Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

But it really doesn't have anything to do with physics or a "materialist scenario". There is no logical alternative. Either our two minds are ultimately operating as deterministic systems (physical or otherwise) or they aren't, and if they aren't, then we have some element of randomness involved. Of course, that doesn't mean that the conversation doesn't involve conscious thought, consideration, and purposeful actions - there is no conflict between the two descriptions as you continually try to claim.

I have never argued that our freedom to think is not deterministic.  My contention is in what determines our thoughts.  Are they entirely predetermined by past events beyond our control, or are they determined by the intervention of our conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?  Whenever I come up with this argument you try to dismiss it with such words as drivel or word salad.  You seem unable to grasp the concept of a spiritual entity of awareness existing in its own present which perceives past events, but has the freedom to consciously choose how to react to them.  It may seem illogical when thought of in materialistic terms, but it entirely fits in with the reality of our existence. Our freedom to think is a fundamental part of human nature which is evidenced throughout human history.  Your short sighted logic would reduce us to being just another biological creature driven only by a combination of instinct and learnt experience with no capacity for free thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never argued that our freedom to think is not deterministic.  My contention is in what determines our thoughts.  Are they entirely predetermined by past events beyond our control, or are they determined by the intervention of our conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?  Whenever I come up with this argument you try to dismiss it with such words as drivel or word salad.  You seem unable to grasp the concept of a spiritual entity of awareness existing in its own present which perceives past events, but has the freedom to consciously choose how to react to them.  It may seem illogical when thought of in materialistic terms, but it entirely fits in with the reality of our existence. Our freedom to think is a fundamental part of human nature which is evidenced throughout human history.  Your short sighted logic would reduce us to being just another biological creature driven only by a combination of instinct and learnt experience with no capacity for free thought.

Wrongness upon wrongness upon wrongness. As you just ignore the arguments that explain why you're wrong though, would you like a fish instead?

[Gordon]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of a spiritual entity of awareness existing in its own present which perceives past events, but has the freedom to consciously choose how to react to them.  It may seem illogical when thought of in materialistic terms, but it entirely fits in with the reality of our existence.

So, to carry on with your earlier example involving chocolate, is it your 'spiritual entity of awareness' that likes or dislikes chocolate or is it your biology? 

Our freedom to think is a fundamental part of human nature which is evidenced throughout human history.

Nobody has argued that we can't think, albeit some are better at it than are others.

[Roses]

So, to carry on with your earlier example involving chocolate, is it your 'spiritual entity of awareness' that likes or dislikes chocolate or is it your biology? 

Nobody has argued that we can't think, albeit some are better at it than are others.

You don't say!

[Stranger]

I have never argued that our freedom to think is not deterministic.  My contention is in what determines our thoughts.

 

FFS Alan, have you really been paying no attention at all to anything that is said to you, ever? Determinism is about how a choice gets made, not by what. Every time you say a choice is not entirely due to what led up to it, you are denying that our choices are deterministic.

Yet again: Deterministic system

Are they entirely predetermined by past events beyond our control, or are they determined by the intervention of our conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?  Whenever I come up with this argument you try to dismiss it with such words as drivel or word salad.

That will be because that is exactly what it is. The "present" is devoid of meaning in this context, you are again concentrating on what makes a choice not how it gets made, and you have again totally ignored the logic.

You seem unable to grasp the concept of a spiritual entity of awareness existing in its own present which perceives past events, but has the freedom to consciously choose how to react to them.

That's because it's partly meaningless and the rest of it is irrelevant and sidesteps the actual logical problem.

It may seem illogical when thought of in materialistic terms...

It's just logic that is the problem Alan - material is totally irrelevant. Your claim that it is neither making choice entirely because of the past but involves no randomness is simply a contradiction.

...but it entirely fits in with the reality of our existence.

No, it doesn't. It really doesn't fit at all if you give it a moment's thought.

Our freedom to think is a fundamental part of human nature which is evidenced throughout human history.

Nobody is denying the human ability to think - it's a shame you don't use it more, rather than endlessly repeating the same mistakes.

Your short sighted logic...

How about, just for once, trying to point out in what way the logic is short-sighted?

[Outrider]

I have never argued that our freedom to think is not deterministic.

If it is deterministic, by definition it can't be free, surely?

