Does intuition favor God's existence?

[midlifeaspie]

Is this just a rehash of the other thread?

No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.

Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof. 

The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof. 

One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.

[Scrapheap]

Occam's razor favors crank over coke because it lasts longer. Both, however, will rust the razor. 

     :lol:

[odeon]

Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.

I know that. You asked me how it was more intuitive not how Occam's razor favors it. So I answered accordingly.

Ah, but I didn't consider the existence of a higher being the intuitive choice.

I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.

That's why I added the word "seemingly" there.

I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is.

Fair enough. Although I'm a bit surprised there because humans, apart from proper scientific knowledge, seem to naturally do the opposite of what you've done.

Which I don't understand. I would assume that there are things I don't know, but I wouldn't take the leap and assume that it's something supernatural, something that cannot be explained. Just that I can't explain it.

There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.

Ok, back to Occam's razor. Can't something happening for no reason be considered an assumption since it's not something we commonly observe in our daily world?

I should have added "no reason I know about". I'm pretty sure things happen for a reason (as in cause and effect), but I also realise I usually won't know why. I can observe my surroundings and create theories based on what I see as reasonable and observable, but there is no way I would *know*. God is a cop-out when you don't want to think for yourself.

Just playing the Devil's advocate here.

Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.

How did the start of the Big Bang happen then if it didn't "just happen"?

In our system, it never did. We can get infinitely close to creation but never all the way.

I would assume that something caused it, of course, but what that something is I don't know. What i don't do is to replace that something with "god" because that is an assumption I can't prove or observe.

[odeon]

Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.

Because some believers do try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.

You're right, though. It should be just a matter of faith.

Faith is what it is by definition. Logic and plausibility have no part in it, and I don't mean it in a negative way. It's just the way it is.

[Psychophant]

I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."   You can't prove or disprove "God".  You either believe or you don't. 

[midlifeaspie]

I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."   You can't prove or disprove "God".  You either believe or you don't.

I reject the idea that god has to be disproven.  You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, that doesn't make it legitimate.  If someone says they "believe" in something that can't be seen, and then want me to believe it also, the onus is on them to prove that this thing exists.

[Psychophant]

I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."   You can't prove or disprove "God".  You either believe or you don't.

I reject the idea that god has to be disproven.  You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, that doesn't make it legitimate.  If someone says they "believe" in something that can't be seen, and then want me to believe it also, the onus is on them to prove that this thing exists.

True, maybe I didn't word that right. 

[odeon]

That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.

[midlifeaspie]

That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.

All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it

[odeon]

That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.

All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it

Exactly. Funny how some want to shove it down your throat, though.

[Psychophant]

That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.

All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it

Exactly. Funny how some want to shove it down your throat, though.

QFT!   

[Calavera]

Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?

Absolutely not.  One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this

I am more talking about a hypothesized unknown sentient being with the potential powers to trigger the Big Bang and other cosmic one-time events rather than something specific such as the Christian god or whatever. And this is a debate. I'm not arguing for either side (even though I'm an agnostic deist who believes there's no evidence for God's existence). There is no need to think or imply I'm trying to troll in this thread.

You can continue discussing with us or you can stop. No need to feel offended or whatever it is you're feeling because of this.

That said, isn't something "just happening" a suspension of logic (and, therefore, not intuitive) in some way (even if it has been observed in the quantum world)?

[Osensitive1]

How is one an agnostic diest?

[Calavera]

Is this just a rehash of the other thread?

No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.

Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof. 

The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof. 

One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.

I can agree with that.

I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.

[Osensitive1]

Is this just a rehash of the other thread?

No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.

Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof. 

The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof. 

One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.

I can agree with that.

I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.

Would have to say deism doen't really require the ignorance of facts or proof, thoug not sure about the word extraordinary.