Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Ophiolite]

Grover, I do not believe I have engaged in this thread other than to address your statement about speculation.
You present seemingly well structured arguments for your position. My intention was to demonstrate that in this particular instance your statement was flawed at a fundamental level. [In street speak, you were talking crap.]
From that point I would argue that if you can make an absolute statement with such conviction and be wrong, then other parts of your apparently logical structure may be flawed.
Others are arguing the content of your argument. I have called into question your position at a meta level.

I fully accept your statement that you have not been intellectually dishonest.
O

 

[Sarkus]

They have nothing in common except that matter has properties and you are trying to say that consciousness is just another property of matter despite the fact that consciousness doesn't have any physical properties at all.

This is what you claim - without evidence.

Like I said before it seems to me self-evidently apparent that there is a difference between mind and matter?

And this is your evidence? The fact that it is, to you, self-evident?
Must do better than that.

You are claiming that the appearance is an illusion and that mind really is just matter. What is your evidence for this?

No - I am claiming that there is no evidence for non-material - and thus the only rational position left is that it is material.
I have evidence that material things exist.
Can you say the same about non-material things? If so - PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.

There is no way to provide evidence for EVERYTHING? That's interesting.

Also true. Please provide evidence of a tiny star roughly 1-billion light years away.

The double standard is that you are making a positive claim without evidence.

I have evidence that material things exist.
Can you say the same about non-material things? If so - PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
If you can not - then the default rational position is that consciousness is material.

This is NOT the same as claiming it IS DEFINITELY material.
This is NOT the same as BELIEVING IT IS MATERIAL.

If you can not understand and appreciate that difference then there is no point continuing this.

The hypocrisy is that you claim that not having evidence is a good reason not to believe in God. It's my assertion that you too are making arbitrary metaphysical assumptions about the universe based upon what seems to you to make sense yet saying there is something wrong when theists do the same thing.

You see hypocrisy where none exists - and you see it due to a lack of understanding of the issues of the argument.

First you say the default position is the lack of positive belief then you say the default position is that consciousness must be material despite the fact that you've already said there is no evidence.

There IS evidence of the existence of material things.
There is NO EVIDENCE of non-material.
Rationality thus dictates that the default position is one of materiality!!!

Again - if you can not understand and appreciate this then there is no point continuing this debate.

To quote Skinwalker "There is absolutely no reason to believe in any assertion that cannot be supported with evidence."

Absolutely correct.

You can squirm around this issue all you want but there is no scientific evidence supproting consciousness being material and to assert such is nothing but materialist dogma.

If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs.

You will first have to answer my question: it seems to me self-evidently apparent that there is a difference between mind and matter? You are claiming that the appearance is an illusion and that mind really is just matter. What is your evidence for this?

You do not understand where the burden of proof lies.
YOU are the one making the claim of the existence of the non-material, whether you think it is self-evident or not, and thus onus of proof is on you.

The claim you attribute to me is also incorrect.
I claim that there is NO REASON to believe in the existence of non-material things - due to lack of evidence.
I claim that the rational position (which can of course be proven wrong in the face of subsequent contravening evidence) is that consciousness is material in nature - i.e. the direct result of nothing but physical interactions.
I claim that I am being rational in saying that until there is evidence of the non-material, the default position is that of material.

I hope this explains things more clearly to you.

 

[grover]

Grover, I do not believe I have engaged in this thread other than to address your statement about speculation.
You present seemingly well structured arguments for your position. My intention was to demonstrate that in this particular instance your statement was flawed at a fundamental level. [In street speak, you were talking crap.]

And I fully admit being wrong on that point. In all honesty what I did was overstate something - which is to say, I have seen materialist arguments that claim to solve "the hard problem" but actually do a bait and switch. But, I'm not trying to back track, I was wrong on that point and admit it.

From that point I would argue that if you can make an absolute statement with such conviction and be wrong, then other parts of your apparently logical structure may be flawed.

I hope the fact that I admit when I have made an incorrect statement means something. And it goes without saying that other parts may be flawed.

 

[grover]

This is what you claim - without evidence.

