Why Is Anybody Convinced There Is A God?

Aug 21, 2017 19:47:39 GMT gadreel said:

Aug 21, 2017 19:34:04 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

No I'm asking why personal preference is a factor.

Regarding the second response though, so if you knew 100% that an intelligence wasn't involved you would still have a model that interprets an intelligence as being involved.  Ok.  I'm just a little confused as I'm sure what value that has then.  If you knew an intelligence wasn't involved, why would you have a model that one was?  I'm having trouble conceiving why.  Wouldn't you just change your model?

Wouldn't you just change your model?

The short answer is that I would. But the point I was making was that if nothing about my model changed then my end interpretation would not change, even if it was proven to be wrong.  To be fair if it was proven to be wrong my model would almost certainly change, but the point I am making is that the interpretation of intelligence is an interpretation thing in terms of how I interact with the universe, not necessarily a model to represent truth.

No I'm asking why personal preference is a factor.

 Ahh.  Personal preference is a factor because it is a subjective decision, it is about how I interpret the universe.

But it's not subjective.  There is a certain amount of matter in the universe.  There is a certain amount of energy.  The universe is formed a certain way.  Wormholes either exist or they don't.  Whether we know those these things or not is a different story, but they are objective factors, not subjective.

Regarding your model, I understand that you're talking about your interpretation of the various elements that go into that.  But what I'm asking is why your interpretation is of intelligence being a factor where there are no elements of the equation that involve intelligence being a factor.  In short, why does your model conclude there is intelligence?

For example, I don't hold any views about reality and say I'm going to hold them until are they are proven wrong, unless those views are already supported by demonstrable evidence.  So I don't know why you're holding to the view of intelligence until it's proven wrong.  Shouldn't you wait until it's proven right to include that in your model?