XxSabrinaxX:

We, and all life arose from the conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning argument does a narcissistic reversal of that, and claims that the conditions of the universe are as they are for the PURPOSE of life emerging.

I really don't think you understand the argument...

You mentioned "conditions". Why are those conditions the way that they are?

In order to refute the argument, you need to show that the conditions of the universe are there by necessity. Because we know we can fudge the numbers and it still exist within reality. That's theoretical physics.

XxSabrinaxX:

Another problem with it is more basic...

That's not a problem. That's word salad, and using a confused definition of "omnipotence".

XxSabrinaxX:

This is kind of how you theists get it wrong...baselessly assuming humans are the desired outcome of the universe, just like the royal flush is a desired hand..and then start assigning significance to themselves, and then feel like they drew a royal flush...

I mean, without using "outcome" language, don't you think there was a remarkably giant leap once consciousness formed in humans? Certainly seems like a progression to me. What else could the word "progress" mean if you deny that humans are a progression from inanimate matter?

You might retort "Oh wow, the one with consciousness is saying consciousness is important. You can't do that!" Why not? The fact that I have it now doesn't negate the fact that it's amazing.

You're basically shutting down the question here by saying "Don't think about it. Don't ask questions. Just accept that you're not special, no more thinking please".

Hermes019:

Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?

God, being omnipotent, space-savvy and ubiquitous, would have himself exist simultaneously on Plane (A) and Plane (B). After fashioning a rock with a weight sufficient to exceed his ability to lift, the rock is positioned on Plane (B) where we find God attempting to lift the rock. On Plane (A) we have God physically lifting Plane (B), which already holds both God and the very heavy rock …and all done so at the exact same moment.

So the answer is “Yes!” God can create a rock so heavy that he couldn’t lift it while simultaneously maintaining His omnipotence.

…But how is this possible? This is called the “Circular God Counter-Paradox.”

This video is a 9 minute illustration of my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDTsYYGNAMY&feature=youtu.be

LordReed:


Ok you are just assuming the deity and its attributes?

There's no assumption. Common sense dictates that the creator / first cause of a universe cannot lack omnipotence, omniscience and any of the other attributes i've listed already.

Hermes019:

Finished

Look at my response to LordReed.

LordReed:


Again my question has nothing to do with proof but with epistemology, how did you acquire specific knowledge of the attributes of the god when you say it is beyond investigation. How do you even know the god is beyond investigation?

This isn't even a question. Any deity that presupposes all events is meant to be everlasting. Hence, attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence suffice to define said deity.

XxSabrinaxX:

Your premises are all flawed. All of them.

Really? Let's take a look.

XxSabrinaxX:
Undemonstrated, and so rejected.

What do you mean? Here's the link, and there is such a thing as doing your own research:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/

XxSabrinaxX:
Add to that that the terms are poorly defined: "almost no chance" can describe a massive range of probability and you need to extremely clearly define "accident" before this premise can even start to be taken seriously.

Only a slowpoke wouldn't know what I meant by those terms. I didn't make this idiot-proof on purpose. I wanted idiots to misinterpret it. I'm kind of... funny that way.

XxSabrinaxX:
Undemonstrated due to previously stated issues of P1.

Again, OWN RESEARCH. I told you to learn probability theory. That one would be obvious if you did.

XxSabrinaxX:
Also appears to just be defining your premise as impossible from the get go: that's called "being dishonest".

In what way is pointing out the blindingly obvious 'dishonest'?

XxSabrinaxX:
Categorically not true. It could be emergent behavior or logical outcome of some situation.

Which is called an accident because it wasn't ultimately intended, obviously. It was either by accident or not by accident. If it's not by accident, it's called designed. That much is obvious.

XxSabrinaxX:
Good for you. You still haven't demonstrated there needs to be one.

How so? I just debunked your 'debunking' and the logic makes sense to me. It's incredibly likely that I'm right, according to my mathematics. Again, learn probability theory. You're blind without it.

XxSabrinaxX:
The fine-tuning argument, of which this isn't really even a good example, has been systematically been torn apart for decades. That people find it convincing is kind of sad at this point.

Do you have any OFFICIAL, peer-reviewed, documentation?

I sense confirmation bias, special pleading and denial. You seem to readily accept atheistic views, without much evidence and use those to reject theistic views. Bad form.

