Where Did the Idea of Gods Come From?

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Cephus I am, thanks for your permission.

anytime... :)

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet the jury decided the burden of proof was not met. By saying you think he's guilty without acceptable evidence of that, you're saying that "to know" is the same as an opinion without supporting evidence. I relate that sentiment to religion. To those in the legal profession, and incidentally by atheists as well, the verdict is not irrelevant. It's the conclusion reached by the failure to provide reasonable evidence of his guilt, or in theology the lack of credible evidence of the existence of gods. It may not be a popular conclusion, but it's reasonable considering that the evidence failed to meet the burden of proof. .

I doesn't matter if the "verdict" you come up with is that I am a typing kneazle. Perhaps you have gathered a "mountain of evidence" to prove that I am indeed a kneazle that has acquired the ability to type. If you ever met me in person, you would find that that is not true. You don't get a consolation prize for the logic you used to come to the incorrect conclusion.

[Jagged]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I doesn't matter if the "verdict" you come up with is that I am a typing kneazle. Perhaps you have gathered a "mountain of evidence" to prove that I am indeed a kneazle that has acquired the ability to type. If you ever met me in person, you would find that that is not true. You don't get a consolation prize for the logic you used to come to the incorrect conclusion.

Yes, however Isherwood ( i think) is stating that there would be no valid proof that exists if indeed you are a kneazle. Additionally, in this case, you can't even relate any answer to the conclusion when we dont actually know it. In your example, there was 100% proof that you are not a kneazle. This proof is what you say renders Isherwoods "proof" invalid. However, in the God debate, proof of God's existence can never be found and thus Isherwood's theory cannot be considered to be the "incorrect conclusion", through your logic.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Randomness should not have been able to achieve the kind of complexity and order that we can observe in the universe.

That is not what non-equilibrium thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics says...

You don't know the purpose of the universe - it could be designed for reasons that contradict your religion, so why even compare it to something that has answers and a purpose.

1) A watch does pretty much one thing. – The universe has all sorts of things going on many if not most of which we are unawares of. 2) Most of what comprises a watch is there to accomplish that one thing. – A very, very, very, very tiny, itsy bitsy, miniscule, microscopic portion of the universe has anything to do with us. 3) There is an obvious use for what a watch does. – nobody has figured out what a universe is used for or what it does. After all it has existed for 13.5 billion years before we showed up and will exist at least as many more billions of years after we are gone and if we are lucky our span of existence may be 10 million years. To claim that the universe exists for us would be like claiming that my house exists for the fly that just flew into the door and then is killed. 4) We can go and look at watches being made. – No one has ever seen a universe being built. 5) There are people who tell you to your face that they make watches. – If anyone told you that they made the universe to your face you would not believe them and if they persisted you would think they were crazy. 6) The history of the watch can be traced independently of watch advocates. A person who has never used a watch in their entire lives can come up with pretty much the same history as a rabid watch advocate. – The only history of the universe that can be traced is the account given by science and it can be done independently. 7) The history of the watch is well accepted. There are no wildly varying stories about the creation of the watch from different groups. – there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of groups that give wildly varying accounts.

as you can see the watchmaker anology is shallow, primitive, and lacking any type of real critical thought...

For some reason you totally discredit the history of humans creating the idea of gods. Your version of god is no different then anybody elses no matter when, where, or for what reasons they were invented and that my friend is a fact that you can not refute.