Without evidence? What physical properties does consciousness have then?

And this is your evidence? The fact that it is, to you, self-evident?
Must do better than that.

Are you saying your consciousness is not evident to you and that you don't have direct knowledge of the phenomenon of which we speak? The only evidence we have of consciousness is self-evidence. You are claiming that mind is really just matter, why?

No - I am claiming that there is no evidence for non-material - and thus the only rational position left is that it is material.

What is the evidence that consciousness as a phenomenon exists?

I have evidence that material things exist.
Can you say the same about non-material things? If so - PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.

Thats like asking me to prove to you that you have subjective experience.

Also true. Please provide evidence of a tiny star roughly 1-billion light years away.

Obective evidence could exist for such a thing.

I have evidence that material things exist.
Can you say the same about non-material things? If so - PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
If you can not - then the default rational position is that consciousness is material.

You are not answering the question - explain to me why mind is really just matter. Your position is "materialism of the gaps."

This is NOT the same as claiming it IS DEFINITELY material.
This is NOT the same as BELIEVING IT IS MATERIAL.

Just answer why you think that mind is really just matter. That the difference between these two things is really just an illusion.

There IS evidence of the existence of material things.
There is NO EVIDENCE of non-material.
Rationality thus dictates that the default position is one of materiality!!!

Materialism of the gaps!!!
Second of all, there is no true evidence of consciousness. All our "evidence" of consciousness actually only comes because we have a subjective experience of it and the determine upon our own experience that other things have consciousness based upon our own experience. Its all subjective and there is no true objective evidence of it. What you are asking is that I provide to you objective evidence of your own subjective experience. Its insane. So, if I'm making a claim based upon what one can know about consciousness by directly observing consciousness it doesn't make sense to refuse to observe your own consciousness and then say "you have not provided evidence."

Again - if you can not understand and appreciate this then there is no point continuing this debate.

If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs.

Then I don't see why believing is God is an irrational conclusion.

You do not understand where the burden of proof lies.
YOU are the one making the claim of the existence of the non-material, whether you think it is self-evident or not, and thus onus of proof is on you.

That is like you asking me to prove you had a dream last night, or that you have actual emotions and not just the appearance of emotions, or even that you have subjective experience at all. If you think there is no difference between mind and matter please explain this to me. You are making a claim that mind is just material. Your argument for htis claim is that it must be true because everything else we'eve ever found evidence for is material therefore mind must be material even though it is self-evidently different than material.

The claim you attribute to me is also incorrect.
I claim that there is NO REASON to believe in the existence of non-material things - due to lack of evidence.

I'm no expert but don't physicists claim that matter is really made out of things that aren't matter. So, at its most basic level even matter isn't matter? And, there is reason to believe that mind is not matter - by direct observation of mind it does not appear to be material. If this apparent difference is jsut an illusion you have to explain why.

I claim that the rational position (which can of course be proven wrong in the face of subsequent contravening evidence) is that consciousness is material in nature - i.e. the direct result of nothing but physical interactions.

But you can't explain what these physical interactions are. Just explain to me how this works. WHat your basically saying is that "consciousness jsut magically appears from matter."

I claim that I am being rational in saying that until there is evidence of the non-material, the default position is that of material.

1) Isn't energy non-material? The closest I've heard you come to explaining consciousness is by saying that ultimately its all just energy. If thats the case then why isn't consciousness immaterial? Why doesn't the conservation of energy apply?
2)You said earlier "Why take as a default position something for which there has never been any evidence?" Why are you taking a default position that mind is matter, there has never been any evidence for this. This is materialism of the gaps.

I hope this explains things more clearly to you.

I still would like an explanation as to why the difference between mind and matter is an illusion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just for clarification, Grover has accidentally credited sarkus's remarks to myself in the previous post.

Grover, I fully applaud your ready admission of an error. If only some other posters on this forum were as honest and direct as yourself. Please realise that my criticism of you in this area is an objective debating technique and it is not intended to be any part of a personal attack upon yourself, or your integrity.

 

[Sarkus]

You are claiming that mind is really just matter, why?