Good morning @XxSabrinaxX, LordReed, Hermes019
I know the point you all are trying to make. How can we possibly know a God exists if science cannot prove it? Well, the fine-tuning argument convinced me. I couldn't believe the universe was an accident. The alternative, as far as I can see, is design, be it by simulation or by omnipotence (in which case a designer might make genuine omnipotence and their existence look impossible and deceive people into thinking they wouldn't/couldn't do that and can't/don't exist.). There is almost no chance that our universe would exist by accident. I understand probability theory and almost no chance means almost no chance, not 'almost no chance unless a naturalistic explanation comes up'. It literally means 'almost no chance' and if it turns out to be true, it's a miracle because there was almost no chance it would turn out to be true.

Before you debate me, first read up or have read up on probability theory and its real life applications or prepare to look bad; debating someone about something involving probability theory without them having a good understanding of probability theory is like debating a three year old about nanotechnology; they'll think they're somehow winning because they can't fault their own arguments like you can, make stupid arguments and look really clueless to you (maybe not to other people who are just as clueless).

My argument goes as follows:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

C1. The universe isn't an accident.

P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

C2: The universe was designed.

P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

C3: A god exists.

XxSabrinaxX:

[img]https://media1./images/36e070cd26b3ef483dec6cf723226003/tenor.gif[/img]
You're attempting to make a logical argument against logic here; I'm not sure you'd fully appreciate the irony .

Furthermore, logic is HIGHLY testable. It's probably the most (implicitly) tested method of all time. Do you not understand that science, philosophy, and mathematics all rely on and test logic daily?

You realize the point was to show that science can't prove everything, not that logic isn't testable yes? In fact what you just said is basically agreeing with my whole argument of science isn't the only method. And yes that was the point of the irony. It was to show that not everything is "testable." In fact even in philosophy that is mentioned by Plato often. Unless of course you have been arguing science in Socratic context this whole time of which we are basically arguing the same thing except that for some reason your classifying religion as a quantity instead of a spiritual (this is mentioned in philosophy) which still comes back to it not being some outlandish thing that conflicts with science.

XxSabrinaxX:

Again:
* I'm not claiming that science is perfect.
* I'm not claiming that science solves solipsism.
* I'm not claiming that science allows us to be absolutely metaphysically certain about anything.
What I am claiming is:
Science is demonstrably the best method we have ever had for learning new things about the world.
Any religious claims you make are necessarily interpreted, subjective, and without measurable basis in reality. You can claim that scientists pick which theories they accept but these decisions are not based on preference or subjectivity; rather, they're based primarily on empirical evidence.

Well then, I should throw logic outside the window. After all you can't test logic. It is the best method for finding quantifiable data within the world certainly. But there are inherent concepts that aren't quantifiable/testable that are outside the realm of science . Logic is one of them. Religion may also be one of them. If anything these claims of science as truth all tie into senses must being factual. Since we cannot know without logic, we cannot assume that only testable theories are true.

TheArranger:

"Magic Man did it" is not an answer. It's not an answer and it's not even particularly useful. The only proper answer to a question you don't know the answer to is "I don't know."

Under a very specific school of thought that is common in parts of Nigeria, yes, you're right. But there are a lot more ideas of what God is in the world. By simplifying the concept and only looking at one group's definition you're shutting out new ideas.

XxSabrinaxX:

[img]https://media1./images/e5d22a5383efeb4365bd39a8a9d9a94a/tenor.gif[/img]
How can you say that any interpretation of a holy text is more correct than another? You have 0 ability to interact with or test the subject matter at hand. You can't communicate with god or with any dead prophets.

You're just defining your favorite method of theological interpretation as correct and calling the other ones false. This is precisely what extreamists and literalists do, you're on no better footing epistemologicaly.

This is the problem with religious belief in general: at bottom, no one can test anything; and that nebulousness, that justification by faith, allows people to value whatever it is they want and believe it somehow comports with reality.

No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-makers. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe. So rip on it all you like, it's the best we've got.

I'm not ripping on science. In fact I have stated if not in this post, that in other posts in this thread that I believe in science and it is silly not to. However, in this takes faith that you don't want to believe, cause somehow you have convinced yourself that science = truth, yet reality and senses could all be retrospective and wrong. The problem with science is that to there is a belief that it can solve everything of which it cannot. Also I hate to break it to you but according to Thomas Kuhn, science does this exact same thing with the accepted and non accepted. He claims the scientists only believe in the generally accepted methods and choose which theory best solves the problems knowing it can't solve all problems or even sometimes the former theory could solve problems the new one can't. A.k.a these theories don't lead to the truth, but just solve problems we need it too. Sounds a lot like faith doesn't it? A lot of other science philosophers/scientists have agreed upon views like his. Also just because you can't communicate or speak directly to God or the prophets doesn't make anything less valid.

