I am so confused for no real reason

I'm not really sure what I am, be it agonostic or atheist.I don't now if God exists or not and I don' t care, I just know that if he does exist I would find him entirely to immoral to accept- but here's the problem-

I was raised my whole life in a pretty religious family, my mother was the daughter of a preacher, so you know how that goes, so it's so hard to get out of this mind set that's been driven into me since I can remember that if you deny God/Jesus, then you're pretty much going to hell. I know it shouldn't really bother me if I don't believe, but the thing is that I don't really know if I believe or not, and I really have no reason not to since I was raised to believe. I just find it a bit ridiculous to live your life based on a book written by man who knows when, and that hardly applies to modern times (ex: homosexuality, gender equality, etc) and that is full of so many contradictions and injustices.

I know I may sound pretty naive and idiotic to most of you, but this is a real problem I've been having and can't stop thinking about, so if anyone has maybe gone through this before or can at least give me some sound advice so that I can have a bit more confidence in my decision, or at least decide which decision I've actually chosen, I would be eternally greatful.

 

I can understand your aversion to religions but to deny Gods existance, I do not.

As you are reading my words, millions of different braincells are in communication with each other and another million are sending away orders to hundreds of different sections in your body and at the same time your [eye]nervescells are (through an extremly complex system) collecting and organizing millions of different light rays. But do we care to ask from where this all came from?
People have asked, the questions have been greeted by a great deal of stark and utter silence. C. Darwin said: "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself orginated"

Denying the obvious because of lack of faith in your religion is not going to make you any smarter. As the worlds most recognized and famous scientist said:

"But though these bodies may indeed persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first deriv'd the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws."
... "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
- Isak Newton

 

don't listen to the whackjob.
This is just confusion from fears or wanting to go to heaven, it has no rational basis. You need to realize there's really nothing to worry about and that only people care about your opinions, not the universe or some kind of superbeing.
If you don't. Religious people will scare you into thinking their absurd book is true by saying your going to hell, you're not going to heaven, etc.
You can also read a bit about different religions, you will find out that it's a waste of time to be scared of one fantasy story or another.

 

PapaWheelie87

Occam believes that humanity desires a purpose.
As a race..we have not set ourselves a purpose.
That is why so many turn to religion in a simple act of asking
"what am i supposed to do with this life"

The mighty fantasies constructed by religion that describe god
and his plan for us are to occam..just that..fantasy.
That human descriptions of a possible god are and have been
total crap.

This does not mean occam is an athiest...He sees much indicative evidence of 'direction' in the titanic wonderland called reality.
Yet no 'conclusive evidence' [and no evidence whatsoever supporting any religious description of a god]

So occam makes his own purpose, and here and there tries to promote humanity to reason and purpose. This life we have appears to be one of the rarest and most valuable things in existance. Self awareness..choice.
reason, love, compassion, imagination... A hundred lifetimes of things to explore and enjoy.

As to a 'god' [direction]

Well..here is one of the most underused yet pertinant ditties ever spoken by humanity about its own understanding.

Insufficient data.

Occam

 

I go outside at night and look at the stars,planets and the moon.I think about what I know about the structure of the earth,the atmosphere.The forms opf life growing on this lovely world.I think back to what we have discovered about the past...The ice ages the deposition of the stones and gravel beneath my feet.I think about the erosion and deposition of organic material that has resulted in the soil I am standing on and feel the wind blowing on my skin........Where could hell possibly be? what principles would it work on? It really doesn't fit into my reality...It makes no sense...I have better things to do,than to worry about someone else's paranoid fantasies.

 

being able to ask the important questions may be more important than obtaining certitude...
ymmv...

 

Well, you are contemplating your theistic state, right? Well, if you're an atheist, that means you are just as firmly committed to there not being a god. You sound like you don't know whether there is one or there isn't, and that makes you agnostic. Most agnostics also believe that there isn't (at least not yet) a way to prove or disprove the existance of any kind of god.

