My point is that god is an imagination of old ideas that we debate endlessly because we imagined it to be true first, and ignorance as does knowledge shapes belief if sprinkled with imagination. There are many things we are 100 percent sure do not exist like the imaginary infinitesimally small black hole that pulls matter into it at the center of the earth.
Hubris, Madhukar; evolution yes, origins no. Any headway in understanding origins only begs the question. A bit deeper into the unexplored cave goes the spelunker. On what rational basis can the spelunker be said to know what is beyond known limits?
I am wondering: wherefrom my name comes here? I am not in this discussion for long time.
Madhukar, it does get confusing and I am constantly trying to find the thread of a conversation. There are some things I want to chat with you but taxes are taking too much time. My dear family came for dinner tonight, but one of my sons and his family live far away and couldn't join us. We had 12 at the table tonight, ranging from two years old to 76 ... and I am so grateful for and proud of this splendid family. Life is sweet! I'll get back for a chat in a day or two. Hope all is well with you.
Although this post has many many replies, I feel I need to add my 1/50th of a dollar. Basically "only the Sith deals with absolutes". Leave the absolutism to the zealots and the fanatics. Nobody can with 100% certainly know the outcome of anything, but as had been said - we can predict, based on past patterns and experiences, outcomes with very high confidence.
Do you exist god? Answer yes in the brackets. Waiting for God to fill in the blank here: [ ]? Any answer implies yes, and all blank answers imply no. If you are 100 percent certain god does not exist, you need not check back for the reply!
MK, I was responding to your latest comment re evolution and origins.
The best candidate for a "structural procedure" requiring no intelligence would be the conservation laws (there are more yet to discover at different levels) that define boundaries and restrictions, e.g., self-assembly at the nano-level is all about conservation law. It's all combination after that.
Like Dawkins, I'm a 6 on the spectrum of theistic probability. The existence of god can't be proven any more than it can be disproven. However, given the astonishing lack of evidence for a god, and the fact that the only thing that the monotheists have are books that were written 2,000 years ago (the Qur'an was completed nearly 1,400 years ago) and by largely illiterate Bronze age shepherds obsessed with blood and racial and ritual purity does nothing to make the case for god. If there is a god, it is likely more that of Spinoza or the like: A deity that brought everything into being but has as much interest in what happens on the surface of our little blue marble as it does in two galaxies colliding.
For me, the question of whether there's a god is immaterial. There is no evidence on either side, with the burden of proof being much higher for the theists than for the non-theists. After all, they have to prove the existence of something that can't be seen or experienced, aside from a "sure feeling that He does" (i.e., subjective). Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know if there is a god, but there probability of there being one is extremely low. I'm open to new evidence, but so far nothing convincing has been brought forward. And I grew up fundamentalist so I know all the proofs and the ways of dreaming up "evidence" for god.
If I'm going to waste my time on a fiction, I'm going to waste it on something that's well-written and well-conceived instead of on the literary mess that is the Christian bible.
I won't say 100% because claiming that would make me a bad atheist. I will say that there is a possibility that a god or gods exist. about .0001% rounded up of course. However that probability is for all deities, not just the christian one.