Rational belief

[Entropist]

1. Our concept God is all powerful in our universe.
2. If there is an all powerful, all knowing, ever present intelligence in our universe, it must be god.
3. Computer processing power increases every year.
4. Computer processing power will continue to increase every year.
5. We will eventually reach a point where a computer is so powerful, it can compute the entire universe from the point of the big bang onwards.
6. Since you are part of the universe, you will be included in this simulation.
7. Computers will eventually be able to run millions of universe simulations every second.
8. The chances of the universe you think you are in being the original universe falls to almost zero.
9. The computer running the simulation will be all powerful, all knowing and ever present.
10. God is a computer.

[DeistPaladin]

No, i mean what is it you are referring to as your 'believing heart' - you'r heart doesn't think, so what are you actually attributing this phenomenon to? Is it an emotional need for purpose?

It's called a metaphor.

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection?

Setting things up for our more evolved brains and civilization.

Such as...

How should I know?

There is significant evidence that Homo Neanderthal was actually more intelligent than us earlier on, they have evidence of neanderthal tools, rituals and music long before that of any human.

So the deity didn't like them as much as us? Shame, our cousins are extinct now regardless.

Actually, there's some evidence that homo sapians and neanderthal coexisted and may have blended together.

[theVOID]

No, i mean what is it you are referring to as your 'believing heart' - you'r heart doesn't think, so what are you actually attributing this phenomenon to? Is it an emotional need for purpose?

It's called a metaphor.

You know exactly what i'm talking about, your hesitance to answer is bemusing, i hadn't thought of you as the type of believer that would so blatantly dodge questions.

What do you mean (or what exactly are you referring to) when you use the metaphor 'believing heart'?

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection?

Setting things up for our more evolved brains and civilization.

Such as...

How should I know?

Deist Paladin: Oh hey guys, there is a deity going around tweaking things to make us smart!

Spectator: Like what?

Deist Paladin: How should i know?

Actually, there's some evidence that homo sapians and neanderthal coexisted and may have blended together.

Right, cross breeding did happen in Europe with a small portion of the human population that's true, but it's no answer to my question. Neanderthals were by all accounts smarter, stronger and more creative than comparative man, so why did your tweaking deity neglect them and leave them to extinction?

I also noticed you dropped the rest of the argument, why?

[DeistPaladin]

You know exactly what i'm talking about, your hesitance to answer is bemusing, i hadn't thought of you as the type of believer that would so blatantly dodge questions.

What do you mean (or what exactly are you referring to) when you use the metaphor 'believing heart'?

instinct? Is that what you're looking for. If so, that admission has already been made. If not, please rephrase your question.

Kindly don't make accusations so casually. You don't know what I know.

Neanderthals were by all accounts smarter, stronger and more creative than comparative man, so why did your tweaking deity neglect them and leave them to extinction?

No idea. Maybe God wasn't watching that closely. God hasn't made me smart in that respect either.

I also noticed you dropped the rest of the argument, why?

Sorry, I thought our discussion about gays had run its course. Is there anything more you wanted to ask?

[radames]

I think I'll try to come up with an argument as if I were a theist. I think someone stated that it's necessary to have evidence for a query to be tested and proven true. Prior to the development of the microscope and telescope and stethoscope and x-ray, any guess about the possibility of other worlds, the makeup of the human body, the makeup of other inanimate and animate objects, as well as their functions would have been acceptable or popularized based on how agreeable they were to the masses.

Obviously evolution chose to bring about a higher level of intelligence in us (or maybe inventiveness) as a species so that these inventions could have been pondered and created, regardless of the usefulness of increased intellect. Are we to say that there won't be another device to measure, test, and quantitatively examine, say "belief," "faith," "spirit," among other mysteries? Due to the trend of intellectual development and evolution spanning the last couple of centuries, is it rational to predict a rate of intellectual growth that will bring about a device for measuring what is typically regarded as "delusional, mysterious, unknowable" in today's society? Is this why we are so obsessed with energy these days, to power a device that "looks farther," "looks deeper" for the answers to existence that we crave?

[gargantuan]

Does my "god is a computer" theory not warrant a deconstruction? I wasn't joking. I still don't personally believe in a god of any kind, but I really do think that I've proposed a logical argument (not entirely my logic) that "proves" a god, of some sort, is 99.9999...% certain.

[Minimalist]

Obviously evolution chose to bring about a higher level of intelligence in us

Evolution does not make "choices." Evolution rewards successful/useful traits by allowing them to reproduce to a greater extent than other traits.

Had the first sentient ape wasted its time praying to some fucking god instead of making flint tools it would have starved to death and we would not be having this conversation now.

[radames]

Obviously evolution chose to bring about a higher level of intelligence in us

Evolution does not make "choices." Evolution rewards successful/useful traits by allowing them to reproduce to a greater extent than other traits.

Had the first sentient ape wasted its time praying to some fucking god instead of making flint tools it would have starved to death and we would not be having this conversation now.

Well, my choice of the word "chose" was in error and I realized this after I wrote my reply because, according to natural selection, traits that are acceptable to the environment are retained while others disappear. So, intelligence was a trait that fit perfectly in the environment and wasn't made extinct over the generations of selective processing. However I don't think that evolution "rewards" one trait over another because some naturally selected traits may or may not be beneficial toward the advancement of a species.

[Minimalist]

"Reward" is subjective but I don't know how else to say it. A negative trait dies out. That could be construed as a "punishment" but evolution does not "punish" either. An organism which does not change at all in response to a change in conditions may be at a reproductive disadvantage to those organisms which do change. Or not.

It is difficult to avoid anthropomorphic terminology in evolutionary discussions but we must make an effort because the creationists will jump on any such loose end as "proof" for their fairy tales.

[LastPoet]

"Reward" is subjective but I don't know how else to say it. A negative trait dies out. That could be construed as a "punishment" but evolution does not "punish" either. An organism which does not change at all in response to a change in conditions may be at a reproductive disadvantage to those organisms which do change. Or not.

It is difficult to avoid anthropomorphic terminology in evolutionary discussions but we must make an effort because the creationists will jump on any such loose end as "proof" for their fairy tales.

Yeah, I wonder if, given that creationists have all their definitions wrong, to them an "Appeal to ignorance" has as definition "proof of god"