Here's an old quote: "Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not. If he cannot, then he is not all-powerful. If he will not, then he is not all-good." You are correct in saying the Christian god cannot possibly be the epitome of morality. =P

Have you ever read Dante's Inferno? It goes through this imaginative nine circles of Hell, really interesting. You have purgatory, which is where all the believers and non-sinners go just before they move on to heaven. Then, you have the nine circles, each circle representing some increasingly intolerable form of punishment for some sin like greed or pride. The first circle is called Limbo, and it's where all the virtuous non-believers go. In Limbo, there supposedly is no punishment (though there is no reward either). It's described as a place of peacefulness, yet sadness, that is "illuminated by the light of reason, wherein many shades dwell." I don't know about you, but, if hell does exist, I'm not afraid of going there. All the big philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates, etc. are no doubt in Limbo (if it exists at all). We'd be in good company, haha.

First off, you don't have to know if you believe or not right away. But, you may be mistaken in thinking that you should believe because you have no reason not to. People in today's world believe that killing animals is all fun and games, and they believe this because they have no reason not to. There are a million instances like this; you should not believe in something just because other people say you should. Instead, you should only believe in it when you are convinced yourself. Perhaps if you see God or some event occurs where you experience some kind of divine grandeur, then you might want to believe, but it is dangerous to believe in things just because "you should" or "you were raised to." That's the cause of many problems today.

Well, the Bible was written by a slew of people over many years. But ... and here is where many Christians get caught up ... people say that the Bible is so utterly comprehensive and perfect that there is no way that it can be fake. But if you think about it ... this world has two Bibles that came out at the same time: The Quran, and the Bible. Both are equally comprehensive, and yet, both of them can't be right. That means, one of them MUST be fake, which proves that a book so comprehensive and so-called "perfect" COULD have been written, and as a matter of fact, WAS written (though we have no way to confirm which one, if either of them, is real).

Don't worry, we all go through a stage like this. I was a Christian (even a confirmed Christian!) before I realized that I didn't really believe in it. I was also raised in a Christian family, and I'm sure I'll never convince my parents. But, you know what ... there are too many hypocracies and contradictions in the church today. I mean, even as a Christian grade-school kid, I gave more money when the collection plate came around (and many times it was MY money, not my parents') than most of the elderly or devoted people there did. Our church even made announcements that they wouldn't be able to keep beign a church if more money wasn't donated to keep the church up to date, but still nobody did a thing. That kind of urks me, majorly.

Listen ... nobody should decide what you believe for you, but ... you should only consider what you personally know to be truthful when deciding. If you are not sure that something is true, you should not believe it, because that is dangerous and causes tons of problems. Being Christian without a good reason means you will automatically be jaded to tons of other philosophies and viewpoints. Before you decide what you definately believe in, give other viewpoints a chance: Check out Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and even non-religious viewpoints like pantheism and nihilism. If you look at the wealth of viewpoints and beliefs out there, you'll see that Christianity is just one of many, that is no more right or wrong than any of the other viewpoints. Then, you pick one (or come up with one; many people do that) that suits your beliefs. =)

Good luck!

That's entirely untrue, and the quote is misleading. There are many different ways that planets and such could have come to revolve around other bodies. Anyone who understands the law of gravity in-depth can explain it.

Also, I'd like to quote a principal known as Ockham's Razor, which states, "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." What it means is: it's better to say "the planets revolve around the sun because of some unknown force" than it is to say "the planets revolve around the sun because of some unknown force that is generated by God/aliens/etc."

Think about that ... it makes sense to just admit that you don't know, rather than stick in a placeholder for something you can't prove exists. It also means, it is more logical to believe that the universe just popped into existance (or has existed for all time), then it is to believe that a God just popped into existance (or has existed for all time), and then created the universe. That's just complicating and distorting what we know; it causes unnecessary confusion.

That being said, it would also be unfair to say that believing in a God is wrong, because it cannot be proved or disproved. But, you should always remember this: IT CANNOT BE PROVED OR DISPROVED. That means, NOBODY has an answer that is ANY more truer than the next person's answer. I.e. even though cabdizarraq and I see things differently, I am no more correct or incorrect than he is (at least from your viewpoint). An answer to a question like this can only SEEM more right or more wrong, and nobody should let themselves be blinded enough to believe otherwise. We may think we can prove or disprove something, but that is only because we are so convinced that we are right or wrong that we have pushed the facts out of our minds.

