What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[McCulloch]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As with all things, I would require some way that I can personally verify this god's existence.

It's really the same question for anything. If I claimed a purple unicorn lived in my back yard, what evidence would be required to show it exists?

Have you personally verified who your grandparents are, or do you rely on the anecdotal claims of your parents?

1) When I pray for something that helps someone else that prayer would be granted. i.e. for non selfish prayers, the prayer would be answered definitively. If the answer happened to be "No", then a clear sign other than simply nothing would be required. Example, if my friend lost a finger due to an accident. I pray for complete healing. My friend either gets a new finger or I get some clear sign it's not going to happen like a flash in the sky, or just a simple "no" in my ear.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups. If it was undeniable that once you became a Christian you would no longer 'fail' in so many ways just like everyone else. i.e. Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly. Christians would not represent any significant portion of the prison population or be victims of crime. In other words, if Christians has some demonstrable advantage over non Christians. Fanciful stories of 'being saved', etc. are not demonstrable.

Are you sure you're not talking about evidence for a magic genie?

A comparable response would be someone asked what would constitute evidence for evolution responding that they'd want to see examples of acquired characteristics being passed down to offspring: Like your response, selecting a very particular interpretation of the evolutionary concept (Lamarckian) to focus on rather than starting from the basics and going from there.

That's pretty much the case for all responses in the thread in fact. Why does anyone think that the creator of trillions of galaxies should obsess over the religious preferences of members of one particular species on this planet? It's absurd on the face of it - which doesn't make it untrue necessarily, but accepting religious conversion propaganda as the starting point for enquiry is about as fundamentally and dramatically irrational as it is possible to be!


The basic question is whether a theist or non-theist conception of reality makes more sense; or (worded less fallaciously) whether the thought and choice which we ourselves most directly and constantly experience in our own nature and causation are better viewed as anomalies in a 'physical' deterministic universe, or as similar/representative of the nature and causation of reality itself. Unfortunately that is a question for which we still have virtually no reliable information, so the only reasonable conclusion - to begin with at least - is that each type of view is about as reasonable as the other.

I would argue that the theist (panentheist, not dualist) perspective is slightly more reasonable in that it a) introduces few new assumptions b) poses fewer new conceptual difficulties and c) provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework. So we've got maybe a 50 to 70% probability/plausibility of the existence of a 'god,' to begin with.

Denying or ignoring the basics simply because of perceived problems with some very specific religious doctrines (or parodies of them) is not logical.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

People have presented the following interesting proposals

QUESTION: What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

- All prayers answered according to the askers personal standards (rather like a genie in a bottle)

- All believers living charmed problem free lives with plenty of money.

- No believer ever being subject to crime or sickness ("Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly.")

- A supernatural voice resulting in universal conversion

- Direct intervention to deal with all world problems (including the elimination of death, sickness and suffering)

- Some "physical evidence" (a little vague, but one presumes, some miraculous event involving the manipulation of the physical environment or God "physically" appearing)

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As with all things, I would require some way that I can personally verify this god's existence.

It's really the same question for anything. If I claimed a purple unicorn lived in my back yard, what evidence would be required to show it exists?

Have you personally verified who your grandparents are, or do you rely on the anecdotal claims of your parents?

That's a different question. We've gone from existing to verifying they are what they say they are.

So, yes, I have personally verified my grandparents existed. Past tense, they have all passed now. I routinely ate dinner, played games, and spent a lot of time with them. They were real people.

Were the actually my grandparents? Possibly not as I never did a DNA test to verify it. It wouldn't matter to me if they weren't since they acted as if they were in every way. I never needed to give or receive an organ transplant or anything like that with them so it never came up.

In fact, on my mother's side, my grandmother was not my real grandmother. My real grandmother passed away and my grandfather remarried. I never knew my 'real' grandmother and only ever knew my 'step grandmother' whom I treated exactly as my real grandmother. Did I run DNA tests to confirm this story? No. I had no reason to.

Perhaps all of my grandparents were a sham. It makes not difference to me. My eternal soul or the validation of magic stories is not hanging in the balance.