XxSabrinaxX:

You're just redefining things you disagree with as "bad science" or "bad religion". Smh

It's not redefining, it's just happens to be a perspective you don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your own narrative. If you take literal translation of religious text, you are in fact practicing bad religion. A book that has been retranslated based on other translations (over 3 different languages) is bound to lose content and get sections incorrect. So yes if you believe in a book literally, especially one that has been translated multiple times, you are practicing bad religion. It's like reading Harry Potter and assuming there is a world of wizards and other things instead of looking for what the author's message behind the story. As same with science. If you try to use it as a solve-all, end all you have committed bad science. Unless you want to say all science is correct, like the link between autism and vaccines (not real), bleeding people out when sick (e.g. George Washington death), or other things of the nature. There have been many instance science has been wrong. There are many questions that science can't answer. Saying that science will answer everything is a faith on its own.

TheArranger:

You can say the same about leprechauns, unicorns, and Hogwarts.

Why believe in god, but not leprechauns? They have equal evidence, and leprechauns are far less extraordinary.

That's not really a good example though. God isn't some mythological creature, it's an idea about the forces that move the universe. God is an answer some people have come up with to a question no one knows the answer to.

Personally, I think that God is all life, and any living thing is a part of that God. We all split off from the cells of our ancestors, we're all essentially one organism that does a real good job of convincing itself that it's separate from itself. We are the universe experiencing itself, "I am he, As you are he, As you are me, And we are all together," you know, that sort of thing.

Sorry, I know you didn't come here to hear my hippie philosophy but I just think that oversimplifying what God might be is just doing yourself a disservice. You don't have to agree with me, but it's healthy to consider the different schools of thought.

Hermes019:

Actually I thought ur description of God was different from that of theists but ur answer says otherwise,I wanted to know how belief in God(ur own description of God) could affect us

Please could u define "God" and maybe mentions his features,is he senient,is he omnipotent,is he interested in human affairs and stuff like that

I don't understand your first question. What did you understand from my initial response? How belief in God affects people is subjective. Re-read my response more carefully.

I'd describe God as possessing the following attributes:
1. Omnipotence
2. Omniscience
3. Omnipresence
4. Perfection
5. Everlasting

Others might add “Omnibenevolent” and “Love,” but I left them out. These terms require either an object or a comparison, which would be impossible, as the previous five qualities preclude creation.

LordReed:


How do you go from, "I can't comprehend the god" to "I know the god exists and its name is Yahweh"?

I'm not changing goal posts. The whole point of my thread is to explain how objective evidence can't be given for the existence of a deity.

XxSabrinaxX:

Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of the universe. For example, some religions claims that the universe is 6,000 - 10,000 years old (depending on how you read the Bible). Scientifically speaking, this claim has no merit and ~14 billion years is the accepted value. If you don't deny that there's a difference between a few thousand and 14 billion, i'm not sure how to help you.

If you have a religion that contains a claim like "the Bible is the perfect, literal, and inerrant word of the creator of the universe" (as many people do) then you're not capable of being a good believer and a good scientist at the same time.


The fundamental issue here is: the knowledge you gain from science will necessarily lead you to conclusions about the way the world is and how you ought to behave. The religious instruction you receive will give you conflicting motivation to do the same. We see this manifest in people all the time.

You can sit in an ivory tower and claim non-overlapping magisteria until the cows come home, but once you put scientific information or religious information into the hands of real people they're going to act on that information and the conclusions they'll reach will necessarily conflict.

