Choosing a faith

This has no impact on what method is "our best for identifying the truth about reality."
And therefore is not a reasonable idea for avoiding our best methods for identifying the truth about reality when attempting to know the truth. This is easily shown to be wrong. Science telling us what motivates peopleOver 5 million papers. Here are a few:

• An introduction to motivation
  
• Teaching and Researching: Motivation
  
• Social Motivation
  
• Motivation and Action

Well - you're wrong, as the above links show you.
You can confirm their answer by asking more people in the same/similar situations to get a consensus. If the consensus works to predict other people's motivations correctly - then you know it's correct. If not - then you adjust the studies accordingly until you start to get it right. This has been done for decades and the process is highly refined at this point.Again - just because you are unaware of the process or the sophistication of these procedures doesn't mean they don't work. It just means you're ignorant of our knowledge as a human species as a whole.
This is fine - I'm ignorant of a whole whack of stuff too. Who isn't?The difference is - when looking for the truth of reality, I will go and see what our best-known-methods-for-identifying-truth point us towards. You seem to only accept what our best-known-methods point us towards if they agree with things that "make sense to GDR." Which is a known issue and is highly likely to cause you to be incorrect. We know we are not influenced by God because we have attempted to identify God's influence and always only found natural no-God-present-at-all answers.
We looked for it, and it doesn't exist. Of course we know why.
We know that abiogenesis happens because it's chemistry and that's what happens when such chemicals get together in those quantities.
That's not "by chance." That's just "physics." And that most certainly is a "why it happened." It's just a "why" that you don't particularly like.
It's like asking "but why does the water cycle occur?"
The water cycle occurs because that's what happens when that much water is present on a planet.
No one cares if GDR likes this "why" for the water cycle - and there's no fuss over it because everyone happens to agree.Abiogenesis occurs because that's what happens when those chemicals are present in those quantities.
There is a very large portion of society that does care if GDR likes this "why" for abiogenesis - because they don't like it either - and they want to have a "why" that they feel comfortable with.
Which, again - punches our best-known-method-of-identifying-truth right in the nose. Who cares about truth? We want to feel comfortable! Well - truth doesn't care about your comfort level.You seem to be saying "but what if God exists and He has a reason?"
The answer is: First, show any reasonable idea that suggest that God exists in the first place. Then we can begin to discuss if God was actually responsible, and then (if God exists, and actually was responsible...) we can begin to discuss what God's motivation might be.You're jumping ahead 2 really, really, really, really big steps and just assuming them to be true.
This is the blatant disregard for our best-known-method-of-identifying-truth.At this point, we know why abiogenesis occurs, and we have no reason to think there's anything more "behind" that then "because this is how things work."

I don't restrict myself or ignore anything. I've asked for you over and over to show me anything more - and you have not. I want there to be more, it would be fascinating to learn about. But, so far, there just isn't. And, really, many aspects are even more fascinating to learn about to see how natural processes are responsible for them. "God-did-it" is not very interesting to learn about. But evolution and planet creation and solar system formation... are all fascinating natural processes. I investigate "why does this happen?"
And all the investigation ever shows is: Because of natural processes. And we learn more and more about fascinating, awe-inspiring natural processes. They're really beautiful.I don't think they happened out of the blue by chance - I think they happened because of why they happened.
I don't disregard any idea of an external intelligence - you've just never been able to show that an external intelligence actually exists in the first place. Let alone that an external intelligence actually did anything. Let alone on top of that - why an external intelligence did the things you seem to want them to. Yes.
When attempting to learn about the truth:
I follow our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth.
You follow... a similar-ish method with a few quirks that's known for being incorrect... specifically because of those quirks.It's really strange. Such a phrase only holds weight if you begin your ideas based on evidence.
You do not begin your ideas based on evidence. You begin your ideas based on "what's seems right to GDR."If you didn't hold evidence as a high enough priority to base the foundation of the position you hold - then what makes you think evidence will change your mind?
The evidence already shows that you are wrong. You're already ignoring it. I've provided millions and millions and millions of papers of evidence showing you this - and you're acting as if they don't exist. I keep saying that processes are evidence of processes.
I keep saying that after looking everywhere, and not finding a deity - is evidence of the non-existence of a deity. Your analogy doesn't apply, because you keep building a straw-man version of what I'm saying to you.
I do not think processes are evidence of the non-existence of a deity.
Therefore - I do not think that an automobile assembly line is the sole cause of the cars they produce.To use your provided analogy and apply it to what I'm actually saying:I think most cars are produced by assembly lines because that's what the studies and evidence show us.
I think some cars are produced by other methods because that's what the studies and evidence show us.
I do not think that any car was created by some sort of "external intelligence" without an assembly line or any other known-car-making-method because that's what the studies and evidence show us. No - it's based on what the evidence shows us. That is not a "pre-supposition." That is a "conclusion supported by evidence and our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth." I wouldn't.
Step 1 - Show that the supernatural exists (you haven't done this yet.)
Step 2 - Show that the supernatural did, actually, cause Jesus' resurrection (you haven't done this yet either.)
Step 3 - Once you show that the supernatural exists, AND that it did, actually "do it" - THEN we can start to reasonably discuss the reasons why the supernatural caused Jesus' resurrection to happen.Without you doing Step 1 and Step 2 - it is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly in-line with our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth to know that the resurrection never happened.Especially since we've attempted Step 1 and Step 2 - everywhere - and found that the supernatural does not actually exist. Some people just feel like it "makes sense" to them if it did. Can you read this sentence and have it actually make sense?Showing you examples of why life and emotions evolved - naturally - most certainly is evidence that an intelligence (God) is NOT responsible for those processes.
Just like showing you examples of why thunder and lightning occur - naturally - most certainly is evidence that an intelligence (Thor) is NOT responsible for those processes.Why wouldn't it be?Of course - they are not evidence for the non-existence of these intelligences.
The evidence for the non-existence of these intelligences is that we've looked - everywhere - for them, and have not found them.