1) When I pray for something that helps someone else that prayer would be granted. i.e. for non selfish prayers, the prayer would be answered definitively. If the answer happened to be "No", then a clear sign other than simply nothing would be required. Example, if my friend lost a finger due to an accident. I pray for complete healing. My friend either gets a new finger or I get some clear sign it's not going to happen like a flash in the sky, or just a simple "no" in my ear.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups. If it was undeniable that once you became a Christian you would no longer 'fail' in so many ways just like everyone else. i.e. Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly. Christians would not represent any significant portion of the prison population or be victims of crime. In other words, if Christians has some demonstrable advantage over non Christians. Fanciful stories of 'being saved', etc. are not demonstrable.

Are you sure you're not talking about evidence for a magic genie?

What's the difference between a magic genie and a god? Perhaps if you can provide a definition for all of us I can answer that better.

You do realize I only provided some examples right? As a matter of fact, the answer to prayers is one of the things explained in the Bible (one of the religious texts that claims to define a god). I am merely trying to outline one way to test that particular religion's claims. A claim is made in the Bible and I'm trying to verify it. Do you just swallow it as truth? Maybe you have a better way to verify it that will differentiate between magic genies and gods? We're all ears/eyes.

A comparable response would be someone asked what would constitute evidence for evolution responding that they'd want to see examples of acquired characteristics being passed down to offspring: Like your response, selecting a very particular interpretation of the evolutionary concept (Lamarckian) to focus on rather than starting from the basics and going from there.

And you are missing the point. As I explained above, I'm merely try to validate one of the claims. I never said my list was exhaustive and the validation of any one thing would have me instantly treat everything in the Bible as 'gospel truth'.

I will concede that my list is not useful if we are going to start from scratch. The first problem is to define a god.

In fact, the first problem is to ask why we are trying to define a new term for something we haven't even seen. Do you normally do this kind of thing?

We have 'gods' because ancient societies didn't have answers and decided to make things up to explain various phenomena. If we really want to begin afresh, why are we even looking for evidence of something we have made up?

I took the OP to mean that someone has claimed some sort of 'god' exists, now we have to try and find evidence for it.

That's pretty much the case for all responses in the thread in fact. Why does anyone think that the creator of trillions of galaxies should obsess over the religious preferences of members of one particular species on this planet? It's absurd on the face of it - which doesn't make it untrue necessarily, but accepting religious conversion propaganda as the starting point for enquiry is about as fundamentally and dramatically irrational as it is possible to be!


The basic question is whether a theist or non-theist conception of reality makes more sense; or (worded less fallaciously) whether the thought and choice which we ourselves most directly and constantly experience in our own nature and causation are better viewed as anomalies in a 'physical' deterministic universe, or as similar/representative of the nature and causation of reality itself. Unfortunately that is a question for which we still have virtually no reliable information, so the only reasonable conclusion - to begin with at least - is that each type of view is about as reasonable as the other.

While I appreciate your opinion, I have simply given mine. For me, it is reasonable that to think a god exists will require some evidence of it. This requires defining what a 'god' is and then looking for some sign of it. At this point all we seem to have is competing stories from theists. The only way to test those stories is to look for some evidence of their claims that can be validated.

If your argument is that we shouldn't even be seeking evidence for a 'god' because such a thing is not even properly defined then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Just like we shouldn't be arguing about how to determine if a xmaserasffe exists. This conversation only comes up because we have people claiming the equivalent of a xmaserasffe does exist and it has some given properties.

I would argue that the theist (panentheist, not dualist) perspective is slightly more reasonable in that it a) introduces few new assumptions b) poses fewer new conceptual difficulties and c) provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework. So we've got maybe a 50 to 70% probability/plausibility of the existence of a 'god,' to begin with.

Cool, pulling numbers from the air! How exactly are you assigning probabilities to something that is not even defined well enough to find some evidence of it?

Why, if you are starting from basics, making up the word 'god'? Is it simply a place holder to explain things we haven't figured out yet? Why fall into our ancestors trap and begin by lumping all unknowns into a 'god' bucket? That bucket has been getting smaller and smaller as knowledge continues to grow. Perhaps one day we will finally find something that can only be explained as a 'god'. Then will be the time to make up a new word and assign it some properties. Until then, it's just making up stories.