Those claims of years of creation are seen as a story. It wasn't to be used for literal translation, but just means a long time ago. It's the same as when you tell as story to your friends and say "when I was like 8-9 years old." The important thing isn't the age, but in fact that It was when you were younger. Next thing, you said that "if you take it by literal translation." You should absolutely never take anything as literal translation in the Bible, especially in the case of Old Testament, unless you actually think everyone religious believes a giant flood wiped out the whole world except for about 6-8 people (hint we don't). Also just like assuming 100% of science is real and correct, believing 100% of religion is real is bad religion. It's called extremism and despite your claims, a majority of people AREN'T extremists. Lastly you again go to the claim that "once you put it in the hands of people." It doesn't matter what is put in the hands of people. If it's bad religion it's bad religion, if it's bad science, it's bad science. Also you are using science as some end all solve all, again putting faith behind it. How you ought to behave isn't testable. You can't put behavior in a beaker and say what it will react with. Science and religion don't conflict unless you take it to the extreme and believe 100% of it all the time.

P.S. multiple religion have already stated the story of creationism taken literally isn't what they believe in.

Hermes019:
Op do u think that belief in God(ur own description) can affect humanity in any way ?

If YES,please tell me how

How belief in a deity effects people is subjective to how seriously a person adheres to a certain religion or not. Or if not part of a religious faith - how it effects people through others.

Then it depends how fervently individuals follow the law of that particular religion to the degree it effects them. If taken very seriously it will be a predominant force in their lives. If people are loyal to the teachings - this will influence hugely their conscience, values (of right from wrong), their actions, and ultimately who they become.

Religion teaches and builds on a person's "faith" in God and goodness", which can have a positive effect on their mental health strengthening and protecting individuals against despair - as instead of giving up when troubles and adversity strikes, even in the face of death - they believe with God's help that goodness will win in the end and all will be well leaving it in God's hands. Even when losing a loved one - they believe they will be joined together again one day and not all is lost.

This faith which religion teaches can help people believe in themselves, as when they do their best God will do the rest, giving them the added strength through his grace to achieve and get through anything. That is great faith in action when up against the odds, and the effects on a person is an inner peace that the world cannot give.

Religion can be a big deal and have an enormous effect on people either for the positive or negative. If the religion does not have moral leaders and Godly example - it can be to a person's downfall if he/she cannot think objectively calling out a snake or fraud. If it's a virtuous leader, it can develop virtue and goodwill, and make the world a better place.

All depends if God's law of love is upheld, interpretated correctly and is a genuine religion (not a cult); - or if the religion's laws are misinterpreted by leaders made up of wolves in sheeps clothing, to brainwash people for personal power and selfish gain (i.e. The Pharisees and certain individuals using God's name to brainwash others to commit Godless acts for political power). The latter can lead to a vulnerable person's ruin - here and for eternity.

A good foundation to test the credibility of any religion I ask myself "if what they teach/preach is advocating love or harm?". If it is the latter it is false and can adversely effect a person's life. If the former it can transform a person from within and hugely enrich their lives.

XxSabrinaxX:

It's got nothing to do with misuse. I'm saying that both science and religion make claims about the way the world is.

Given that, when the time comes to make decisions regarding topics on which science and religion make mutually exclusive claims, there will by definition be a conflict.

Here is the problem: you keep saying that religion and science make mutually exclusive claims, but they don't, if they do they aren't a good religion or a good science. In fact I would even ask you to show a topic of which they make this mutually exclusive claim you so speak of. This is still the same problem of why and how, even if on same topic. This doesn't mean they conflict, or even need to conflict for that matter.

XxSabrinaxX:

If "Well we can't know that it isn't true" is your best argument for the existence of God... I remain skeptical.



That's not true at all.

You can separate religion and science for awhile but they're inevitably going to come into conflict.

The problem is: both make claims about the way the world is. You can say that science doesn't try to make prescriptive claims or answer "why" questions but humans will use scientific knowledge to do these things and that will conflict with religions.

Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the way the universe is; this puts them fundamentally at odds.

Your argument doesn't follow through. Just because humans misuse science or religion doesn't mean that are conflicting. In reality, if you use science to and answer questions of why, than you aren't using science. In fact you have turned science into a religion at that point of which you use faith for the final result. An example of this is why we exist. If a scientist says "i don't know," they are a good scientist as no data has been shown to make a conclusion. On the other hand, if he says "there is no reason" than there is a claim based upon philosophical beliefs and no data to back it(hence no science involved) So no, they aren't fundamentally at odds, people using them to make logistical claims are misusing them.

@XxSabrinaxX, TheArranger, LordReed & plaetton
Bacteria live inside us having no idea of humans. And we live inside a galaxy having no idea that there might be something extraordinarily bigger than us. And yes, of course we think bacteria just don't have mental faculties to understand our existence. In facts, we just might not have mental faculties to understand God's existence. Fractal worlds.
There's a lot of talk here, but I think people (on both sides) need to remember this: science searches to answer how, not why. You can easily believe in both God and science because they are answering two fundementally different questions.