Because there is no evidence for the non-material. Thus, by default, the rational position is one of material.

You are not answering the question - explain to me why mind is really just matter. Your position is "materialism of the gaps."

There is a difference between "materialism of the gaps" and materiality being the default rational position. Again - you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of this aspect.

Just answer why you think that mind is really just matter. That the difference between these two things is really just an illusion.

I have explained why mind being matter is the default rational position. If you want to go against this position then YOU provide the evidence.

Second of all, there is no true evidence of consciousness. All our "evidence" of consciousness actually only comes because we have a subjective experience of it and the determine upon our own experience that other things have consciousness based upon our own experience. Its all subjective and there is no true objective evidence of it. What you are asking is that I provide to you objective evidence of your own subjective experience. Its insane. So, if I'm making a claim based upon what one can know about consciousness by directly observing consciousness it doesn't make sense to refuse to observe your own consciousness and then say "you have not provided evidence."

This answers nothing, nor says anything.
You have yet to show why we should move from the default rational position that everything is material (i.e. emergent from purely material interactions).

Then I don't see why believing is God is an irrational conclusion.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

If you think there is no difference between mind and matter please explain this to me. You are making a claim that mind is just material. Your argument for htis claim is that it must be true because everything else we'eve ever found evidence for is material therefore mind must be material even though it is self-evidently different than material.

I have highlighted in bold your continuing misunderstanding.
I have at no point said "mind MUST be material".
I have said that the default rational position, with current evidence, MUST be one of materiality - as there is NO EVIDENCE to support anything else.
And it is "self-evidently different than material" FOR YOU - not for me.
For me it is self-evidently NOT different.

And, there is reason to believe that mind is not matter - by direct observation of mind it does not appear to be material.

LOL!
How can you directly observe something that is not material? Please explain how the mind is "directly observed".

If this apparent difference is jsut an illusion you have to explain why.

After you've explained how you think the mind is directly observed.

But you can't explain what these physical interactions are.

Nope. I can't. Never said I could.

Just explain to me how this works. WHat your basically saying is that "consciousness jsut magically appears from matter."

Logical fallacy. Putting words into my mouth.
Plus yours now appears to be an argument from incredulity.

We do not understand consciousness - nor how it arises.
So why jump to the belief, in the absence of evidence, that it is non-material?

1) Isn't energy non-material? The closest I've heard you come to explaining consciousness is by saying that ultimately its all just energy. If thats the case then why isn't consciousness immaterial? Why doesn't the conservation of energy apply?

Is energy non-material? Good question. First answer these: What is energy? Can you have energy without mass / matter? Is energy thus just a property of matter - and thus, under my definition (given earlier), wouldn't transfers of energy be material in nature?

2)You said earlier "Why take as a default position something for which there has never been any evidence?" Why are you taking a default position that mind is matter, there has never been any evidence for this. This is materialism of the gaps.

For Pete's sake - how many times must i go over this....

There has NEVER been evidence for something that is non-material.
There has been, and continues to be, evidence for things that are material.
Thus the default rational position MUST THEREFORE BE that everything is material.

I still would like an explanation as to why the difference between mind and matter is an illusion.

Illusions are often seen where one can not comprehend / see the fundamental processes at work - or where one refuses to accept that they eyes can be deceived.

Consciousness is not understood, and the only evidence we have of it's "existence" is our own consciousness.
But there is NO evidence it is anything but the default rational position of material in nature - i.e. a result of purely physical interactions (and I do include in this energy).
If you think it is different - I continue to await your evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

This is incorrect.
The existence of the universe is evidence for God.
The fine tuning of the Universe for life is evidence of God.
The present of intelligent, conscious life is evidence for God.

None of the above is proof of God. The points are merely suggestive. But they are evidence . Some of the best science (and the best sex) begins with suggestive.

 

[Sarkus]

This is incorrect.
The existence of the universe is evidence for God.
The fine tuning of the Universe for life is evidence of God.
The present of intelligent, conscious life is evidence for God.

Why are they evidence of God?

I could pick up a a stapler off my desk and say "this is evidence of an ocean".
Merely saying it is insufficient.