Denying or ignoring the basics simply because of perceived problems with some very specific religious doctrines (or parodies of them) is not logical.

I have never denied the existence of any god concept. I simply point out the flaws with the ones put forward so far. Any of them could exist, but nobody has been able to validate it one way or the other. Your argument seems to be with people who claim there is no god.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

The basic question is whether a theist or non-theist conception of reality makes more sense; or (worded less fallaciously) whether the thought and choice which we ourselves most directly and constantly experience in our ownnature and causation are better viewed as anomalies in a 'physical' deterministic universe, or as similar/representative of the nature and causation of reality itself. Unfortunately that is a question for which we still have virtually no reliable information, so the only reasonable conclusion - to begin with at least - is that each type of view is about as reasonable as the other. 


I would argue that the theist (panentheist, not dualist) perspective is slightly more reasonable in that it a) introduces few new assumptions b) poses fewer new conceptual difficulties and c) provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework. So we've got maybe a 50 to 70% probability/plausibility of the existence of a 'god,' to begin with. 

I agree with the first paragraph, even giving equal footing to the proposition. Are we the freak show within the machine, or is it that there is no machine?

The second paragraph I'd ask for clarification on. How have you come to conclusions A-C as it relates to which camp shows the edge in reason? They don't flow from the intro there, nor can I make sense of where your probability/plausibility slipped in there at the end as an actual figure.

Thankee-sai.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As with all things, I would require some way that I can personally verify this god's existence.

It's really the same question for anything. If I claimed a purple unicorn lived in my back yard, what evidence would be required to show it exists?

Have you personally verified who your grandparents are, or do you rely on the anecdotal claims of your parents?

That's a different question. We've gone from existing to verifying they are what they say they are.

Then have you personally verified that places like Tehran and Pyongyang exist? The point is the same either way: For 99% of the things we accept as true, whether of existence or more specific details, our personal verification doesn't even enter the question. Therefore it seems rather strange and suspicious how frequently that is put forth as the #1 criteria in the case of god's existence.

1) When I pray for something that helps someone else that prayer would be granted. i.e. for non selfish prayers, the prayer would be answered definitively. If the answer happened to be "No", then a clear sign other than simply nothing would be required. Example, if my friend lost a finger due to an accident. I pray for complete healing. My friend either gets a new finger or I get some clear sign it's not going to happen like a flash in the sky, or just a simple "no" in my ear.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups. If it was undeniable that once you became a Christian you would no longer 'fail' in so many ways just like everyone else. i.e. Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly. Christians would not represent any significant portion of the prison population or be victims of crime. In other words, if Christians has some demonstrable advantage over non Christians. Fanciful stories of 'being saved', etc. are not demonstrable.

Are you sure you're not talking about evidence for a magic genie?

What's the difference between a magic genie and a god? Perhaps if you can provide a definition for all of us I can answer that better.

You do realize I only provided some examples right? As a matter of fact, the answer to prayers is one of the things explained in the Bible (one of the religious texts that claims to define a god). I am merely trying to outline one way to test that particular religion's claims. A claim is made in the Bible and I'm trying to verify it. Do you just swallow it as truth? Maybe you have a better way to verify it that will differentiate between magic genies and gods? We're all ears/eyes.

Neither William nor McCulloch said anything about one particular religion, let alone the extremely specific interpretation/parody of that religion which you have outlined. The purpose of a magic genie is simply to grant wishes as every child knows, which is what you've described, whereas even the Tanakh and particularly New Testament speak at length about forbearance and growth in the face of suffering and adversity.

A comparable response would be someone asked what would constitute evidence for evolution responding that they'd want to see examples of acquired characteristics being passed down to offspring: Like your response, selecting a very particular interpretation of the evolutionary concept (Lamarckian) to focus on rather than starting from the basics and going from there.