Once you go down that rabbit hole, everything is mysterious, exquisite and beautiful Sometimes even terrifying! Its what fascinates you. No disrespect there. I cant show you. Besides, God would be boring to you anyway. Im sure you've read the book. Perhaps He uses unbelievers to get anything useful done. To be honest, I just want Her to make my life comfortable. The peanut gallery sees that and it reinforces their desire to join you down the rabbit hole looking at really cool stuff rather than searching for a higher authority. Who on earth would want to do that????

Phat? We've been looking for your higher authority for four millennia now. It's time to read the tea leaves. There is nothing there and we have stopped wasting our efforts on such foolishness.

Yes I know. You would prefer to smoke the tea leaves and dream about human potential!

LOLPhat, Phat, PhatYour Higher Authority already gave you the marching orders and you simply ignore them.Feed the hungry, comfort the sorrowful, shelter the homeless, protect the helpless, clothe the naked, heal the sick...

If there was any way to learn about God and know that what you're learning is true - I would be enthralled with the subject.The problem is that all the "ways we know of to learn about God" are also known to include falsehoods, and lying and an unquestioning attitude.
Three things we have learned that are incredibly high indications of "learning about something that is incorrect."Our best known method for learning the truth includes:

• A questioning attitude
  Try to show it's wrong! If you win - you learn even more and create a pathway of learning the actual truth. If you lose - you've learnt more about why it's right. Either way you LEARN more about the truth.
• A self-correcting way to weed-out liars and ensure such knowledge is corrected
  All knowledge is tested multiple times by multiple people with varying personal motivations and cultural expectations.
  Not only are new results praised, but an investigation will occur on the "lying" results. If you're shown to be lying - you won't get any more work and you'll be shunned because you're lying about the truth
  
• A self-correcting way to weed-out falsehoods and ensure such knowledge is corrected
  If you correct someone else - you actually gain recognition instead of being shunned. Identifying other people's errors and getting closer to the truth is a mark of success not something to be quashed and stifled with tradition.
  Previous people's results that are shown to be wrong - buy they weren't lying about it - are praised and given credit for inspiring further investigations into that area. Being wrong is a good thing as it, eventually, leads to more knowledge that is closer to the truth.

If there were any ways to learn about God that included those sorts of ideas... it would be so exciting to learn!
However, this isn't what we have. We have nothing but obfuscation and protection of tradition - things we know all too well to be extremely high indications of "being wrong." I quoted this because I do not understand it.
I attempted to cut off the beginning of what you said in order to identify my best guess as to what "that????" is referring to.
I don't see any other way to parse the quote.But, when parsed like this... why wouldn't anyone want to spend time looking at really cool stuff?And, please understand - no one is looking for really cool stuff "rather than" searching for a higher authority.
If the search for a higher authority could provide any amount of knowledge that can withstand the above listed items required to know that it's "a part of the truth" - then it, too, would be "really cool stuff" and we would be looking at that with eager eyes!It's just, well, we do search for a higher authority while using our best known method for identifying the truth - and we never, ever find one. Even after looking everywhere, for thousands of years.