My contention is in what determines our thoughts.  Are they entirely predetermined by past events beyond our control, or are they determined by the intervention of our conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the evidence suggests the former.  You've provided nothing to suggest that there is any element of the process of thinking that is 'missing' from our current understanding that it's neuroelectrical activity in the brain, and the evidence shows that the neuroelectrical activity that represents thinking occurs prior to the neuroelectrical activity that represents our become aware of the thoughts.

Whenever I come up with this argument you try to dismiss it with such words as drivel or word salad.

To be fair, that's because you don't offer anything to support the idea.  If you were to suggest a little homonculus pulling 'spiritual' levers in the head it would have as little evidentiary basis or necessity - the commonly accepted scientific paradigm doesn't appear to be missing any elements, there are no unexplainable events for which we cannot find prior causal activity which might represent the intervention of some 'spiritual' nature.

You seem unable to grasp the concept of a spiritual entity of awareness existing in its own present which perceives past events, but has the freedom to consciously choose how to react to them.

Personally, yes, because I can see no way in which it could interact with reality, or by which we could detect it to have any conceptualisation of its nature - it seems like a theologically drawn out way of saying 'we don't know, but we can't admit that' which has become embedded in the literature and now won't go away.

It may seem illogical when thought of in materialistic terms, but it entirely fits in with the reality of our existence.

In order to establish that you'd have to establish that there was something to our reality which is outside of materialism, and you've fallen a long way short of that threshold.

Our freedom to think is a fundamental part of human nature which is evidenced throughout human history.

No, it's been a fundamental part of our conception of human nature, perhaps, but that's changing.  Souls were a fundamental part of our conception of human nature - no evidence for those, either.  For the pre-Christian Egyptians the 'ka' was a fundamental part of our conception of human nature, but I'm guessing you'd accept that was, at best, a misinterpretation?

Your short sighted logic would reduce us to being just another biological creature driven only by a combination of instinct and learnt experience with no capacity for free thought.

No, our logic cannot change the nature of people, it can only understand (or misunderstand, if not applied properly).  Logic is not 'short sighted' it merely is, it's a tool to be applied.  It may be that there is a reason that it's not the right tool, but you've not offered that reason, nor any other reliable tools to use.

O.

[Alan Burns]

FFS Alan, have you really been paying no attention at all to anything that is said to you, ever? Determinism is about how a choice gets made, not by what. Every time you say a choice is not entirely due to what led up to it, you are denying that our choices are deterministic.

Yet again: Deterministic system

The wiki reference you give defines a deterministic system as it occurs in physics, mathematics and computer science.  It does not define how it works in the human mind.  In essence, if we do not know how the human mind works, we can't define what it is that determines the outcome.  The past events have no traceable connection to the decision making process within the human mind.  Your logical assumptions are short sighted because they presume the human mind is driven by past events, but with no knowledge of precisely how these past events influence or determine the workings of the human mind. We somehow perceive past events in our conscious memory, and we have an awareness of many possible outcomes to the choices available to us.  It all occurs within the present state of conscious awareness before we make a choice.  There are no hard links to the past, and there is no definable route to how any conscious choice is to be invoked.  The ultimate driving force behind the workings of the human mind is beyond the scope of human scientific knowledge.  Our freedom to drive our own thought processes can't be shackled by our limited knowledge of reality.

[ekim]

Alan,

It might be a good idea if you listened to the link in Sriram's topic 'Nature of Reality'.

[Stranger]

The wiki reference you give defines a deterministic system as it occurs in physics, mathematics and computer science.  It does not define how it works in the human mind.

If you're writing a book, Alan, you'd do well to learn how to use a dictionary: deterministic Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

Paying attention would probably help too, it's not like we haven't covered this many times before.

Your logical assumptions are short sighted because they presume the human mind is driven by past events, but with no knowledge of precisely how these past events influence or determine the workings of the human mind. We somehow perceive past events in our conscious memory, and we have an awareness of many possible outcomes to the choices available to us.

Once again you're not actually addressing the argument I presented. There is no need to know how a mind works because it either produces outputs that are entirely due to the events that led up to them, or not. The statement that the mind is a deterministic system is either true or it is not true.

If it is not true, then at least some part of what happens to produce the outputs are not due to anything that led up to it - which means that that part must be random.

It all occurs within the present state of conscious awareness before we make a choice.

Until you can logically define "the present" this is gibberish - you're deep inside not even wrong territory - it's just meaningless.

There are no hard links to the past...

Baseless assertion.

...and there is no definable route to how any conscious choice is to be invoked.  The ultimate driving force behind the workings of the human mind is beyond the scope of human scientific knowledge.  Our freedom to drive our own thought processes can't be shackled by our limited knowledge of reality.