Anyway, hope this all helps.

 

(quote)
Here's an old quote: "Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not. If he cannot, then he is not all-powerful. If he will not, then he is not all-good." You are correct in saying the Christian god cannot possibly be the epitome of morality. =P
(end quote)

That's not a logical argument. Most christians would say that God *can* abolish evil, but he chooses not to, because (now read carefully!) it's better to be free and evil, than to be good through compulsion. God allows us free will, which in turn means he has to allow evil. That doesn't make him any less moral.

(quote)
That's entirely untrue, and the quote is misleading. There are many different ways that planets and such could have come to revolve around other bodies. Anyone who understands the law of gravity in-depth can explain it.
(end quote)

The point of the Newton quote is to say that, however much science might be able to explain, it can't (and doesn't try to) explain *why* any of these things happen, or what caused it all in the first place. It is perfectly valid to look at all the complexities of gravity &c., and say that God must have created it all.

To the original poster:

The real point of religion isn't really truth, because that's subjective and largely pointless. The point is to be happy and to behave morally. If christianity provides you with the framework that you need to do those things, then that's the end of it. If you think you need a different religion, then take the decision very seriously. If you don't want to be religious at all, then you'll need to have some kind of moral framework to explain why some things aren't allowed, and a cogent rationalization of the world that allows you to be happy despite the fact that the world is pretty shitty. For me, that comes from Buddhism. But I would be perfectly happy to be a christian, because I can see the real point lurking behind all the bells and smells, and that's what matters - the effect you belief has on you, not whether it's "true".

 

I went through that too.

I was raised Baptist (very fundamentalist) and educated at a Baptist school. I consider muself agnostic now because I believe that a.) it is unlikely that there is a god, and b.) if there is a god, it doesen't matter - he isn't any more concerned with us than the rest of the universe (and who knows, there could by plenty of planets with intelligent life, or any kind of life on them).

I sweated out the hell bit for a while. But I realize "hell" is an idea that has been ingraned into my psychology. I was a very young child, ready to believe whatever I was told, whent he idea was introduced to me. And from then I went to a school that also taught the idea. I was raised thinking "hell" was just as real as the trees outside my window. A child could shake the idea as easily as they shake off the truth about Santa. But an adult who has been raised to accept the idea will have a harder time, since we are much more aware of our mortality for one thing.

I found that once I began to get a stronger idea of what my beliefs were in the area my fears of hell have completely diminished. It takes confidence in your beliefs (or lack of, I guess ) and that will take time. It is something every agnostic/athiest will go through if they believed in hell at some time. But not because hell exists, it is all a matter of psychology.

 

I agree with antimatter as usual.

 

a) I think of you as an extremly smart person, atleast smarter than me(which is not very difficult) so would you mind explaining Newtons misleading words here because appearently the man knew nothing about what he discovered?
b) I didn't even mention that Hikky, there are other ways for the planets to go around each other as you say but this does not explain how this way arose. Newton used logic and basicly meant, the fact that these laws exist can't explain how they first came up.

Both you and I know very well that this is not a scientific law, it cannot apply to everything and it is controlled by different views. For instance, imagine this little scenario when a scientist discusses gravity with a priest(its fake, I made this story up): "Priest: So... what is this strange thing youve been talking about latley? N:You mean the laws of gravity. P: Yes, a invincible and untouchble force which somehow sets the planets into motion, whats up with that. Don't you believe in God? N: Yes I do. P: Then why say God made the planets move around other planets with an unseen force instead of using Occhams razor by saying, God made the planets move only, exluding this strange and untouchble force. "

There is a cath in my example above. First of all we are assuming that God exist, secondly we could ask this priest: Couldnt the Lord use as system for this as He has used systems for many other things but ofcourse, this begs the question. If he doesn't exist, how did it come to being? Using your example, something unliving is controlling the universe by tender and perfect calculations(in every aspect and parameter) without managing it wrong, according to my belief someone alive created this and made it as perfect as we today see it, exluding the Creator would thus not work as you are exluding the one who did the work by saying he is not important. By the same logic, why won't you exlude the designer of you car(if you have one) since you never seen this man(men) by saying they could be exluded through the razor.