You keep repeating this. You keep insisting on physical evidence for something that isn't physical. I don't argue against any of the natural processes that exist and which are all that you come up with. But again, just like an automobile assembly line these incredible processes scream out in favour of an intelligent origin. Actually it isn't an external intelligence that made things the way I want them to be. If it was there wouldn't be suffering in this world. I am simply searching for truth and common sense alone tells me that a single cell, let alone sentient life with all that it entails is not through who knows how many separate processes is going to arise from a lifeless planet. All you can do is point to the processes which we do have evidence for.You don't really ask yourself the hard questions. You point to the the numerous views on the nature of an cosmic intelligence. It isn't just different religions but the large differences within any particular religion using the differences between myself and Faith as an example. The point is that there isn't physical evidence that we can examine or test for. It essentially has to come from withing and the world we live in, but at the same time considering the experience and thoughts of others. ..as do you.
​
[/qs=Stile]If you didn't hold evidence as a high enough priority to base the foundation of the position you hold - then what makes you think evidence will change your mind?
The evidence already shows that you are wrong. You're already ignoring it. I've provided millions and millions and millions of papers of evidence showing you this - and you're acting as if they don't exist.I keep saying that processes are evidence of processes.
I keep saying that after looking everywhere, and not finding a deity - is evidence of the non-existence of a deity.[/qs]I don't deny any of the papers that you have supplied. It is simply evidence of how things happened without any evidence of the question of whether those processes were the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not. It seems to me that you are being kinda obtuse in dealing with this.Once again, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 1/ I can't show evidence with either physical or mathematical evidence. I do say thought that it is the common sense conclusion as to the origin of the processes that has resulted in sentient life.2/Assuming that the resurrection was an historical event would lead one to conclude that it is a supernatural event as we know it doesn't happen in the naturally.3/Sure Yes we understand the natural explanation of the processes that show that Thor wasn't necessary, but it doesn't tell us whether or not Thor was ultimately responsible for the processes so that they could happen naturally.
​ ..and once again absence of evidence is evidence of absence. At any rate I agree that there is no evidence, but what we can do is draw our own conclusions of what ultimately is the cause of sentient life and why the world exists as we perceive it.

But... I don't.
I only insist on "any kind of evidence at all that we can know is actually real." Otherwise - it's not really evidence, is it? It's just an idea with no connection to reality. What good is that when attempting to identify what's real?It's not my fault that physical evidence is abundantly known as "a kind of evidence that we can know is actually real."
I didn't create the universe.It's not my fault that you seem unable to offer any other kind of evidence that we can know is actually real.
I'm not you.I'm not restricting or insisting anything.
This is just you not being able to bring anything worthwhile/reasonable to the table, getting upset at your own position, and taking it out on me. I agree that auto assembly lines scream out intelligent origins.
Auto assembly lines are minimally complex.But those incredible processes do not scream out intelligent origins. They are defiantly not "minimally complex." They are abundantly complex and overly complex. Some even seem "maximally complex for no reason other than to just be more and more complex to the point of causing their own problems due to their extreme, unnecessary complexity." Which is a known, tested, verified artifact of things that ARE NOT of intelligent origin. I agree that common sense tells us that life arose from a pre-existing intelligence.
Just like common sense also tells us that pressurized metal tubes don't fly.
Just like common sense also tells us that whales should be fish.Yet - reality shows us that whales are mammals.
Yet - reality shows us that airplanes exist.
Yet - reality shows us that a single cell, and even sentient life - through all processes that we definitely do know about (I've shown you millions and millions of papers explaining them) - arise from a lifeless planet.Go figure - our common sense is worthless when identifying reality.
Why do you continue to rely on it so much while also claiming to want to identify the truth as your highest priority?You say I start from this same position - and I do. But, when reality shows me differently, I allow reality to define reality and not my own common sense.
How do you stand there, insist that your common sense is correct, when reality is screaming at you that it's wrong... and still claim to have "seeking the truth" as your highest priority?That's the difference.I attempt to adapt my common sense to reality.
You attempt to adapt reality to your common sense.One of us is going to fail. Which questions would those be? As far as I can tell - I've answered every single question you've come up with. It's you who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the hard answers. Again - the evidence of a pre-existing intelligence not being behind it all is because we've looked - everywhere - and not found any hint of any pre-existing intelligence. The individual acts of not finding pre-existing intelligence in each individual process is a part of that - but not all of it.If you think otherwise - show something - anything that hints at a pre-existing intelligence that you can show to be real.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence - when you look and it's not there.
You yourself agree that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence every time you look for oncoming traffic, don't see any and make your vehicle turn.I advise you to stop arguing against the facts that save you constantly and preserve your life - it makes you look silly. Right. Thor isn't necessary.
What shows us that Thor doesn't exist? Looking for Thor (in thunder and lightning and everywhere else) and not finding Thor.
What shows us that a pre-existing intelligence doesn't exist? Looking for a pre-existing intelligence (everywhere) and not finding a pre-existing intelligence.
What shows us that on-coming traffic doesn't exist and it's safe to turn? Looking for on-coming traffic (everywhere) and not finding on-coming traffic. Drive safe.