More assertion and pointless hand-waving. Either we can apply logic to the situation or we can't. If you are claiming we can't, then you're just off in fantasy land and there is literally no way for you to argue logically for it - it's just blind, reasoning-free faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The wiki reference you give defines a deterministic system as it occurs in physics, mathematics and computer science.  It does not define how it works in the human mind.  In essence, if we do not know how the human mind works, we can't define what it is that determines the outcome.  The past events have no traceable connection to the decision making process within the human mind.  Your logical assumptions are short sighted because they presume the human mind is driven by past events, but with no knowledge of precisely how these past events influence or determine the workings of the human mind. We somehow perceive past events in our conscious memory, and we have an awareness of many possible outcomes to the choices available to us.  It all occurs within the present state of conscious awareness before we make a choice.  There are no hard links to the past, and there is no definable route to how any conscious choice is to be invoked.  The ultimate driving force behind the workings of the human mind is beyond the scope of human scientific knowledge.  Our freedom to drive our own thought processes can't be shackled by our limited knowledge of reality.

Usual BS: “Our understanding of consciousness is incomplete, therefore we should forget all we do know about it and moreover junk every observation we’ve ever made about the deterministic character of the universe and replace it with a blind faith belief I happen to have that I can’t define in any way, that has no supporting evidence of any kind, and that’s fundamentally irrational in its reasoning because it relies entirely on magical thinking”.

Have another fish on me. 

[Alan Burns]

If you're writing a book, Alan, you'd do well to learn how to use a dictionary: deterministic Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

You quote from a dictionary definition which differs from the wiki link you gave originally.

Many books have been written concerning the nature of human free will and determinism.  It is not as cut and dried as your logical analysis tries to make out.  This is an extract from the wiki entry on the philosophical aspects of determinism:
Some systems are particularly difficult to classify as deterministic or not, and have generated much philosophical debate. The major example would be human minds, and possibly animal minds too. Can people have free will if their minds are truly deterministic? Conversely, when deterministic computers are said to exhibit artificial intelligence, how are their minds similar to ours? .

One of the things I intend to portray in my book is how an analysis of human free will can lead to a greater appreciation of our spiritual nature and creativity, and through this to realise that this is a reflection of our Creator's power and creativity.

[Nearly Sane]

You quote from a dictionary definition which differs from the wiki link you gave originally.

Many books have been written concerning the nature of human free will and determinism.  It not as cut and dried as your logical analysis tries to make out.  This is an extract from the wiki entry on the philosophical aspects of determinism:
Some systems are particularly difficult to classify as deterministic or not, and have generated much philosophical debate. The major example would be human minds, and possibly animal minds too. Can people have free will if their minds are truly deterministic? Conversely, when deterministic computers are said to exhibit artificial intelligence, how are their minds similar to ours? .

One of the things I intend to portray in my book is how an analysis of human free will can lead to a greater appreciation of our spiritual nature and creativity, and through this to realise that this is a reflection of our Creator's power and creativity.

So your book will be based on a huge use of the begging the question fallacy ergo it's worthless.

[Stranger]

You quote from a dictionary definition which differs from the wiki link you gave originally.

Not really, no. If one applies the mathematical sense to human mind you get the philosophical conclusion. The point being that you appear to have made up a definition of deterministic that makes it mean just that something is determined by something else, which does nothing but confuse the issue. If I were to be cynical about it, I might conclude that it was a deliberate distraction tactic.

As I said, this has been done before: #32591, #32601.

Many books have been written concerning the nature of human free will and determinism.  It not as cut and dried as your logical analysis tries to make out.  This is an extract from the wiki entry on the philosophical aspects of determinism:
Some systems are particularly difficult to classify as deterministic or not, and have generated much philosophical debate. The major example would be human minds, and possibly animal minds too. Can people have free will if their minds are truly deterministic? Conversely, when deterministic computers are said to exhibit artificial intelligence, how are their minds similar to ours? .

And...? They are using the word is the same sense. Your quote just raises the question about whether minds are deterministic or not. However, if they aren't, then the alternative is randomness for the reasons given endless times already.

One of the things I intend to portray in my book is how an analysis of human free will can lead to a greater appreciation of our spiritual nature and creativity, and through this to realise that this is a reflection of our Creator's power and creativity.