Please go through the process of explaining, rationally, why this evidence of yours is for God.

It might well be evidence of something but why is it evidence for / of God?
You need to demonstrate that.

And in doing so you'll also need to define your meaning of "God".

 

[grover]

You need to demonstrate that.

Why does he have to demonstrate it since apparently according to you "default positions" are acceptable.

 

[(Q)]

Why are they evidence of God?

I could pick up a a stapler off my desk and say "this is evidence of an ocean".
Merely saying it is insufficient.

Please go through the process of explaining, rationally, why this evidence of yours is for God.

It might well be evidence of something but why is it evidence for / of God?
You need to demonstrate that.

And in doing so you'll also need to define your meaning of "God".

I don't want to answer for the great O.

But, what I glean from his statement is that the universe is the result of something, ie. the evidence, and that the cause could be suggested to be a god, or any other supernatural phenomena one might care to invoke. It's merely a suggestion just like the FSM would be a suggestion.

 

[Enterprise-D]

This is incorrect.
The existence of the universe is evidence for God.
The fine tuning of the Universe for life is evidence of God.
The present of intelligent, conscious life is evidence for God.

None of the above is proof of God. The points are merely suggestive. But they are evidence . Some of the best science (and the best sex) begins with suggestive.

Ophiolite, your points are romanticisms and assumptions:

- The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe.
- There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened. Physical constants simply exist. They are not evidence of anything other than themselves.
- The presence of intelligent, conscious life is evidence of life.

 

[grover]

Because there is no evidence for the non-material. Thus, by default, the rational position is one of material.

Subjective experiences are not physical things.

There is a difference between "materialism of the gaps" and materiality being the default rational position. Again - you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of this aspect.

You're quite right - I don't get why you think its acceptable to make one claim without evidence but say other claims without evidence are not acceptavble. You are making metaphysical assumptions.

I have explained why mind being matter is the default rational position. If you want to go against this position then YOU provide the evidence.

You will have to explain to me how it is that subjective experiences are physical.

This answers nothing, nor says anything.
You have yet to show why we should move from the default rational position that everything is material (i.e. emergent from purely material interactions).

1) There is no such thing as a default position - this is the same thing as saying you don't have evidence.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

Here is the exact proble. You weren't talking about evidence - you were talking about rational conlcusions. You said: "If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs. "
You resorted to this rational conclusion argument because you can't provide evidence that subjective experiences come from the brain. Get it? One can make a rational conlcusion that consciousness comes from brain just as one can make a rational conclusion tha the universe comes from God. But we're talking about evidence.

I have highlighted in bold your continuing misunderstanding.
I have at no point said "mind MUST be material".
I have said that the default rational position, with current evidence, MUST be one of materiality - as there is NO EVIDENCE to support anything else.
And it is "self-evidently different than material" FOR YOU - not for me.
For me it is self-evidently NOT different.

Sp your saying there is no difference between the subjective experience and the thing itself. Say you are hlding a rock in your hand - the rock is physical, the subjective experience of it is not. Or think of a dream image - the dream image is not an actual material thing.

LOL!
How can you directly observe something that is not material? Please explain how the mind is "directly observed".

You know what I'm talking about when I say subjective experience. You understand what I mean when I say a dream image is not an actual physical thing right?

After you've explained how you think the mind is directly observed.

You know what it is like to be an entity with subjective experience right?

Nope. I can't. Never said I could.

Logical fallacy. Putting words into my mouth.
Plus yours now appears to be an argument from incredulity.


We do not understand consciousness - nor how it arises.
So why jump to the belief, in the absence of evidence, that it is non-material?

You do get that when you are dreaming that its not real physical things in the dream right?

Is energy non-material? Good question. First answer these: What is energy? Can you have energy without mass / matter? Is energy thus just a property of matter - and thus, under my definition (given earlier), wouldn't transfers of energy be material in nature?

From my understanding energy is not material. Energy is not a property of matter, matter is actually made of energy. This has obvious implications when talking about physical brains and immaterial consciousness.