XxSabrinaxX:

If it is indeed a fact that you can see god all around you, why can you not demonstrate this fact? Why can't you point to it? Why can't you show it to me and the others here?

The reason why is because it is not a fact, you just wish it were.

This whole post is the answer to that exact question. It specifically lies outside of science. Can you demonstrate that your red is the same as my red? Seeing God is an understanding.

XxSabrinaxX:

The conception of God I have is the one people claim exists. Now, maybe yours is different, but I'd want to know why you think it's actually true.


They generally mean an actual being.



I mean does it exist apart from you.

My emotions, for example, exist only within me. A dog, by contrast, has an external existence. I may be happy about my dog, but the dog itself is external to me.



In what specific way?


Those are descriptions. So they are "physically real" in the sense that as a concept they describe something--that there was state A, now there is state B, and we call the difference "time" and the increase in disorder "entropy".


What is this property, though?

And are you saying that you do not believe that God has consciousness? Time and entropy sure don't.

Besides, if faith had a blind spot, how would you know?

I don't need faith to believe in God. I can see the fact of God all around me. It is not faith. It is observation. Do you need faith that you yourself are real, or do you just see it?


Faith is a different matter; faith is believing the future will be ok/ God will look after me, despite that not being certain. You can know God and not have faith.

XxSabrinaxX:

I'd be careful on generalizations. It's certainly not true of me.



And you have the exact same issue. Except it's an even bigger blind spot since what I read on science has been backed up by reliable methods of testing and review... whereas faith is consistently unreliable.



Hard solipsism. As big an issue for you as for me, since if you're going to play this game, then you cannot possibly have any reliable conclusion on God.



If we reject hard solipsism, which most everyone does because it's unfalsifiable and impractical, then consciousness is easily testable. We can see memories form, for example.

And it's not faith. It's an axiom that we all accept. There's a distinction.


We can, in fact, point out several hallmarks of consciousness. But if you're looking for a consistent definition of God, then you won't find it. The two aren't a good analogy.


This is functionally useless to me. We already have words for all this stuff; why do I need to attach a word to all of it that has such baggage, particularly one that implies sentience with no evidence?

You're also asserting that if we die atheists, we weren't observant or thoughtful about everything in life. I disagree.



So you took the puddle analogy, in a way. "Look how good this life is when it could have been otherwise— there must be a God!" Maybe you're lucky. But look around the world right now and tell me everyone's got what you do.



I reject your definition of God as functionally useless and limited to our universe. I also reject the existence of sin until you prove it. Furthermore, you can demonstrate a phenomenon that we call greed.


What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?


Tell that to authors.


My heart tells me there likely isn't. Now what?

Edit: I don't think your conception of God is consistent with most people.

Is it or is it not an entity with actual external existence? In what way is it distinguished from fantasy?

Perhaps your conception of God is wrong, which is why you find it so easy to dismiss. The idea of a literal magical man in the sky is of course absurd. Do you know that's what average Theists mean when they say God? Because to me it seems, apart from the dogmatic literalists, that most are referring to the same thing as I am - fate, the universe, causes and effects that are so complex as to be mystical to us etc. What do you mean by external existence?


It's not fantasy because it's physically real. In the same way that entropy or time is physically real, even though it isn't a distinct 'entity' of matter or energy. God is a property of the universe that you have to notice personally.

If we want to investigate the world scientifically, we don't just look around and form our own opinion, and take that as the truth. We gather objective data in as many ways as possible, to minimise human error, bias, superstition, etc. In this way we have formed valid theories about how the physical world works.


There is no scientific evidence that God exists. The mistake atheists make, is assuming that science has no blind spots.


Science has one natural, huge, critical blind spot; the personal nature of existence. Your whole life is lived from one perspective. All we really know in the end, is what our senses tell us in our personal lives. We may have amazing, valid, objective, peer reviewed and tested scientific theories, but you personally will never know about them until you read about them with your own two eyes. All knowledge you have ultimately only comes into your brain through the filter of your own personal perception. Your perception is your whole and only reality.