You'd better start by learning something about logic and how to avoid fallacies then, because if you can't do better than you've done here, it'll end up being a comedy.

[Outrider]

The wiki reference you give defines a deterministic system as it occurs in physics, mathematics and computer science.

It gives a definition - it fits cleanly in physics and computer science without many people taking issue with it mainly because science is built upon the presumption of determinism.  If cause does not lead inexorably to effect in a consistent fashion the findings of scientific enquiry become worthless.  That people, within that framework, are working from that understanding of determinism isn't the issue; the issue is that you wish to discard that presumption of determinism, to presume something non-deterministic is at work, but you don't do anything to validate that alternative.

It does not define how it works in the human mind.

It does, it just does so in a way that doesn't leave room for your need for something else.

In essence, if we do not know how the human mind works, we can't define what it is that determines the outcome.

Science is always provisional, that's the nature of a system built upon a presumption, no matter how many experimental results validate the findings.  However, if you want to overturn that consensus then you need to provide some justification for your position, and given the well-established history that shows 'people feel this strongly' is not a reliable indicator of reality it needs to be something more than 'but I feel strongly'.

The past events have no traceable connection to the decision making process within the human mind.

Perhaps.  Or, perhaps, there are traceable connections but we lack sufficiently complete data and sufficient processing power to accurately map the process?

Your logical assumptions are short sighted because they presume the human mind is driven by past events, but with no knowledge of precisely how these past events influence or determine the workings of the human mind.

They aren't short-sighted, they are based on the presumption that there is no apparent reason to treat the human mind as anything different from the rest of the physical world when we come to look at how it operates.  If someone were to suggest something else it could be investigated - you posit something akin to a 'soul' as a vessel by which 'free will' enters the system, but offer nothing to suggest how that operates or how it might be established; in the absence of any need for anything additional in the established model, and with no evidence to support your conjecture it's filed as, at best, 'pending'.

We somehow perceive past events in our conscious memory, and we have an awareness of many possible outcomes to the choices available to us.

Yes.

It all occurs within the present state of conscious awareness before we make a choice.

No. Again, this is not the sequence that measurement shows us these operations occur in.  We decide, then we become consciously aware of the decision.

There are no hard links to the past, and there is no definable route to how any conscious choice is to be invoked.

We haven't established a definitive understanding; whether that's a lack of sufficient understanding or a lack of anything to understand is not clear.  Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.  Which is equally the case for your idea of a 'soul', of course; it's not been disproven, it's just not supported by anything.

The ultimate driving force behind the workings of the human mind is beyond the scope of human scientific knowledge.

He asserted, devoid of any justification. Why is it?

Our freedom to drive our own thought processes can't be shackled by our limited knowledge of reality.

Perhaps it can't. Before we'll accept the statement, though, you need to justify the concept of a freedom to drive our own thought process in the face of a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Usual BS:...…

I am told that if I think about it, I should realise that all my thoughts are predetermined before I think them. 
And I am accused of being irrational.

[Stranger]

I am told that if I think about it, I should realise that all my thoughts are predetermined before I think them. 
And I am accused of being irrational.

That isn't a fair characterisation of what you are being told, and you are being irrational. Just to reinforce the point, you choose to try to phrase things in a way that invites incredulity, rather than address the actual logic.

[Alan Burns]

Outrider,
Thanks for your recent, very detailed responses.
You show a deep understanding of the points I make, even though you disagree with my conclusions.
I am not trying to offer an alternative to science. I try to show how Christian faith and human scientific discovery can work together in harmony to help us discover the truth and purpose behind our existence.  Relying on science alone will inevitably lead to a view of a Godless universe with no discernable meaning or purpose, concluding that we are just an accidental blip within the chaos of a material universe on its journey to ever increasing entropy.  Yet meaning and purpose are evident within the conscious awareness of human beings.  Could our perception of meaning and puspose be generated by the random unguided activity of material elements?  Or can this material universe be guided by conscious will which is not shackled to physically predetermined material reactions?

[Outrider]

Thanks for your recent, very detailed responses.

I try.  I figure if I'm here trying to understand and get others to understand, that's probably at least a part of their motivation too.

I am not trying to offer an alternative to science.

I suspect it's not your motivation, but I think if you want those of us on the more sceptical end of the spectrum to accept what you have to say then you need to offer an alternative to science.  It might be a bit of an oversimplification, but I think generally believers have an emotional connection to their belief which 'overrides' the evidentiary claims, whilst non-believers typically have an academic understanding which relegates feelings in favour of evidence.  It's why so much of this goes round in circles - it's not that we don't listen, it's that what's being said isn't speaking the 'language' of the listener.

