What he is probably afraid of is literal death, or a form of Thanatophobia. Religious thinking is equal parts placebo and opiate. It dulls the rational mind, offers up a type of euphoria, and convinces the user that use will cure them of their ailment. Basically it is like getting stoned, and thinking you are better off for doing it in the first place. If he admits that he is taking a drug to deal with a problem. Then not only will the drug stop working, but the problem he was self medicating away will resurface with a vengeance.

If he admits that his faith is brought about by a emotional need, and has no basis in reality. He must also admit that the choice he made had a ridiculously low chance of success. Given that humanity has generated tens of thousands of religions, and it isn't guaranteed that even one of them is right. Well let us just say it would be the height of hubris, and a megalomaniacal vanity. For him to assume he through sheer dumb luck found the right answer. He would probably reach the most rational conclusion, and that is he is fallible, and because something feels right. It doesn't equate out to it being right.

There is a difference between searching for what you want, and searching for genuine understanding. If you have already redefined a fact to serve your own purposes then you are just being disengenuous, and you are actively engaged in self deception. Death is death. It takes a leap of genuine desire to redefine it as a fog of ignorance. When the apparent nature of what happened is painfully simple. Namely a living person is no long alive. You can argue for a fog of ignorance if something happens for a unknown cause, or if something counter intuitive takes place, but people dying is a mundane fact of life. The only reason someone would label death as a fog is, because they desperately want there to be more.

So seeing as you took me up on my offer. Let me ask you was your choice based upon a emotion, and are your emotions fallible, and if you agree to those two. Isn't it reasonable that you say you could be wrong, and are probably wrong. In other words can you say that your god is probably a lie.

What he is probably afraid of is literal death, or a form of Thanatophobia. Religious thinking is equal parts placebo and opiate. It dulls the rational mind, offers up a type of euphoria, and convinces the user that use will cure them of their ailment. Basically it is like getting stoned, and thinking you are better off for doing it in the first place. If he admits that he is taking a drug to deal with a problem. Then not only will the drug stop working, but the problem he was self medicating away will resurface with a vengeance.

If he admits that his faith is brought about by a emotional need, and has no basis in reality. He must also admit that the choice he made had a ridiculously low chance of success. Given that humanity has generated tens of thousands of religions, and it isn't guaranteed that even one of them is right. Well let us just say it would be the height of hubris, and a megalomaniacal vanity. For him to assume he through sheer dumb luck found the right answer. He would probably reach the most rational conclusion, and that is he is fallible, and because something feels right. It doesn't equate out to it being right.

There is a difference between searching for what you want, and searching for genuine understanding. If you have already redefined a fact to serve your own purposes then you are just being disengenuous, and you are actively engaged in self deception. Death is death. It takes a leap of genuine desire to redefine it as a fog of ignorance. When the apparent nature of what happened is painfully simple. Namely a living person is no long alive. You can argue for a fog of ignorance if something happens for a unknown cause, or if something counter intuitive takes place, but people dying is a mundane fact of life. The only reason someone would label death as a fog is, because they desperately want there to be more.

So seeing as you took me up on my offer. Let me ask you was your choice based upon a emotion, and are your emotions fallible, and if you agree to those two. Isn't it reasonable that you say you could be wrong, and are probably wrong. In other words can you say that your god is probably a lie.

What he is probably afraid of is literal death, or a form of Thanatophobia. Religious thinking is equal parts placebo and opiate. It dulls the rational mind, offers up a type of euphoria, and convinces the user that use will cure them of their ailment. Basically it is like getting stoned, and thinking you are better off for doing it in the first place. If he admits that he is taking a drug to deal with a problem. Then not only will the drug stop working, but the problem he was self medicating away will resurface with a vengeance.

If he admits that his faith is brought about by a emotional need, and has no basis in reality. He must also admit that the choice he made had a ridiculously low chance of success. Given that humanity has generated tens of thousands of religions, and it isn't guaranteed that even one of them is right. Well let us just say it would be the height of hubris, and a megalomaniacal vanity. For him to assume he through sheer dumb luck found the right answer. He would probably reach the most rational conclusion, and that is he is fallible, and because something feels right. It doesn't equate out to it being right.

There is a difference between searching for what you want, and searching for genuine understanding. If you have already redefined a fact to serve your own purposes then you are just being disengenuous, and you are actively engaged in self deception. Death is death. It takes a leap of genuine desire to redefine it as a fog of ignorance. When the apparent nature of what happened is painfully simple. Namely a living person is no long alive. You can argue for a fog of ignorance if something happens for a unknown cause, or if something counter intuitive takes place, but people dying is a mundane fact of life. The only reason someone would label death as a fog is, because they desperately want there to be more.

So seeing as you took me up on my offer. Let me ask you was your choice based upon a emotion, and are your emotions fallible, and if you agree to those two. Isn't it reasonable that you say you could be wrong, and are probably wrong. In other words can you say that your god is probably a lie.

What makes you think your God more likely to exist than Allah or any other God?

If you were logical, you wouldn't have written such nonsense. Abiogensis isn't "coming from nothing" and it's already been replicated, in part, in a laboratory. Miller-Urey experiment simulates what scientists believe comprised the Earth at the time simulating specific effects like lightning with a particular chemical composition and found that amino acids formed. These are the building blocks of life. You show a fundamental lack of understanding of a very grand theory. I suggest actually learning of what it is before commenting about something to which you know naught.

Absolutely no evidence of a supernatural being and yet you see this "possibility" as 100% true (0% chance in real world of being False)? lmfao. You aren't remotely logical in regard to this matter.

You are a very rude poster. But I won't report you this time, just want to point to you where you are abrasive. (underlined)

Anyways, beyond that, let me explain your fallacy fallacy and cherry-picking.

I said "coming from nothing", I absolutely meant life coming from non-living matter, pardon my colloquialism. Proof that I knew that is from my counter-point earlier in the thread against your definition of existence. (remember, I mentioned how did matter exist if sentient beings didn't observe it, yet matter is required for their abiogenesis). Here, your selective memory served you well.

As for 0% chance for abiogenesis being true doesn't make God 100% true, but it makes it very difficult, for me personally, to find an answer that isn't "God". Then, my PoV goes way beyond abiogenesis, but into "who is God?" as described in the bible.

Remember, every time you point the finger, there are 3 pointing back. Best tip I can give you? Just calm down.

(And the kind of post above is why I, personally, do not enjoy talking religion with certain so-called, self-professed "scientifically" thinking atheists. These specific types of people are very abrasive and turn the dialogue into a crusade-witchhunt, and it's very unpleasant.)