And you are missing the point. As I explained above, I'm merely try to validate one of the claims. I never said my list was exhaustive and the validation of any one thing would have me instantly treat everything in the Bible as 'gospel truth'.

I will concede that my list is not useful if we are going to start from scratch. The first problem is to define a god.

In fact, the first problem is to ask why we are trying to define a new term for something we haven't even seen. Do you normally do this kind of thing?

We have 'gods' because ancient societies didn't have answers and decided to make things up to explain various phenomena. If we really want to begin afresh, why are we even looking for evidence of something we have made up?

The concept of a 'physical' reality is something we have made up also. Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if you try to define that term 'physical.' I've asked this many times of many different people, and while I'm always open to learning something new so far the only definitions I've seen are along the lines of either "relating to bodies as opposed to minds" or "relating to things perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind)"; some folk suggest that it means things accessible to science (a variant on the latter), others simply assert that everything that exists is 'physical,' a meaningless tautology. If you have some coherent definition besides variations on these I'd love to hear it.

But if not, then the concept of a 'physical' reality is essentially just a non-mental reality, and imagining that there is or could be such a thing is on face value no more plausible than imagining a mental reality. In other words, it is fallacious to think of reality as something that is a given, and god/s as unnecessary additions to the picture which require a level of proof that the presumed 'physical' reality does not; rather the question is what is the nature of reality?

The ancient societies you speak of often followed a 'progression' from animism (belief in individual animating spirits for tree, stream etc.) to polytheism (belief in greater spirits or 'gods' governing whole domains) and sometimes towards monotheism or duotheism (belief in one or two spirits governing all reality). Whatever you might personally think of it, the logic behind that first step of animism seems straightforward enough: We know that most of our own behaviour is governed by our choice, so observing the behaviour of animals, streams and so on the reasonable inference was of choices behind their action also.

That basic philosophical inference has been refined almost beyond recognition over the millennia, but ultimately has not been refuted: Our 'laws of nature' - first named as such in an era when most scientists assumed there was a law-giver - collate and formalize a wide range of observations as to how reality behaves, but as yet there's no scientific understanding of why it behaves this way and not some other. Presumed inherent properties of matter have not been shown to be the case, rather than properties assigned by fiat; determinism has not been proven more plausible than choice.

The basic question is whether a theist or non-theist conception of reality makes more sense; or (worded less fallaciously) whether the thought and choice which we ourselves most directly and constantly experience in our own nature and causation are better viewed as anomalies in a 'physical' deterministic universe, or as similar/representative of the nature and causation of reality itself. Unfortunately that is a question for which we still have virtually no reliable information, so the only reasonable conclusion - to begin with at least - is that each type of view is about as reasonable as the other.

While I appreciate your opinion, I have simply given mine. For me, it is reasonable that to think a god exists will require some evidence of it. This requires defining what a 'god' is and then looking for some sign of it. At this point all we seem to have is competing stories from theists. The only way to test those stories is to look for some evidence of their claims that can be validated.

If your argument is that we shouldn't even be seeking evidence for a 'god' because such a thing is not even properly defined then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Just like we shouldn't be arguing about how to determine if a xmaserasffe exists. This conversation only comes up because we have people claiming the equivalent of a xmaserasffe does exist and it has some given properties.

We certainly should be seeking evidence in the hopes that either 'mental/god' or 'physical/independent' become understood as the better way of thinking about reality.

The problem is that we are "natural born dualists" as Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion, citing psychologist Paul Bloom. As I understand it a baby in the womb could not really have a conception of anything besides its 'self' (if it can be said to have conceptions at all!), but after birth in its first few months its whole experience of the rest of the world is that it's not-self, not-like-me. Children don't start developing a concept of minds and intentions besides their own until sometime later - I would guess not long before the proverbial 'terrible twos,' when they try to impose their will on others rather than being imposed upon - and don't have a fully-developed sense of empathy until well into their teens if not adulthood.

So for want of a better word, we are essentially indoctrinated into a view of reality as not-like-me, non-mental or 'physical,' simply as a result of our natural childhood development. From that we get mind-body dualism, and by extension (though also for other reasons, at least in Christianity's case) the notion of God-universe dualism. The notion of a god in addition to physical reality and more or less distinct from it is questionable if not wholly irrational; but we're still left with the question of what type of monism makes the most sense (a question which Dawkins wholly ignores and simply assumes that if dualism is false physicalism must be true).