So the question is, is there knowledge that can ONLY be attained personally, that can't exist in scientific consensus? The answer is yes, and here is the simple proof; we cannot prove our own consciousness to others. Only YOU know if you are conscious and real. Ever joke with friends about "how do I know you're all not just figments of my imagination"? It's that principle; personal consciousness is simply impossible to prove scientifically. It is categorically personal; only ever known by YOU. Of course we infer and assume that others are conscious just like us. We see with our perceptions that the world around us looks and works as if everyone else is conscious. But it is an assumption; there is no actual evidence. For all you know, you could be the only conscious being in a dream world, or the matrix, or whatever else this strange reality could be.


So your own consciousness is something which is self-evident to you alone, and impossible to prove. You alone know it to be true, through your senses. Believing that others are conscious and see the world like you, is actually faith, because there is no evidence. But this faith makes us treat others fairly.


I have to tell you that knowing God is the same. You will never see a proof. I can't offer one, nobody can. You either see it for yourself in the world around you, and in your life, or you don't. I can't scientifically prove my consciousness to you, but I can describe it, and, if you know it too, you will 'get' it. So, I can only describe God to you, and maybe you won't get it, and maybe one day you will, through your own life experience.


God is the name for how everything is connected. I was actually an atheist for many years, and then my personal experience started to make me believe in fate. Fate is another name for God. Another is Nature; another is the Universe. The All, the Prime mover, Chaos, Determinism, and Cause and Effect are also synonyms for God. God cannot be proven in writing, He must be seen first hand, and you will see Him (or 'it') if you are observant and thoughtful about everything you see in your life.


Faith in God means something like; "well, in the vast expanse of possible realities I could be living, my life isn't so bad. I am unbelievably lucky to be here. Humans could have been abducted by carnivorous aliens 10,000 years ago, and I could be living in a factory farm on planet Lizard right now. The world could just be 20% more boring, or dangerous. There's no law of physics that says we have to be able to experience beauty or joy. Nuclear armageddon still hasn't happened; I don't have to live in a post apocalyptic cancerous wasteland." Faith in God is looking at the world and realising somehow, the Universe seems to like me overall. And, from this, we can have faith that it will be good to us in the future, if we are careful. Again, this can never be proved scientifically. It's down to your perception and your own relationship with reality.


God is cause and effect, or nature, so observing it and recognising patterns can give us rules for how to succeed in life (morals). It's impossible to prove rules of life scientifically, because the matrices of causes and effects are very complex, and isolating them changes them. Take a deadly sin; Greed. How would we go about testing the hypothesis that personal greed leads to bad personal consequences? It is outside science, unless we can observe thousands of people at all times for their whole lives. You can only know if that hypothesis is true or false by either observing it yourself, or faithfully believing the words of a person you deem wiser than you. Again, it is completely a case of personal perception and experience of reality.


There is much more that could be written, but basically approaching God from this perspective can explain what concepts like faith, sin (evolutionarily maladaptive action), and morality (adaptive action) actually mean. There is a good reason for calling 'it', "Him", which could fill another post this long. I wasn't raised as any faith and I was an atheist for a long while, so discovering this stuff on my own, kind of from first principles, took some time. But lo and behold, every teaching of every faith makes logical sense from this perspective, even if you don't understand why a teaching is professed, you can understand that maybe thousands of years of passed down life experience knows something about causes and effects that you don't yet.


I thank God that He found me, and now I feel awake to the patterns and cycles of reality. Again, it's outside of science. I'm not asking you believe me without evidence, I'm just showing you how to look at it and you can take it or leave it. Maybe you'll scoff at this now and in 5 years time, come to realise I was right. It's your personal life, it's your personal journey of learning, it's your reality, after all.


Note I am not making the argument from personal experience. I am not saying "I saw the light so I know God is real, that's the proof"- we all know that's a stupid argument. There is no proof or argument. I would call this the problem of personal consciousness- the scientific blind spot. All I can say is if you are thoughtful and observant of your reality, one day you will come to see God, and know Him, just like you know you are here, wherever here is.


My eyes tell me the mountains are beautiful, though I cannot prove it to the blind.

My nose tells me the smell of flowers, though I cannot tell it in words.

My ears tell me music is sweet, although I cannot see it.

My skin tells me when it is cold, though cold is relative.

My tongue tells me I love strawberries; though others may hate them.

My heart tells me there is a God, and my mind tells me there is a me.

Our perception is our whole reality. What can we trust but our senses?