For Pete's sake - how many times must i go over this....

There has NEVER been evidence for something that is non-material.

What are dream images? Physical things? Are thoughts physical things?

There has been, and continues to be, evidence for things that are material.
Thus the default rational position MUST THEREFORE BE that everything is material.

Even matter isn't made of material. There is no "default position."

Because there is no evidence for the non-material. Thus, by default, the rational position is one of material.

Subjective experiences are not physical things.

There is a difference between "materialism of the gaps" and materiality being the default rational position. Again - you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of this aspect.

You're quite right - I don't get why you think its acceptable to make one claim without evidence but say other claims without evidence are not acceptavble. You are making metaphysical assumptions.

I have explained why mind being matter is the default rational position. If you want to go against this position then YOU provide the evidence.

You will have to explain to me how it is that subjective experiences are physical.

This answers nothing, nor says anything.
You have yet to show why we should move from the default rational position that everything is material (i.e. emergent from purely material interactions).

1) There is no such thing as a default position - this is the same thing as saying you don't have evidence.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

Here is the exact proble. You weren't talking about evidence - you were talking about rational conlcusions. You said: "If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs. "
You resorted to this rational conclusion argument because you can't provide evidence that subjective experiences come from the brain. Get it? One can make a rational conlcusion that consciousness comes from brain just as one can make a rational conclusion tha the universe comes from God. But we're talking about evidence.

I have highlighted in bold your continuing misunderstanding.
I have at no point said "mind MUST be material".
I have said that the default rational position, with current evidence, MUST be one of materiality - as there is NO EVIDENCE to support anything else.
And it is "self-evidently different than material" FOR YOU - not for me.
For me it is self-evidently NOT different.

Sp your saying there is no difference between the subjective experience and the thing itself. Say you are hlding a rock in your hand - the rock is physical, the subjective experience of it is not. Or think of a dream image - the dream image is not an actual material thing.

LOL!
How can you directly observe something that is not material? Please explain how the mind is "directly observed".

You know what I'm talking about when I say subjective experience. You understand what I mean when I say a dream image is not an actual physical thing right?

After you've explained how you think the mind is directly observed.

You know what it is like to be an entity with subjective experience right?

Nope. I can't. Never said I could.

Logical fallacy. Putting words into my mouth.
Plus yours now appears to be an argument from incredulity.


We do not understand consciousness - nor how it arises.
So why jump to the belief, in the absence of evidence, that it is non-material?

You do get that when you are dreaming that its not real physical things in the dream right?

Is energy non-material? Good question. First answer these: What is energy? Can you have energy without mass / matter? Is energy thus just a property of matter - and thus, under my definition (given earlier), wouldn't transfers of energy be material in nature?

From my understanding energy is not material. Energy is not a property of matter, matter is actually made of energy. This has obvious implications when talking about physical brains and immaterial consciousness.

For Pete's sake - how many times must i go over this....

There has NEVER been evidence for something that is non-material.

What are dream images? Physical things? Are thoughts physical things?

There has been, and continues to be, evidence for things that are material.
Thus the default rational position MUST THEREFORE BE that everything is material.

Even matter isn't made of material. There is no "default position."

Illusions are often seen where one can not comprehend / see the fundamental processes at work - or where one refuses to accept that they eyes can be deceived.

Science has shown many times in the past that the common sense notion is not true. That whats wrong with assumptions.

Consciousness is not understood, and the only evidence we have of it's "existence" is our own consciousness.
But there is NO evidence it is anything but the default rational position of material in nature - i.e. a result of purely physical interactions (and I do include in this energy).
If you think it is different - I continue to await your evidence.

Just tell me how it is that a dream image is a physical thing.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't want to answer for the great O.

But, what I glean from his statement is that the universe is the result of something, ie. the evidence, and that the cause could be suggested to be a god, or any other supernatural phenomena one might care to invoke. It's merely a suggestion just like the FSM would be a suggestion.

I agree that it's evidence - but he needs to convince me that it's evidence for GOD and not for something more rational.

 

[Sarkus]

Why does he have to demonstrate it since apparently according to you "default positions" are acceptable.