I would argue that the theist (panentheist, not dualist) perspective is slightly more reasonable in that it a) introduces few new assumptions b) poses fewer new conceptual difficulties and c) provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework. So we've got maybe a 50 to 70% probability/plausibility of the existence of a 'god,' to begin with.

Cool, pulling numbers from the air! How exactly are you assigning probabilities to something that is not even defined well enough to find some evidence of it?

Why, if you are starting from basics, making up the word 'god'? Is it simply a place holder to explain things we haven't figured out yet? Why fall into our ancestors trap and begin by lumping all unknowns into a 'god' bucket? That bucket has been getting smaller and smaller as knowledge continues to grow. Perhaps one day we will finally find something that can only be explained as a 'god'. Then will be the time to make up a new word and assign it some properties. Until then, it's just making up stories.

The 'bucket' hasn't become any smaller, we've just become so used to seeing it that we've forgotten it's even there. We're a naturally curious species, but we reach a point where our questions are removed enough from our daily experience that they don't really bother us, if we even understand them at all. Our ancestors asked themselves "Why do things behave the way they do?," and inferred it was because of minds making choices just like those by which they decided on their own behaviour. It's not a very compelling answer, but it was enough to satisfy most folks' immediate curiousity. People nowadays are just as interested in why things behave the way they do, and we're told that it's because of the various 'laws' of physics and chemistry and so on. But again, ultimately that's not a very compelling answer: Why are the laws the way they are? Why are there laws at all, instead of chaotic randomness?

We've broadened our perspective, but ultimately we still haven't answered the question any more than our ancestors did.

As to why those particular probabilities, the principle of indifference suggests that given two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities, in the absence of any reason to consider one more likely than the other they must each be supposed to have equal probability; that is, 50/50 either way. Since consciousness (mental phenomena; thought/choice) is the thing which we know most certainly to be a fact (cogito ergo sum) and does not seem to be further reducible or definable in a way that would falsify the dichotomy, the possibilities that either consciousness or non-consciousness characterize the nature of reality seem to fit the bill. But since the supposition of a non-conscious (or 'physical') reality a) involves the introduction of a new type of entity, b) introduces a new conceptual difficulty with the existence of consciousness in a non-conscious reality and c) as yet cannot not match the simplicity and scope of the consciousness hypothesis, the consciousness theory of reality would seem to have greater than 50% plausibility.

'God/s' is the English word which accurately fits that perspective of consciousness being a fundamental characteristic of reality.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

The basic question is whether a theist or non-theist conception of reality makes more sense; or (worded less fallaciously) whether the thought and choice which we ourselves most directly and constantly experience in our ownnature and causation are better viewed as anomalies in a 'physical' deterministic universe, or as similar/representative of the nature and causation of reality itself. Unfortunately that is a question for which we still have virtually no reliable information, so the only reasonable conclusion - to begin with at least - is that each type of view is about as reasonable as the other. 


I would argue that the theist (panentheist, not dualist) perspective is slightly more reasonable in that it a) introduces few new assumptions b) poses fewer new conceptual difficulties and c) provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework. So we've got maybe a 50 to 70% probability/plausibility of the existence of a 'god,' to begin with. 

I agree with the first paragraph, even giving equal footing to the proposition. Are we the freak show within the machine, or is it that there is no machine?

The second paragraph I'd ask for clarification on. How have you come to conclusions A-C as it relates to which camp shows the edge in reason? They don't flow from the intro there, nor can I make sense of where your probability/plausibility slipped in there at the end as an actual figure.

Thankee-sai.

I linked above to the recent thread in which I tried to explain those three points in more detail; there's also some links in that post to some much more ancient threads with much more rambling detail on a couple of those points And I've mentioned the principle of indifference in my reply to Benchwarmer above - the formal term I discovered a few weeks ago for the reasoning I had been using all along.

