"To conclude there is no God, you have to be awfully confident that you understand the nature of reality. Where it came from, what it's about, how it works. I don't dare to conclude that I have that kind of understanding. I think it is breathtakingly bold to do so."

I make NONE of these claims, and nothing about not believing in an invisible bearded genocidal father figure creator requires me to make any of them.

Seriously, how am *I* the hubrist here?

And how is "booming voice that regulates sexual activity did it six thousand years ago" NOT hubristic?

"If you don't believe in God, the thing that's probably hardest to understand is that he communicates with people today--and so yes, we can know God. Not that we know everything about God, but to know God's basic character, yes."

Explain to me why I, or anyone else, for that matter, should believe anyone when they claim to speak for God.

Are atheists the only ones who remember that the Third Commandment exists?

So you don't claim to know the secrets of reality, but you rule out God? How can you rule Him out of the picture if you don't know it all yourself?

And your description betrays you. You are working off of a six-year old's conception of God. Try learning what mature people believe in.

The same way you rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So mature people believe in a God that didn't do and say all that stuff the Bible totally says he did and said?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually a rather brilliant conception. I'm a big fan of his noodly goodness. I also love the movie The Life of Brian. Does that surprise you? I think that religion is not off limits, and that God has to have a sense of humor. I have some very irreligious books that I recommend to everyone, because they are so funny.

My view of the Old Testament is this: it is the story of the Jewish people, including their history, their myths, the development of their religion, some interesting poetry and other writings, and the traditions of their people--including traditions of their history. I don't believe it is a perfect account of history, nor do I believe every word is from the mouth of God Himself. It is a book, not God On Paper. It is not a divine encyclopedia, in which we can go look up all the answers. Religious people who treat it as such are setting themselves up for a fall, as well as misleading non-believers about it.

So, no, I don't believe in a genocidal robed bearded dude who sent bears to rend the youths who mocked a prophet.

That said, it is a marvelous and wonderful book. It is a book that raises more questions than it answers, a book one has to struggle with. That, to me, is the real worth of the Bible. It is the story of the Jewish struggle with the Divine, and some of the results of that struggle. Reading it, we wrestle with the Unknown, just as Jacob did. It's a struggle that is very worthwhile.

It actually saddens me that people deny themselves the chance of finding out how wonderful it is, based on pre-conceptions.

Yes, it's very nice. And none of it convinces me that anything that could be described as a "god" exists.

So I go back to my earlier question, how do you rule God out of the picture, when you don't claim to have all the answers yourself?

How the hell do you rule God IN? I've seen human intelligence, I've seen animal intelligence, I've seen artificial intelligence. All of them are evolved processes. I've seen NO intelligence on any larger scales, and neither have you.

"Why not God? Why not God?" Why not solipsism? We can't rule that out either, can we? If we're just going to keep talking about God because he's not completely theoretically impossible, just being pushed further and further out towards the margins as human understanding grows, why not talk about solipsism?

You don't exist and neither does God. I'm going to believe it from now on, it's not impossible, and you are arrogant for not believing it. Even though I'm a solipsist and you don't exist. The world ends when I die because I have faith that it will.

Actually, artificial intelligence isn't an evolved process. It IS intelligently designed.

By HUMANS, the only intelligent designers whose existence we actually know of.

Why did evolution/nature produce intelligence in humans? What is it for?
Why does evolution create more complex structures at all? Why not keep things unicellular? The unicellular forms of life have been doing just fine for millions of years. They haven't needed to evolve or adapt to survive. Why bother with complexity?

My understanding is that human intelligence is mostly there to outsmart other humans. And by "outsmart," I of course mean "out-talk." We got big ol' language centers.

"Why complexity" makes NO sense, at all.

Are you saying you don't understand why there is complexity, or are you saying that it makes no sense for me to bring it up?

If the first, therein lies my point. I see complexity, the "progression" that is inherent in our descriptions of evolution, even when the scientists realize that by describing things that way they are giving it an air of purpose, as being just that which the scientists are trying to hide from themselves--a purpose! Evolution has an end, and we are it. Why would nature have a purpose? Why would all creation be developing in such a way as to create cognizant, conscious, intelligent beings? The simplest answer is that God wanted us.