Depends of what you mean by saying proving, I believe that Gods existance can be proven through his revelation. But before one mentions anything(I will not menion any quran verses as this is not the appropiate topic), defining proof is essential. By saying proving, I am not speaking about some extremly modified prophecy or some guy rolling around the floor speaking in tounges, nor about people who say: I saw, I heard, I dream this and that.

But what if this man, say about 1400 years ago (you are scenting my hints now arn't you ^^) could have described things that would only be discovered more than thousands of years after his death? What if these things he said or which was said in the book he brought were clear and needed not to be modified, what if these statements made scientists daunt? What if he was illerate, unlearned, and living poor in a uncivlised area (at that time), would you then accept that as proof?
If not your being irrotional and not any different from a fanatic who puts his fingers in his ears in order to avoid hearing comments of his religion(out of fear). If you are willing to accept clear arguments if they indeed are clear, then discussions about these statements could be fruitful, as you are exchanging views rather than debating for the act of debating(like politicians) and I do not like doing that.

"A totally objective examination of it [the Qur'an] in the light of modern knowledge, leads us to recognize the agreement between the two, as has been already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account of the state of knowledge in his day. Such considerations are part of what gives the Qur'anic Revelation its unique place, and forces the impartial scientist to admit his inability to provide an explanation which calls solely upon materialistic reasoning."
This was written by the famous french scientist who after a long while of investigation converted (THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE, 1981, p. 18.)

You may think of this as lucky guesses but this could not be because of the following 2 reasons:
a) They are too many! From the orgins of the universe:
"Professor Alfred Kroner who is one of the world's most famous geologists said: Thinking about many of these questions and thinking where Muhammad came from, he was after all a Bedouin. I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years with very complicated and advanced technological methods that this is the case."
Professor Yushudi Kusan: Director of the Tokyo Observatory," I can say, I am very mush impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur'aan"

to the devolopment of man(in the foetus):

Professor Keith Moore: one of the world's prominent scientists of anatomy and embryology. University of Toronto Canada said(in a press conferene):
"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'aan about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from Allaah, or Allaah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of Allaah."

from the science of genetics:
Joe Leigh Simpson: Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the North Western University in Chicago in the United States of America. Professor Simpson said: It follows, I think, that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion, but in fact religion can guide science by adding revelation to some traditional scientific approaches. That there exists statements in the Qur'aan shown by science to be valid, which supports knowledge in the Qur'aan having been derived from Allaah."

to the science of marines:
Professor William W. Hay is one of the best known marine scientists in the United States, Satellite photography and emote-sensing techniques. Professor Hay replied(when discussing seas in the quran);
"I find it very interesting that this sort of information is in the ancient scripture of the Holy Qur'aan. And I have no way of knowing where they would come from, but I think it is extremely interesting that they are there and that this work is going on to discover it, the meaning of some of the passages. Professor Hay: Well, I would think it must be the divine being!"

This begs the question, could one man have known all these things? They are far too many, this was noted by Dr Persaud:
Dr. T.V.N. Persaud is a Professor of Anatomy and Head of the Department of Anatomy, and a professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Canada. He is the author or editor of 25 books, and has published over 181 scientific papers. In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, he said:
"It seems to me that Muhammad was a very ordinary man. He could not read or write. In fact, he was illiterate. We are talking about 1400 years ago. You have someone who was illiterate making profound pronouncement and statements and are amazingly accurate about scientific nature. I personally cannot see how this could be mere chance. There are too many accuracy's and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind in concerning that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements"

b) The second argument against lucky guesses(apart from scattered variation) is the fact that it, unlike other scriptures, it does not make scientific mistakes. If all of this were guesses by this man, then how(think about this one, Hicky or Occam) could he escape from making a singe mistake?

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"
Maurice Bucaille, THE BIBLE, THE QUR'AN AND SCIENCE, 1978, p. 125

P.S: Saying "The Quran, and the Bible. Both are equally comprehensive, and yet, both of them can't be right." acually as muslims believing in the bible is a must, but believing in the fact that it has been modified by men is also a must.