Default positions are ones based on RATIONAL THINKING - not some subjective desire. Again - you illustrate your lack of understanding.

 

[Sarkus]

Subjective experiences are not physical things.

Evidence, please?

You're quite right - I don't get why you think its acceptable to make one claim without evidence but say other claims without evidence are not acceptavble.

I am not making any claims without evidence. Please point out where you think I am and I will again try to explain to you where you are going wrong.

You will have to explain to me how it is that subjective experiences are physical.

I am not saying they definitely ARE physical. I am saying that, without evidence to the contrary, the only rational conclusion based on the available evidence is that they are physical in nature - i.e. purely the result of physical interactions.

1) There is no such thing as a default position - this is the same thing as saying you don't have evidence.

NO! You just do NOT understand.
The default rational position in this case exists because there is ONLY evidence for one side of the case.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR MATERIAL THINGS.
WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE FOR NON-MATERIAL THINGS.
The default position, through rational thinking, MUST BE - until evidence is shown to the contrary - that all things are material in nature.
What of this do you not understand?

Here is the exact proble. You weren't talking about evidence....
...You resorted to this rational conclusion argument because you can't provide evidence that subjective experiences come from the brain. Get it?

I am not the one needing to provide evidence - YOU ARE!
I am not saying that "consciousness is definitely material".
I AM saying that until you provide evidence that something non-material exists, the rational default position must be that consciousness is material - and there is thus NO reason to believe otherwise.
Understand?

One can make a rational conlcusion that consciousness comes from brain just as one can make a rational conclusion tha the universe comes from God. But we're talking about evidence.

Please provide the rational thought process that says the universe comes from God.

Secondly - we're talking about LACK OF EVIDENCE - not evidence.
Evidence exists - and it is ALL material.
You claim non-material things exist - so you provide the evidence.
That's all we ask.

Sp your saying there is no difference between the subjective experience and the thing itself.

Please indicate where I have ever said that? Ever said that?!
Logical fallacy on your part.

Or think of a dream image - the dream image is not an actual material thing.

But the dream IS material - i.e. it is caused by physical interactions within your brain. The fact that your brain interprets the dream with visions, feelings, emotions is merely evidence of those areas of the brain being stimulated by the impulses / interactions.

Obviously if you dream of a brick then it is not a physical brick - but the dream it is still generated through physical interactions within the brain.

From my understanding energy is not material.

Then here we will differ - and it is best not to continue further with this.

 

[(Q)]

I agree that it's evidence - but he needs to convince me that it's evidence for GOD and not for something more rational.

Oh, I would agree, wholeheartedly. But, I do believe O is merely presenting the argument as a suggestion only. In other words, we can suggest anything we want by simply starting out with an end result and then speculating as to its cause.

Speculations, of course, can be dismantled through the argument and discarded as it progresses.

 

[Sarkus]

Ophiolite, your points are romanticisms and assumptions:

- The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe.
- There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened. Physical constants simply exist. They are not evidence of anything other than themselves.
- The presence of intelligent, conscious life is evidence of life.

Thanks - sums up nicely.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh, I would agree, wholeheartedly. But, I do believe O is merely presenting the argument as a suggestion only. In other words, we can suggest anything we want by simply starting out with an end result and then speculating as to its cause.

Speculations, of course, can be dismantled through the argument and discarded as it progresses.

But until you get to the conclusion, rationally, you can not state that the evidence is FOR the conclusion - only that it is evidence in and of itself. To conclude before thought that evidence is FOR something is irrational.
At best, as you state, one should merely present the evidence and see where it leads.

 

[(Q)]

And, we are of course merely speculating as to what O had in mind. Let's see what turns up.

 

[grover]

Default positions are ones based on RATIONAL THINKING - not some subjective desire. Again - you illustrate your lack of understanding.

Yes, but you are arbitrarily assigning subjective desire to God. Why can't a person say that something can't come from nothing and therefore the universe had to come from something and that something is God. Or say that the univers appears to have design. Once can come up with rational reasons for God. You illustrate your lack of understanding.