fine tuning — Wayfarer

π was created and fine-tuned so we can have circles?

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one — Wayfarer

This world is the best of them. — frank

we all know what true is — Banno

I view consciousness as metaphysical necessity — 3017amen

In other words, consciousness and its primacy is required or needed to understand (apprehend) all forms of necessity and necessary truths, right? — 3017amen

necessary consciousness (some people say necessary Being) — 3017amen

outside of or not bound by time — Wayfarer

An object is abstract (if and) only if it is causally inefficacious. — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/

time is unparsimoniously multiplied, perhaps adding ("orthogonal") temporal dimensions. — jorndoe

strictly speaking 'the transcendent' doesn't exist, as 'existence' is what 'the transcendent' is transcendent in respect to — Wayfarer

Yet another mystery... — 3017amen

I will demonstrate [...] using logical inference [...] Deity — 3017amen

Tick tock tick tock — 3017amen

the proverbial ‘truth-seeker’ — Wayfarer

but there is also an enormous amount of common ground, particularly amongst the mystics of the higher religions — Wayfarer

Note well: 'some people don't and it cannot be helped'. — Wayfarer

You appear to be arguing for old Protestantism. You even referenced one of the old bits of Protestant dogma: that the papacy is Antichrist.

Did you become a Lutheran or something? — frank

  RELIGION, n.  A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
  nature of the Unknowable.
      "What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.
      "Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."
      "Then why do you not become an atheist?"
      "Impossible!  I should be ashamed of atheism."
      "In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

The Church of the Weed — PoeticUniverse

It is a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people's control. — Patricia Crone (commenting on Islam and the like)

The God of the ancient philosophers is an abstract object; he has all the reality of the square root of 16. This so-called God is not alive. He is beyond time and change, not the Ancient of Days but the Eternal One. The God of the philosophers is passionless, incapable of being moved to hot anger and tears by the human condition. He is serene and untroubled. The God of the philosophers knows everything about the future; he can't interact with human beings as free creatures on whom the as yet open future in part depends. The God of the philosophers is simple; there is no depth or complexity in his personality. As an abstract object, he is captured in the nets of our philosophical theories. He has his prominent place in our neat and rationally explicable scheme of things. We know what he's like and he is basically predictable. The God of the philosophers, the God of much of the theological tradition, is a creature of the human mind and, as such, is ultimately in our control. — http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/gbgp.htm

I get the idea of the kind of folks you’re expressing your view too. Should we listen? :) — I like sushi

That's the definitive piece, isn't it? — Serving Zion

(Matthew 7:15, John 18:37, Matthew 18:20, 2 Peter 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 3:5-7) — Serving Zion

Do you take this really important information directly from Socrates? — Noble Dust

I think you could answer this question perfectly easily yourself. — bert1

Is that the thrust of it? — Wayfarer

Same reason why we don't take your word for it that God doesn't exist! — 3017amen

Which are still from humans saying something as if it is true. — PoeticUniverse

not to be taken seriously — alcontali

Which items out of the seven in the OP would like me to parse? — 3017amen

I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism. — 3017amen

Unless, of course, if they try to impose their views onto me. That is when I get pissed off. — alcontali

Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing. — DingoJones

• have been spoon-fed a particular faith from childhood, implicitly or explicitly as the truth — preaching
• have not been spoon-fed alternatives (objections, other religions, irreligion) impartially and on equal footing — withholding (or ignorance)
• have grown up in an environment promoting a particular faith (implicit or explicit peer-pressure, etc), expected to accept that faith without critical inquiry
• have commonly been subject to unsubstantiable promises and threats (e.g. damnation), arguably a kind of abuse

Einstein said: — 3017amen

Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism. — 3017amen

I, for one, would love to see your demonstration. When will that occur? — NOS4A2

Let me know when you got it figured out! — 3017amen

Just don't say: God does not exist. — 3017amen

• In a small part of a ring species, x and y can have offspring (⇒ same "kind"), and y and z can have offspring (⇒ same "kind").
• All the same "kind" (transitive relation).
• But x and z cannot have offspring (⇒ not the same "kind"). ⚡
• Therefore "kind" is incoherent.

The objection to my objection would be that if Reason sets out what is right, then one ought do as reason proscribes. You remain free to choose not to follow reason, but you ought not. — Banno

• In case one of the common religions is right (about their deity), then what would it take to think otherwise?
• Conversely, in case they're wrong and there aren't such deities, then what would it take to believe otherwise?

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. — https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

If assertions are intended to persuade, then you'd want relevant justifications, yes?
I'll venture to guess that most occasionally go by the razors, whether intuitively, implicitly or explicitly.

Therefore, Hitchens' approach in which he arbitrarily rejects starting points, is just a cheap slogan that he could use and abuse to reject pretty much any knowledge claim. The late, dead Hitchens was a rhetorical attack dog, with a strong emphasis on the word "dog". May his carcass rot in hell. — alcontali

It is just that I do not like people like Hitchens, whose only goal in life is to discredit and otherwise viciously attack other people. Hitchens was a cherished accomplice of Satan. Richard Stallman said about Steve Jobs: "I am not glad that he is dead but I am glad that he is gone." About Hitchens, I rather abbreviate all of that to "dead and gone", and we wouldn't want it any other way. — alcontali

If we are, on the other hand, referring to the possibility of a reality consisting of things-in-themselves, apart from how they are experienced, if that's what we mean by objective reality, then objective reality is not experiential. — luckswallowsall

I would say I observe a world that depends on my mind and on other minds — leo

Aristotelian-Thomistic moderate realist — Dfpolis

monstrous caveat — Mww

what would a swimmer out of water look like? — Mww

what do we call these different types of reality? — Galuchat