 

Cab

The planets accreted from the solar disc some 5gigayears back
The disc was already spinning due to conservation of angular momentum.
Pluto is a captured planet.
Many moons accrete from planetary disks...but some are captured..

The stuff that formed the planets was ALREADY in motion about the big momma/ the sun. The planets are DETRIUS left over during the formation of a star.

Occam

PS..Gravity is not a 'force' It is the warping of 3 dimensional space by mass. When you trip over..You are actually sliding down the warped fabric of space towards the gravity 'well' created by the matter called earth.

 

Accruing ad nauseaum, and ad infinitum

from an ancestral, celestial, exordial compendium,
an amalgamous jumble rumbles and tumbles,
lumbering along like a fumbling stumblebum,
mingling and bumping things, mixing and clumping things,
wiggling & jiggling, higglety piggelty, a globular hob nob,
or blossoming logjam of flotsam and jetsam,
or scrambling maelstrom of mayhem and bedlam
rambling onward at maximum momentum,
a flourishing mish mash bashes and crashes
It caroms harum scarum through this continuum ,
In this sweltering smelter, it melts helter skelter
a vast and voluminous vacuum its premium medium,
compelling a swelling pell mell stellar gelling,
still milling and chilling it distills willy nilly
an enigmatic erratic concentric concoction
The implication of this astral accumulation
The incarnation of this concentration and combination
Is the foundation and formation of constellations in this location
Whose consummation is a conglomeration of planetary procreation.

 

Blackguard

exactly

Occam

 

You do have a point.

Personally, I think that we need evil just as much as we need good. I mean, if there is no evil, how can anyone appreciate what is good, because they've never experienced evil?

Regardless ... there was no evil around to cause Lucifer to fall from grace; if Lucifer had only experienced good, how could he have become purely evil? Unless God exposed him to evil and helped him become evil for a grand purpose ... but then is it right for God to wage war against him?

Furthermore, is it right for God to give us free will, and also ignorance, and tell us to be ignorant (and not, say, eat from the tree of knowledge), and then punish us through eternal damnation and torture, when we make a single stupid choice (to be evil) when we can't even comprehend concepts like pure good and evil? That sounds kind of ... well, you know. Evil.

I don't think it's valid, I think it's just rationalization (coming up with an excuse so that you're not at fault). I mean, just because things are super complex doesn't mean that a higher intelligence had to have created everything; and it DOES make more sense to say that the Universe just up and existed rather than God (who later creates the Universe). That just seems like an unnecessary step. I also think that, because humans have only a limited capability to understand, we seem to complicate our lives and see more complexity than there actually is. In today's world, our lives are so complex not because of some God, but because of what we've done. Our lives were nowhere near as complex when we were just becoming a species (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Well, I just think Newton (who probably believed wholeheartedly in God, and may (or may not) have been subject to bias) said as he did because he was rationalizing, justifying his own belief in God by showing how complex what he discovered was, and not actually considering that a God didn't create gravity. That doesn't make him any more or less of a genius in my opinion, it just sounds to me like he was trying to come up with an answer for the question of "how did gravity get here?"

That is true, and I agree with you for the most part, but there are other people who would disagree, such as a Buddhist, where they believe that everything that exists contains within it the means for its arising and the means for its end. For example, a human being has the means for its arising (genetic code, the "blueprint" of the human body) and the means for its end (a way to kill itself), and similarly, the Universe and its laws also contain ways to end and re-begin itself.

Good story, but I think you missed the point a little bit, hehe. Instead of saying "God made the planets move around eachother because of some unseen force," a person should be saying "The planets move around eachother because of some unseen force." It would exclude the existance of God, because there is no definitive proof (other than speculation, and the Bible/Quran, which many people don't consider proof, though you might) that God exists.

Ockham's Razor just means, if you have no viable reason to believe in something, you shouldn't tie the belief into other beliefs, because it makes more sense to only believe in the things you do have proof for. (And as far as holy scripture goes, I would find it just as hard to believe in God from a book like the Bible as I would to believe in dragons from a book like Lord of the Rings.)

