Subjective Evidence of Gods

This is only true if you ignore the fact that most of the planet's surface is unsuitable for us to live on and the comparatively small amount of land that we can live on is filled with innumerable deadly threats.
But other than that - sure.

Then you undermine your own argument.The world does not appear to be ready for us.
Instead, we have had to hammer it into a suitable shape.And considering how many years the world did not even have human life - it would appear that we are barely an 'afterthought' in the history of this planet - and barely a 'blip' in the history of the universe.
Comparing:
15,000,000,000 years since the universe 'began'.
4,500,000,000 years since the Earth was formed.
2,500,000,000 years since life appeared on Earth.
200,000 years since modern man started populating the Earth. And I'll avoid listing the sizeable number of mistakes that were made, if this world was made ready for us...Edited by Panda, : tyopsEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

If your criteria for 'created ready for humans' is: "it hasn't completely wiped us out" then you have incredibly low expectations from a god.
Considering how many billions of humans have died from viral infections, bacterial infections, diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, animal attacks, etc, etc, etc...
I see very little reason to think that this earth was created 'for' us.People complain about the actions of religion and politics and racism - but the real killer is the world will live on.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

As a percentage: how much of the universe have we searched?

*nods*
I suspect that Mazzy will not understand that the little we know about the universe's contents means that it is impossible to discern if "Earth is the lucky planet" or not.

It is not irrelevant - and there is only one terrestrial planet.If every single solar system has a habitable planet populated with life-forms, then what would make Earth so lucky?
Millions and millions of planets, all teeming with life.
Earth would not be special or lucky - just one of many.So - how many habitable planets are in this galaxy?
If you can't answer this, then how can you say how lucky the earth is.Also, do you know the odds of life existing on this planet...?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I was waiting for Mazzy to say it was 0.00000000001%... Correct, but I would want to do a little more searching than just 1 solar system. We can also observe that we have not looked at much of the universe.
But you are correct: it can't be answered (even though you then go on to try and answer it).If your idea of good evidence is searching 0.0000000000000001% of the universe and then saying: "We are the only life, therefore we are special!", then I would accuse you of some kind of confirmation bias where you happily ignore the fact that we have barely even looked.
I would not want you investigating a murder...
"We don't think there has been a murder as we looked in our front garden and can't find a dead body. Case closed."

Looking 'like' something does not actually make it something.
I had a friend that looked exactly like Avril Lavigne - but she wasn't her. Argument from incredulityEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

I would just like to thank both you and GDR for an interesting and well-mannered (even if slightly long-winded) discussion.(No sarcasm intended)

So, if you honestly and reverently prayed for healing, but did not use prayers from the bible, then god would have refrained from healing you?
I doubt you believe that is true.Lady: "Please, heavenly father: save my child from the hurricane!"
God: "You didn't quote from the bible - so, no."Surely, it is the person praying (and what they are praying for) that is important, not the actual words of the prayers?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Do think that we can say something exists because we can't test for it?
Do you think that every single idea that anyone imagines is validated because we can't test for it?This seems like you are now in a position that all supernatural beings are equally un-testable and are therefore equally likely to exist. (This would include the FSM.)

I agree.
But it seems that GDR liked the argument put forward by RADZ regarding not disbelieving in things that can't even be tested for.
It seemed that GDR was moving towards thinking that a complete lack of evidence was enough to make something possible.

Note that you are wrong.

But you aren't #1 in regard to other gods - just your chosen version of the christian god, yes?
I expect you to be a #7 in relation to other gods. To paraphrase: You know there is no other God.
Unreasonable, indeed. #6.99999

quote:

---

De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

---

Why? Because I have seen no evidence for any gods - but I realise that it is theoretically possible for some evidence to be found, sometime in the future. Compared to?

But you chose a different god to all the other religions - despite there being no reason to pick your god over any of the others. There is no evidence for a lack of gods, per se.
There is a huge amount of evidence that we make up gods - but that it not exactly the same.
I also see no evidence for the existence of gods.
So, I think the answer to your question: "Do you think there is more or less evidence for gods?" is: "No, I don't." I see no reason to value subjective evidence highly - but you claim it is convincing.
Do you think that I should believe your subjective evidence over a muslim's subjective evidence?
Do you think that I should believe your subjective evidence over a hindu's subjective evidence?
Please explain why? Exactly how do I (or anybody else) investigate this testimony you refer to?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.