Of course I'm not a philosopher (and I'm not sure it'd help if I was), so it's entirely possible that I'll be shown the error of my ways before too long, but I actually think the case for idealism/panentheism being more reasonable than physicalism is pretty strong. Especially given a no evidence=no plausibility epistemic approach, since we know of mental things (our own thoughts) but can't prove the non-mental. The strongest criticism for these ideas that I can think of is simply questioning to what extent mental/non-mental represents a real and exhaustive dichotomy (eg. if 'neutral monism' is a viable third option rather than being merely a variant of a non-mental reality; or if substance dualism somehow isn't as incoherent as it seems).

But I think that acknowledging even a 30 or 40% probability/plausibility of theism would be a small miracle on the part of some of the forum's members, and in light of the common approach of no evidence=no plausibility that would still be equivalent to significant 'evidence' for god/s.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

It is difficult to point to any evidence that God exists because it would not seem objective in the human terms. I could say "look at all that is around you" and that would be enough evidence of God. If the bible is to be believed, God gave Job a whole lecture on this subject (Job 38). The problem is this is seen through human subjective interpretation We believe by faith that Job spoke to God, but we did not personally witness such an interaction. So some might not believe the biblical accounts as evidence.

I agree with William that first we need debate the proper question whether "belief" or "evidence" should be further debated. I'll be glad to debate McColloch on both counts if he accepts my offer.

[Neatras]

I could say "look at all that is around you" and that would be enough evidence of God.

Problem: That argument is not evidence. It can be equally applied to every unproven assertion. It can be used to justify non-Abrahamic gods, it can be used to deify physical objects. Fact of the matter is, you're using an argument specifically employed by con artists to dissuade others from questioning their nonsense. Sorry to say it, but if I can pass a dozen charlatans on the street who use arguments of the same caliber as you, for what reason should I give you credence?

[Realworldjack]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Before I continue, I would like to know if you are asking for evidence, or are you looking for proof?

You see, there could be plenty of evidence that there is a god who exists. At the same time, there could be plenty of evidence that there is no god at all. If this is the case, then there could be an argument posed on both sides. However, if one, or the other side has actual proof, then there is no argument.

As an example, I have just read on the internet, "there is evidence of human existence in Saudi Arabia dating back 20,000 years." This statement does not claim in any way, that there was, "human existence in Saudi Arabia dating back 20,000 years." Rather, this statement simply claims, there is evidence that this is the case.

Now, compare the above statement with, "there is proof of human existence in Saudi Arabia dating back 20,000 years." You see, the first statement leaves room for doubt, while the latter, claims there is not doubt.

So then, if you are looking for proof, that there is a god who exists, then I am afraid there is none. However, if you are looking for evidence, then there is plenty. On the other hand, if one were to be looking for evidence that there is no god, then there would be plenty. If they were looking for proof, that there is no god, then I am afraid there is none.

[William]

I could say "look at all that is around you" and that would be enough evidence of God.

Problem: That argument is not evidence. It can be equally applied to every unproven assertion. It can be used to justify non-Abrahamic gods, it can be used to deify physical objects. Fact of the matter is, you're using an argument specifically employed by con artists to dissuade others from questioning their nonsense. Sorry to say it, but if I can pass a dozen charlatans on the street who use arguments of the same caliber as you, for what reason should I give you credence?

I agree. Except that it can still be classed as evidence as far as that goes. Just not enough evidence to show the 'soul' of a GOD, is all.

In that. yes, one can and does tend to fill in the gaps regarding the personality of the supposed creator.

Who can it be now?


Even then we are still stuck if we simply rely wholly of how consciousness expresses itself through biological instruments, and then there is the demonizing which is done related to snakes and spiders and dragons and privileged white males.

There appears to be a weird aspect in relation to the way the GODs mind works when examining the creation.

Almost dark humor even.

Sometimes I also think along the lines of the GOD creating 'creator designers' and maybe even having competitions as to who could design the wackiest thing, the loveliest thing, the most graceful thing etc...but I may well be humanizing the whole concept a little too much in that department. Harmless enough thoughts all the same.