Enough of this crap, I want to hear directly from god

[The Grand Nudger]

They're being raised by and in one, that's why those fairies they imagine are so specifically cultural.  Horse gods for horses, cow gods for cows......  

That's not really true in all religions.  It's well known in Islam that God doesn't resemble human beings in any way. The only reason why the Qur'an, for example, speaks of God hearing or seeing his creatures, is because this is all we can understand. Every human being understands from the use of the verb hearing that the deity in question can detect all our sound acoustic waves. 

It is flatly and demonstrably true of all children and of religions such as your own based on anthropomorphized and unseen forces. Gods.

It's a being..not like a toaster or a rock, and it has desires and a shitlist, not like a toaster and a rock.  It's concerned about the things that concern us, not like a toaster and a rock.

Are you absolutely certain that you wan to insist that your magic book gets it's description of a god meaningfully wrong on account of some human beings simple minded idiocy?  Go right ahead, it won't end well.

This is something most non religious people miss I think, when they go ahead and start criticising our holy books. The fact that traditional religions describe God in what may seem to some as not worth of his attributes is a simple consequence of our limited understanding ability. It's obvious that we can't comprehend the infinite, therefore it's logically impossible to convey the full explanation of god's " ways" in human language, that is, a language with limited expressive ability.

And it's not a problem that a god can't express his own functioning in our own language. God can't do what is logically impossible.

I don't care about your god, what it is or isn't, what it does or doesn't do, whether it can hear or has ears.  I criticize your religion for being a steaming pile of ethical garbage - not for whether your silly god exists.  

I am really curious to know how you became certain that there's no god. If you actually can prove that, you certainly deserve the highest possible distinction in the field of philosophy of religion.

The same way that anyone becomes certain of anything else.  It's not actually a problem for religion, because religion doesn't proceed on the basis that a god belief is true - but that the normative content of the religion is true.  You don't need gods to have a religion, and their existence is unrelated to the truth of the contents of a religion unless the religious themselves are so foolish as to tie that inconsequential detail to their own hot garbage.  

Back to human children, if you think their parents -their culture, how they raise their children ,etc- are the only explanation we should look for, you're simply moving the goalposts, and the same problem arises with their parents' childhood, and so on. Also, the tendency to believe in children seems to transcend their culture.

I think that biology and environment are a better explanation for why an animal does something than an all powerful magician.  Do you disagree?

To reprise the words of the psychologist Justin L Barett : "Certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief".
Culture and behavioral tricks you're talking about only give children concrete descriptions of the supernatural agent they'e naturally inclined to believe in, a child may think that god is the air he breathes,  or that he resembles his father physically, and so on. But that has nothing with to do with the natural inclination we're interested in.

The item in question was why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Not why they imagine fairies..which is even easier to explain than why they ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Children imagine shit.  Do we disagree? 

Don't you..in fact, believe that all of the children who imagine fairies which are not your god are..in effect, imagining shit?  It's not as if you believe that all of the fairies and gods imagined by children are real..as a muslim, now is it?

How many all powerful magicians have you seen in the observable world, how many compared to children?

I don't see a lot of things inside the observable world. Not being able to see an all powerful being.. never sounded like a problem to me. We are unable to see countless things which are far less powerful, and which do shape our lives in many ways.

Sounds to me like a long winded way to say that you've seen more children than gods in the observable world, and if your earlier comments were at all accurate - that you refer o what you can see in the observable world..then it stands to reason that you would accept that children are a better explanation for some item about children than an all powerful magician you've never seen a single representative of.

Again, you're moving the goalposts. It's a bit depressing to know you're satisifed with stardust as the complete explanation of our existence, that is really was a blind process all along.

What I'm sharing here isn't really beliefs, but reasons to believe non religious people use too in their everyday life.

What goalposts, you asked me to consider why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and, obliquely..you seem to be completely perplexed as to why or that they imagine things.

You've given me no reason to believe in your silly god...and it wouldn't matter if you could scare one up...because it isn't on account of the fact that I know there are no gods that I reject islam anymore than the fact that I reject north korean totalitarianism because I don't believe in kim jong un. 

It's on account of facts about islam.  Ask around...I'll bet you'll find that the existence of a god isn't your problem, as an evangelist.  Christians ave no trouble acknowledging the existence of yur god...and yet they maintain, as I maintain, that your religion is hot garbage.  What do you think about christianity, whose god you believe in, and it's waking talking god-man? Did they imagine that shit, or is it a clear indication that their god is true - and by extension..your religion is false?

For my part, you don't really know whether you would find what I think about the universe satisfying because you don't ask so much as insist that it must be so-and-so. I think that you would be surprised. I have, for example.in this thread.. repeatedly floated the idea that children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena because they are observing a natural teleology. They see purpose, because ..at least some of the time...there is purpose. They imagine purpose where there is not (when they do) because they expect it on account of seeing so much of it elsewhere. If that's the case, these things aren't exactly blind (no more so than the children who see them, in fact), wouldn't you agree?

Is this unsatisfying? Would you like to argue that this is not the case, that the purpose children see is not there, ever? This is what happens when you try to engage with people following a script supplied by your shaman. Is the item of your gods existence more important to you than the item of purpose? Is there no way that you can conceive of purpose outside of your god....and, if so, in a world without your god, what would that mean for purpose..or the smaller set of purpose that children see?

Let me ask you this, is the exhortation we find from the god man in the new testament to treat others as you would be treated...less true..if jesus were not, in fact, a god? Same questiuon I asked before, really. Are chickens not for laying eggs..if there is no chicken god?

Take your time...don't rely on the belief that you will find some fatal flaw in my reasoning. Allow for the possibility that I'm very good at this - even if my position on gods is, ultimately, false. Perhaps "allah" granted me a gift, lol. The very worst thing that could happen, if you were able to accept and conceptualize these arguments and concerns, is that your own inference for a god would be improved. Perhaps, and again by the will of allah...that's my purpose.