So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me.
I believe God does not lie: the story He tells us is accurate. Demons try to draw us away from it, but it remains true. You have been conditioned to believe it unlikely, but it is not so: God knows far more of the world than a mortal.
How the hell you know all that? You make a lot of assertions, but give no proof.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
Randomness is an ungoverned process. Nature only produces randomness, even if that randomness is subject to certain laws. Life forming relationships that fit together like puzzle pieces is nonsensical. Either evolution would make great changes which we should observe, or it makes changes too small to make a difference because they would vanish as much as continue, because the process is governed by randomness.
Randomness is not a process, and it is not ungoverned. Nature does NOT only produce randomness, in fact nature usually tends to favour harmonic progressions, and other non-random processes. In fact, most random sources are not random at all, just terribly complex, to the point of being almost impossible to predict (like thermal noise), but it is not random. And evolution makes great changes, of course, over the course of millions and millions of years. Viruses (which are not living beings), people, microscopic nylon eating bacteria, and nuclear reactors are all the outcome of nature (yes, we are part of nature). If you just call everything nature does "random", you are going to miss the point that it isnt. And the process ISNT driven by randomness, it is an objective driven process. As I said, information entropy is a complex subject to understand, but I will give you an example so you can get it.
Imagine you have 20 coins. Then, I tell you: "Flip those coins, and you have to get exactly, with H being head and C being cross:
HHCHCCHHCHCCCHCHHCCH "
That is a random process. The chances of that happening, are minnimal.
Imagine you have 20 +1 coins. Then, I tell you: "Flip those coins. If what you got matches the objective, you flip the coin 6 times. If you get 1 or more heads(0), it stays, else, you change it. If what you got does not match the objective, flip the coin 6 times. If you get 5 or more heads(0), it stays, else, you change it. Now count how many iterations does it take you to get the objective"
In fact, Im going to try it myself, with a true random generator, to get the sequence:
00101100101110100110
First try,with stay values: (S)tay or (N)ot:
01010000110100011011
00101100101110100110<-------Objective
11111101000000111110
11101101100100011100
10111000110001100101
11101000011110011001
11101100011000101111
00111110011000100110
54636412243211434533, resulting in:
00000100101100100010 (only 4 different bits from 00101100101110100110)
Second generation:
00000100101100100010
00101100101110100110<-------Objective
10011000011011111011
10000101101001001011
01101011000101101111
00110001011100001110
11001001010111011110
11110011110111100110
43333125243435325463, resulting in:
00101000101110100110 (One diferent bit from 00101100101110100110)
Two generations, and we have 95% accuracy. Information can be extracted from randomness, it is just thermodynamically inefficient. Which doesnt matter because Earth has a power source called the sun.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
It is not an assumption: it is a concept that is tested. If there exists such a being, it is God. God exists, so there is such a being.
No, it is not. The argument pressuposes that in order to "prove" that a god exists. Try reading the sylogism yourself, you will see that it is a premise, not the conclussion. The conclussion is that there is a god.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
Pray to know the truth. You do not need to pray to a deity by name; God would not only inspire faith in those that already have it. God wishes all to come to Him. If you ask with an open heart and an open mind to know the truth, to know whether He or any creature is real, His Holy Spirit will cme to you and you will know.
But what do I ask? How? I ask nature to tell me the truth, through testing, though science. Do you call that praying, too? Because, as far as I know, praying consists in telepathically calling a deity, for forgiveness, or something, that depends on the religion. It usually involves using a formula such as the Lord's Prayer, which is specifical to a religion. Some religions require to do some stuff while praying, like how muslims orientate towards the Meca. Most, if not all of those formulas cant be done at the same time. I cant pray in Allah's name using the Lord's prayer, that's heresy in Islam. And praying to Jesus Christ using Salat is heresy in Christianism. Reverse Pascal Wager.