reply to post by Vandettas
I said higher intelligence seems more likely than randomness, you said based on what...
Let's start with the existence of human beings. The development of self conscious beings, with technology, in a specialized environment (Earth). We
wrongly assume that life is based on the conditions of Earth and come up with terms like the "habitable zone." It could just as easily be the case
that the conditions of Earth are based on life, or that life requires no condition. Anyway, the universe produced a dynamic creature in humans, a
dynamic structure in the brain. Sometimes it's a matter of common sense over proof. The human brain, in all it's mystery and potential, is being
reduced to the result of a random chemical process?
If your own existence doesn't convince you, how about the stability of the cosmos? Somehow we went from an infinitely dense and super hot ball of
matter to extreme division and ended up with a rotating, fairly fixed, conglomeration of fire balls from which life arose without plan or purpose?
That just seems ludicrous.
Are you a non believer in extra terrestrials as well?
It's just all so nice and orderly and pretty and stuff...
While my evidence fails the requirements of the scientific method, it is no less comprehensive than a lot of scientific theories (evolution,
relativity) that hinge on no small amount of assumption, inference, and speculation.
There's also the paradox that the great historical scientists are often found to have a flourishing interest in mysticism. Take Newton, for instance.
I'm sure he could convince you to entertain the idea of a higher power quite easily. I am not so well equipped, at the moment, and realize that any
attempt to convince someone of the existence of God is futile, for that question is best answered by an individuals own discourse.