I try to show how Christian faith and human scientific discovery can work together in harmony to help us discover the truth and purpose behind our existence.

I'm not sure that they can work in harmony. I think, at best, they can exist in a parallel state - the 'non-overlapping magisteria' idea.  It's not just that they operate on fundamentally different principles, but that if Christian faith (or, indeed, any 'supernatural' belief) is founded upon something that can bypass the physical cause and effect system, science becomes meaningless with respect to that concept.  Science is founded upon the principle that reality is consistent, and for all the slightly mocking claims of 'woo' and 'magic', the fundamental underlying principle of Christianity (and at least some of the other religions) is that the will of a god can simply over-ride that consistency and change reality on a whim.  As such, any claims in support of gods can't rest on science, which means there needs to be another justification; for most believers that seems to be faith, but for those of us not wired to accept that it's never going to be a sufficient claim.

Relying on science alone will inevitably lead to a view of a Godless universe with no discernable meaning or purpose, concluding that we are just an accidental blip within the chaos of a material universe on its journey to ever increasing entropy. Yet meaning and purpose are evident within the conscious awareness of human beings.

That doesn't mean, though, that the 'meaning and purpose' have to come from outside - I have purpose, my life has meaning to me, and my family.  I don't need there to be some cosmic, all-encompassing end-goal, how would I find a meaningful place in an infinitely vast plan?  This idea that there's an external meaning to life that we all play a part in - reality is incomprehensibly vast, any significance I have in that plan is as infinitesimally meaningless as a pointless existence in a purposeless universe.

Could our perception of meaning and purpose be generated by the random unguided activity of material elements?

We have, as a species, as cultures, long histories of finding meaning in the meaningless - phrenology, tea-leaf reading, astrology, reading animal entrails, falling on our knees at the sighting of comets, claiming divine judgement when volcanic activity releases sulphur into a river turning it red and ejecting the animal life out onto the land.  We are evolved as a survival mechanism to identify patterns, and so we have an inherent bias towards Type 1 errors, finding patterns where there are none.  Seeing animal shapes in the clouds is a harmless evolutionary trait, but presuming those animals have desires that we must satisfy may well be how religions start; and, if it isn't, for those of us without 'faith' how do we tell the difference between those espousing their own view of what inanimate clouds want and those espousing the genuine will of a god they've mistaken for a cloud?

Or can this material universe be guided by conscious will which is not shackled to physically predetermined material reactions?

It could be.  But in order to convince me, and others like me, you need to offer something that convinces us, not you.  That you feel this isn't really in question, no-one (I think) is suggesting that you come to this dishonestly, but you don't think like we do, and so you're constructing your arguments based upon what feels convincing to you, not to us.

O.

[ekim]

Well said, O.  The Christian topic is about searching for God.  I doubt whether Jesus was concerned about human scientific discovery.  It would be more to the point if Alan gave some indication of what he understands by the words God, soul, spirit and heaven in relation to human circumstances.

[torridon]

Could our perception of meaning and puspose be generated by the random unguided activity of material elements?  Or can this material universe be guided by conscious will which is not shackled to physically predetermined material reactions?

No, I think not, the reason being that meaning, or will. that is not the consequence or outcome of the circumstances that led to it ('shackled' to use your pejorative) would be meaningless.  Such a reality would be incomprehensible. Faith is a refuge for those who cannot or will not face such simple and fundamental truths.

[Stranger]

I am not trying to offer an alternative to science. I try to show how Christian faith and human scientific discovery can work together in harmony to help us discover the truth and purpose behind our existence.

Except that blind, unreasoning faith such as you present here, cannot possibly tell us anything about the truth of our existence because there is no way at all to check it. It can be no better than a guess.

Relying on science alone will inevitably lead to a view of a Godless universe with no discernable meaning or purpose, concluding that we are just an accidental blip within the chaos of a material universe on its journey to ever increasing entropy.  Yet meaning and purpose are evident within the conscious awareness of human beings.  Could our perception of meaning and puspose be generated by the random unguided activity of material elements?  Or can this material universe be guided by conscious will which is not shackled to physically predetermined material reactions?

Once again we see you appealing to consequences and using language to encourage incredulity. This sort of thing does nothing to dent the logic of the situation and nothing at all to resolve the contradiction at the centre of your own views.

