materials needed to make them. And they weren't so far off... But to think that other beings could need a star to be in the process of nuclear fusion for their world to survive contradicted their creation beliefs. Because they "knew" that stars are too hot to support life; life cannot develop around one.

Of course, I made all of this up, off the top of my head, just as you made up everything you said in post number 88.
Because you "know" that coincidence must be a function of the world. Yet, all of these 'known things' were based on imagination and speculation, instead of investigation, confirmation, testing, observation or verification.

You imagine that there must be a reason for things, and you speculate everything beyond that. Coincidence and pareidolia are just human concepts, based only from your limited view. It's not limited by your point of view or your intellect, but instead, by what you hold dear as belief and are unwilling to let go of in order to try to better understand the world. I imagine that many people through out history have been the same way. And those people in history have often tried to gainsay scientific advancement, a bitter response to providing an understanding of the world that conflicts with their faith.

But for those that want to "see" the world, they look through open eyes- they see the bad and the good. They see the coincidences and they see that their own mind is subject to pareidolia, as well. And they use a method, to silence that bias and dispel the myths in order to reach a better conclusion; one more accurate to reality.
That method is the Scientific Method.
It won't give you the feel good goosebumps of believing in a heavenly creator... But it will give you the romantic passion, the drive to learn more, discover more, investigate more- than simply accept what you cannot see as 'out of your abilities to see.'

Originally Posted by msafwan

are you crazy.

Yes.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ok, so it wasn't just me, then...

No... everyone experience that.

You think you had psychic? are you crazy.

Hey, I screw around sometimes and try to predict stuff, like when the kettle will click off (never get it right). I don't for a moment think I am clairvoyant, but once during a power outage I got up, walked into the shop front and snapped my fingers at the exact moment the power came back on, amazing everyone. Just a bit of fun.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Hey, I screw around sometimes and try to predict stuff, like when the kettle will click off (never get it right). I don't for a moment think I am clairvoyant, but once during a power outage I got up, walked into the shop front and snapped my fingers at the exact moment the power came back on, amazing everyone. Just a bit of fun.

I edited it for clarity- so now you have to go back and re-read it. Dangit.

If you really want to impress people- snap your fingers right as the power goes out. Then, tell them you won't snap your fingers again until they've met your demands.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by John Galt

failure to understand that there is evidence for some form god is delusional.

Nonsense. What evidence is there to support some form of a God? What you mean to say is that there is room for speculative doubt.

So here we have a confident assertion that there is no evidence for God. I find this a peculiar assertion to make: emotive, subjective and very unscientific. It is as if you were conflating evidence with proof.
Evidence for God is circumstantial, but it is there. It is insufficient to convince me, which is why I am agnostic, but it exists. Specifically:

1. The universe does exist. It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing. One suspects the need for a First Cause, which we might as well call God. When you ask me what caused God, I have no idea: turtles all the way down?

2. Not only does the universe exist, but it is aware of its existence. That is bizarre. One can imagine a non-sentient First Cause producing a non-sentient universe, but a sentient universe rather seems to demand a sentient First Cause, i.e. God.

Points 1 and 2 might be seen as variants of the Design Argument of William Paley. It is fashionable to dismiss this work today, but Darwin admired it, carried it with him on the Beagle (I think) and structured Origin on its basis. An outright rejection of Evidences seems cavalier.

3. There is an intriguing argument that we may be part of a computer simulation. That would make the programmer, or programming team, God.

4. The argument against fine tuning of the universe for life has never been properly refuted (or properly proven)

Together, and to some degree even individually, these are all sufficient reason - in my view - to keep an open mind. I do not see a similar array of evidence for faeries and none at all for unicorns. Do note that I think none of this constitutes evidence for a Christian style God. Such a God might be more appropriately compared with faeries and unicorns. (But if that is the sort of God you are arguing against then I fear you have allowed your thinking to be corrupted by the very existence of religion. )

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Quantime

I think when it comes to scientific understanding and rational thought evidence for god is what you go on.
Support for a god of the standard religions by people is purely psychological as there is no empircal evidence for god(s) and supernatural claims that you can consider rationally. In other words belief in something that has no empircal evidence is irrational. I think there is a lot of stigma on the word irrational as well, people often take a personal stance in response to hearing that word put forth to them.

Bingo.

and there you go again with what has all the appearance of a shortsighted, dogmatic response in which you conflate god with an Abrahamic God. Please try to think about this issue rather than react to it.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

, but once during a power outage I got up, walked into the shop front and snapped my fingers at the exact moment the power came back on, amazing everyone. Just a bit of fun.

I did a similar thing while teaching class. There was a power failure which I suspected would be temporary, so I had all the class raise their hands in the air and wave them around. Within a few seconds the lights had come back on. I then explained to the class that it was just making use of that old Chinese proverb: Many hands make light work.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by KALSTER

, but once during a power outage I got up, walked into the shop front and snapped my fingers at the exact moment the power came back on, amazing everyone. Just a bit of fun.

I did a similar thing while teaching class. There was a power failure which I suspected would be temporary, so I had all the class raise their hands in the air and wave them around. Within a few seconds the lights had come back on. I then explained to the class that it was just making use of that old Chinese proverb: Many hands make light work.

Brilliant.

Aargh! And no one shot you for that?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Aargh! And no one shot you for that?

We still can. It's not too late.

Just saying... It's an option...