To the original poster: I hope this discussion is helping you. =)

Also, cabdizzaraq ... it's not that I presuppose that all of life's calculations are handled by some unliving being. I just think that, it makes more sense to believe in the Universe as a living, conscious, omnipotent being, than to believe in a God as such, who creates the Universe and otherwise does not show any proof of his existance. That's why I'm a panentheist (I see the Universe as God, in a sense; not necessarily living or conscious, but that it could possibly be living or conscious, and that we are a part of it regardless).

I think that, in a case like this, it isn't definitive proof, it's only suggestive. And, just from mere speculation, humans are constantly suggesting that there is a God, just from the thinking "Well, all this junk had to come into existance SOMEHOW, right? And it's so complex, someone must have created it!" But, when you don't have any definitive physical evidence that can be repeated over and over again without fail to prove it, it just seems to me like thinking along those lines is just speculating as to what COULD be out there, not coming up with an answer or proof of what IS out there. I don't deny the possibility of God (or anything for that matter), I just don't think it's rational to believe that there DEFINATELY IS a God.

Yeah, politicians suck, don't they? Hehe. Exchanging and comparing views is much easier. =)

Also ... history has shown us a number of absolutely brilliant minds that were capable of predicting certain things in the future, just because they were very perceptive. I don't think that it's definte proof of divinity or of God just because one or more people (out of billions that have existed over tens of thousands of years) make some very wise predictions, even if they are illiterate. And, I do think that the Bible and Quran, as literal or liberal as you want to think of them, contain many valid points and also many happenings. And heck, I won't even dispute that Jesus or Muhammed never lived; I do think they lived, and that they were really, really freakin' smart. I just think that these books and writings may contain a number of exaggerated stories, with accompanied exaggerated logic.

Unfortunately, I know very little about the Quran ... the best I can do is refute the Bible. If you take it in a literal sense, there is no way a guy could survive inside a "big fish" for days, and then be regurgitated with some kind of divine wisdom. If you take it in a liberal sense, then there are potentially a million different ways that you could interpret it.

I think that the Bible and Quran are open to interpretation, and that, from one person's view, they can make sense, but from another person's view, they can seem incredibly unrelated and illogical. It's easy to say "there are no mistakes" if you look at a holy writing with an extremely open, interpretive mind, because the things written down could be interpreted in thousands or different ways.

 

look im gonna skip reading any of this and just show you why this following line is bullshit and shows how you are unintelligent

evidently, if our world was any different to how it is now, there would be no life.

for any planet that doesnt have the right conditions for life, then there will be no life

but what about the planets that are suited for life?

earth came before people, the universe has no motive, and so it did not anticipate life.

however if there is a planet that IS suited to life, then after enough time, life will form. and if it doesnt, then there wont be animals like humans questioning these topics, and so it wont matter.

its like, when a person asks 'why did I have to be born into a bad family'

well that family had a child

the result of having the child is the person who is capable of asking the question.
if you werent in that family, then someone else would be, because every person has a mind. that mind would be YOU. and the preffered life would not be you.

the very fact that we are here on earth, in scientific terms, is because our planet is so perfectly suited.

you are trying to use your logic of motive and such. of course its not a coincidence. that assumes that there are two seperate pathways interjoining, ie, the earth and life.

but they are not two seperate things that happened to stumble apon eachother. one is the product of the other.

its like, you drop a pebble into the pond and when you see that the ripples spread at the same time the rock falls, you go 'oh look at that, what a coincidence, the rock hit the water at the exact same time the ripples started!!


i hope you understand, i used a few examples there

 

ie
"We live in a world perfect to suit organic life, this cannot be a coincidence."

you have tried to say that 'we live' is in coincidence with the world being 'perfect to suit organic life'

when the only reason 'we live' is because we are on a planet that is 'perfect to suit organic life'.

 

oh and for the record, i believe god can be proved or disproved by simply studying life more, and particularly brain chemistry.

the thing that is the biggest block between god and no god is the idea of a 'soul'

we can show that it either is a group of defined chemical processes, or else it is truelly a home for a spiritual entity

 

Yah...way to go
on the deducing
whether You exist