"If the first, therein lies my point. I see complexity, the "progression" that is inherent in our descriptions of evolution,"

...and stop right there. Evolution doesn't work like that.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3

Yes, the scientists don't want to admit it. But you cannot NOT call something that starts as unicellular organisms and ends with a multitude of highly complex, highly evolved species, anything but a "progression." Big picture.

" Why would all creation be developing in such a way as to create cognizant, conscious, intelligent beings? The simplest answer is that God wanted us."
No. The simplest is that there's no reason for it. And why we should stop to the simplest answer, anyway?

"Yes, the scientists don't want to admit it."
Excuse me? :D

"But you cannot NOT call something that starts as unicellular organisms and ends with a multitude of highly complex, highly evolved species, anything but a "progression." Big picture."

Do you know of Rorschach test? Look at the spot, and tell me what you see in it.
Obviously it's a bat. Evidently it's a bat. Have you the proof that it isn't a bat? (actually, a part from Rorschach himself, no one has the proof that the main idea wasn't a bat).
In fact, since we cannot ask Rorshach directly, MAYBE it is.

Maybe there's an ordered creation. Maybe not. None side will get the wanted proof, because it depends on the first instant: was there something in the beginning? Well, we don't know.

Science and religion have always been at odds with each other and their perspective of religion is biased.

FYI unicellular organisms have evolved. There is a misconception that evolution is working towards a goal. That is, all other organisms want to evolve more complexity and be just like humans. This is not how evolution works. A good example is the existence of plastic eating bacteria. This energy pathway evolved to allow a group of organisms access to a new carbon source. There was no plastic 800 years ago. No need for the ability to break down plastic or to move in that direction. Carry on.

I don't deny that there is evolution, such as your plastic-eating bacteria, which have adapted to a new food source. Nor do I think all organisms are trying to become human. I think God does desire a multitude of species and forms of life, and evolution is the tool to get it.

Breath, Occam's Razor. The simplest, most elegant solution is usually the correct one.

And I think scientists try very hard to leave God out of the picture. I don't blame them; that is the ethos of their profession in this age.

God as a solution is neither simple nor elegant

That this universe was created for a purpose and has a comprehendible order as a solution is a lot more elegant than a multitude of universes, that started by chance, and have always been expanding and contracting, bubbles in some spacetime foam.

God as an entity, religion would argue, is indescribably complex and as religion itself is full of paradoxes so I think it is wrong to regard this as a simple option. That the universe was created by God may be a comforting concept but it is hardly elegant, I think it is far more elegant that by chance mere atoms have arranged themselves into the talking thinking beings we call humans.

why is being created due to the "desire" of a higher power elegant?

and the universe does have a comprehensible order except what i regard this order as is the laws of physics, rules which have been mathematically tried and tested and used in day to day life, not faith. The order of evolution is more simple and elegant then a religious order will ever be.

I'm not arguing for a particular conception of God or for a particular view of religion.

No.
The Razor states that it's unuseful to add complexity when the simple solution is enough. That's far to be the case, would you agree?
The Razor is useful in logic, but you can't really say "It's simple, so it must be it". And it has been questioned for it (philosopy went ahead with complexity, in spite of Occam).

And anyway, in my opinion the simplest solution is not a Planner, but casuality (how can we say that the result it's not likely to be casual if we only have experience of this one case? A little). It remains my personal opinion, though.

Dip, I am fascinated by your view, but I reverse the question.

I can work in a lab and can create two particles from nothing (e+ e-). I can create mass from nothing.
If (and I say if) that is true, would you agree that God would be an addiction to a non-ordered origin, elegant but thus not simple?

(I know the problems posed on physics by singularity, but since we're debating on simple ideas...)

I'm not sure I understand. Can particles be created from "nothing"? Not that I'm aware of. Are we talking about actual laws of physics here? Surely these particles are "created" from energy, per E=MC2? In which case my response is that you are simply acting per the laws of the universe that were put in place by God.