Does intuition favor God's existence?

[Calavera]

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.

MLA can correct me if I'm misrepresenting him, but MLA seems to think that things can happen for no reason. But even if he doesn't, there are other atheists who do. I think even Stephen Hawking is one of them.

How is that not an assumption? And is it intuitive? Even more than the idea that there's some kind of sentient "Creator"?

[Calavera]

How is one an agnostic diest?

Easy.

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

[Osensitive1]

How is one an agnostic diest?

Easy.

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.

[Osensitive1]

OMG. Just thought of something.

Edit: Nevermind, turned out to be something else.

[Calavera]

How is one an agnostic diest?

Easy.

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.

I believe but without certainty whether it's true or not. There are deists/theists who will use logic and reasoning to argue for God's existence. I'm not that confident.

[Osensitive1]

How is one an agnostic diest?

Easy.

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.

I believe but without certainty whether it's true or not. There are deists/theists who will use logic and reasoning to argue for God's existence. I'm not that confident.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Calavera]

Ever met an atheist Christian or Christian atheist?

[Osensitive1]

Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?

[Calavera]

Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?

There isn't any because they believe that either God doesn't exist or He did exist at one point but is now dead for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

“every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God’s death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity”.

Interesting.

[Osensitive1]

Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?

There isn't any because they believe that either God doesn't exist or He did exist at one point but is now dead for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

“every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God’s death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity”.

Interesting.

It's like Nicheism.

[Calavera]

I found this study interesting:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx

Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.

[odeon]

How is one an agnostic diest?

With great difficulty.

[odeon]

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.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if something cannot be explained for the moment, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a higher being because it requires postulating something that you, by definition, cannot prove.

Comparing the two for intuitiveness is bound to fail because one will literally require a leap of faith while the other simply assumes that you don't *yet* know everything.

[odeon]

I found this study interesting:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx

Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.

I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.

Etc.

If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.

[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.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if something cannot be explained for the moment, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a higher being because it requires postulating something that you, by definition, cannot prove.

Comparing the two for intuitiveness is bound to fail because one will literally require a leap of faith while the other simply assumes that you don't *yet* know everything.

Odeon, I think we're both agreeing on the basics but not understanding each other's points properly.

You're right. Arguing for intuition doesn't mean a thing when it comes to finding out the truth. My whole point from this thread was to sort of understand why it's so easy for many people (whether religious or not) to come to the conclusion that there must be a God. So I started this thread with the question about Occam's razor then realized it should be more about intuition.

Then realized I'm just confusing the shit out of myself.