If you are claiming that a process has effects on the physical world then it is physical. Since when is magic the option that makes the most sense? Then the processes you are pushing have no effect on the physical world. For some people, it is common sense that the Earth is flat. There's a reason why an appeal to common sense is considered a logical fallacy. What Thor? Why even ask if about what Thor does or doesn't do to begin with?

Which could explain why God had to "become" Physical in order to influence the physical world. Jus sayin... I think He means Jesus.

I like this line of thinking as well.Oh - if only I could write a short post with all the things I wanted to say.
Then, I'd win every argument! Seriously, though - this line of reasoning is incredibly damning to anyone thinking "the supernatural exists in places we cannot find."If it doesn't affect the physical; it's not possible for us to know about it - in any way - and all things we "think we know about it" are just made-up imaginary thoughts.
If it does affect the physical; then the things we think we know about it may be real - but then it's measurable/testable in some way and those tests are all coming up negative.I do, however, have a soft spot for the line of reasoning I like to take - that "evidence" can be non-physical - we just don't know of any yet. To me, it feels like the door is left open more for "the unknown to make itself known." But, perhaps that is an unnecessary complication to provide room for and just ends up adding confusion.Either way, really, I don't see a reasonable position for claiming that the supernatural is real.But, if you were to ask me personally, I do believe that there's "something weird going on" that we still don't know about that would explain some of the ghost-story-ish or other supernatural-ish things. I just don't try to defend it at all because... it's indefensible. I'm undecided if this "weird something" is actually external entities/processes or possibly just manifestations of the magnificence that is the human brain. I'm leaning towards brain-stuffs.

To put it another way, if someone declared that gravity was supernatural that wouldn't make all of the physical evidence for gravity go away.If something affects the physical then there should be physical evidence of it. Period. Not that hard to figure out. If it has no affect on the physical, then why bring it up in relation to the physical? It would seem that the primary reason to call something supernatural is to invent an excuse for not having evidence.

OK, can you give me an example of non-physical evidence for something that you believe? I suggest that common sense points to the conclusion that life exists because of a pre-existing intelligence. I guess for you common sense suggests to you that life is the result of a chance combination of just the tight base elements. As you can't see definitive evidence for a pre-existing intelligence your common sense tells you that such an entity doesn't exist. There is also no evidence of how the first cell came into existence and even if process that did that could be found, it still tells us nothing about whether or not there was an intelligence responsible for the process. All that is a complete non sequitur. A rock tumbles down a hill and smashes into your car. All you know is that gravity propelled that rock down the hill but you don't know whether it was pushed or not. You can't find any evidence to answer the question so you have to take other things into consideration to form a conclusion that you can't know absolutely what the answer is.

Except we require two points you want to skip over. The "other things" to be considered must be real. They must be evidenced to be considered.Second, if you can't find any evidence to answer the question then you cannot answer the question. You cannot just invent something you personally would like there to be and try to shoehorn it into an answer.Your view here, GDR, is that a lack of disproof, a lack of information, is all you require for you to prove your reality. Fantasy world.If you don't know why the rock rolled down then you cannot insist it was shot out of a cannon, kicked by a dog or moved by some god. You do not know. Accept it.