You can't counter reasoning with your personal distaste and incredulity.

[Alan Burns]

Outrider,
Thanks for another thoughtful response.
It seems that the difficulty you have in seeing my view of reality is similar to the difficulty I experience in seeing an atheist view.  What I perceive in the world around me is a profound sense of wonder and awe in God's creation.  I cannot conceive of the possibility that God does not exist because without God, nothing would exist.  And I see God's creative power in myself, in other people, and in the amazing balance of life in our world.  I know you believe that natural selection of random mutations is a sufficient explanation, but I believe God must have had a guiding hand in the process.  But one thing I find difficult to express in words is the deep relationship and awareness of God which I get through prayer.  I have been saying my own prayers since my earliest memories.  Prayer is just as much a part of my daily routine as eating or drinking.  I cannot imagine a life without prayer, and I presume you can't imagine a life with prayer.  I believe the first steps in faith would be through prayer, because this opens you up to allow God into your life.  But in order to make those first steps, you might need to remove some of the false barriers to faith and at least admit to the possibility of God's existence, even though you may deem it improbable.

[Outrider]

What I perceive in the world around me is a profound sense of wonder and awe in God's creation.

I have a sense of awe and wonder about reality - from the spectacular way that complex weather patterns and ocean currents can consistently emerge from an accumulation of tiny atomic interactions, through the way the motion of a pendulum can be so easily summarised into a simple equation through to watching the intuitive behaviour of newborn foals as they learn to walk.  I don't, though, see any need to fall back on a supernatural explanation for any of those things.

I cannot conceive of the possibility that God does not exist because without God, nothing would exist.

And yet, we exist, and we have nothing except that existence to suggest that there is are gods.  Why would nothing exist without a god?  If nothing would exist without a god, where did god come from?

And I see God's creative power in myself, in other people, and in the amazing balance of life in our world.

Which, to my eye, is the balance of natural forces in a dynamic equilibrium - this is not something created, this is something marvellous that has emerged from a series of simple principles exerted over billions of years.

I know you believe that natural selection of random mutations is a sufficient explanation, but I believe God must have had a guiding hand in the process.

Nothing in the evidence for natural selection precludes the involvement of an interventionist deity, but there is no need for one - it's entirely conceivable that the results could have emerged through entirely natural actions.  Given that, why do you feel a god must have been involved?  What about the natural explanation is insufficient?

But one thing I find difficult to express in words is the deep relationship and awareness of God which I get through prayer.  I have been saying my own prayers since my earliest memories.  Prayer is just as much a part of my daily routine as eating or drinking.  I cannot imagine a life without prayer, and I presume you can't imagine a life with prayer. I believe the first steps in faith would be through prayer, because this opens you up to allow God into your life.  But in order to make those first steps, you might need to remove some of the false barriers to faith and at least admit to the possibility of God's existence, even though you may deem it improbable.

I don't know - as a child, at school, it was an expectation but it was more of a superficial ritual behaviour than anything that was explained with any intrinsic meaning, I think.  I could say 'I've prayed', but it's arguably like cargo-cultists saying that they're running an airport.  Which is perhaps telling, in a way - I 'prayed' but it has no impact because I didn't believe -the belief needs to be there, or the prayer just becomes a dance, going through ritual behaviours for social acceptance.  In order for prayer to be significant to you, I suspect, you'd have to already believe - so if you were praying that early and that consistently, why did you believe at that stage?  If this is from your earliest memories then I presume (but, please, correct me if I'm wrong) this was before you'd developed any significant critical thinking skills - were you 'inducted' into this belief system?

As I said, earlier, I think belief is more of an emotional response than an academic one - this feels right to you, it's a part of what makes you feel like you, it's nurturing and self-affirming, but all of those are internal and internalised.  I don't expect you to suddenly become an atheist, but can you see that without that internalised feeling the evidence from the world around us is not enough to induce it?  The need to believe needs to be there for the world to be viewed in that light, looked at purely in the cold light of day god is an abstract possibility that isn't necessary to the explanation and which requires more exceptional explanations of its own.

O.

[Roses]

If god exists and created everything, it really screwed up BIG TIME when it created human nature, unless if enjoys human suffering.

[SteveH]

If god exists and created everything, it really screwed up BIG TIME when it created human nature, unless if enjoys human suffering.

Well, there we are, folks: the clinching argument against belief, courtesy of our resident intellectual titan. I think we may as well close this thread now, as there's nothing more to be said.