I miss God

[Squiggle]

This is a bit of an odd thread, not sure what I want out of it or what anyone can do with it per se, but these thoughts are on my mind and I want to express them.

Humans have a natural tendency towards pattern seeking behaviour, anthropomorphization of animals, random objects, a sense of connectedness. Basically, the spiritual inclination, we all have it. I know its irrational. I know that when I feel a nice breeze, and a single solitary leaf is carried on that wind to land in my palm, that its just the wind. But I feel and have always felt a presence in that breeze, or in a tree. Alone in a room I have never felt alone. I was essentially an animist for all intents and purposes as a young kid, absent any religious upbringing I just created my own kind of spirituality. When I was younger it was easy to lean into this natural tendency of people (a tendency I suppose I might have at a stronger than average degree), the feeling of numinous and connectedness. The trees were alive, the grass! Songs played in order to tell me a message! I was here for a reason. It was easy to feel that way well into my teen years and beyond, but at a certain point I had to grow up and accept not only that these feelings were bull****, but that God was imaginary. And if he werent, certainly undesirable. But thats an ambivalent feeling at best. It doesnt do anything for fact that I can feel a presence in the wind, and hating an old friend doesnt mean I miss him any less.

[Abdülmecid I]

Humans have a natural tendency towards pattern seeking behaviour, anthropomorphization of animals, random objects, a sense of connectedness. Basically, the spiritual inclination, we all have it. I know its irrational.

I'm not certain if that's exactly what you meant, but pattern-seeking behaviour and generally attempting at justifying situations and phenomenons even through supernatural explanations should not simply be dismissed as irrational, but it could be considered as a direct product of humanity's survival tactics. Finding the reason about why things occur the way they do, ranging from avoiding predators to securing a safe pregnancy, is essential for the prosperity of societies and even single human beings. Experience, accumulated thanks to endless trying and frequent failures, which is transmitted to the younger generations, also thanks to the children's inclination to unquestionably obey and mimic the elders, then provides society with the best available plan for survival and increase in well-being. Of course, due to humanity's limited knowledge and capability to interpret the most complicated phenomenons, whose source generally remains outside the realm easily examined through our senses, as well as our relative impotence to influence nature, certain phenomenons, whose number is gradually being decreased, as sience progresses, require rather flimsy excuses, which form the base of, initially, animism, which usually, depending on how society evolves, may transform into comparatively more complicated and sophisticated theological structures.

Someone could claim that such an argument doesn't make sense from a Darwinistic perspective, because it leads humanity to unnecessary waste of precious energy and resources, from sacrificing otherwise innocent goats to building magnificent ziggurats and Cathedrals, which could be employed into more fruitful activities. However, in my opinion, such a process of creating a religion is probably inevitable, while it could also offer psychological comfort to its followers, by presenting them (perhaps, misleadingly, but that hardly matters) with a badly needed safety net, from which they can protect themselves against powerful and uncontrollable threats, like a drought or a terminal illness. After all, the clergy and their congregation were always ready to limit the negative consequences of unnecessary waste of resources, as the ancient Greeks insisting that their Pantheon was mainly interested in only smelling what was sacrificed and then eaten by the participants of the religious ceremony. Not to mention that spending money on majestic construction projects, instead of hoarding it, while also establishing well-organised, hierarchical institutions, may actually contribute positively to the economy, instead of undermining it.

[basics]

Squiggle,

It is written that God has left His mark on everything so that we have no excuse for rejecting Him and that all the way back to the fall of man. However, even then He declared that a " seed " would come to contend with Satan for the souls of men and that was fulfilled when Jesus Christ went on that cross to shed blood for all those that would seek Him. He closed the gap that existed from the fall meaning God and man could once again communicate with one another, curse free. The only proviso was and still is that a man must be born again by and of the Spirit of God and that's why it is also written that, " No man might come to the Father but by Me and no man might come to Me except that the Father draws him." In other words if you are seeking God then rest assured that God is seeking you and that being the case, ask and it shall be given to you the very promise God made to all men at the fall. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

[Prodromos]

This is a bit of an odd thread, not sure what I want out of it or what anyone can do with it per se, but these thoughts are on my mind and I want to express them.

Humans have a natural tendency towards pattern seeking behaviour, anthropomorphization of animals, random objects, a sense of connectedness. Basically, the spiritual inclination, we all have it. I know its irrational. I know that when I feel a nice breeze, and a single solitary leaf is carried on that wind to land in my palm, that its just the wind. But I feel and have always felt a presence in that breeze, or in a tree. Alone in a room I have never felt alone. I was essentially an animist for all intents and purposes as a young kid, absent any religious upbringing I just created my own kind of spirituality. When I was younger it was easy to lean into this natural tendency of people (a tendency I suppose I might have at a stronger than average degree), the feeling of numinous and connectedness. The trees were alive, the grass! Songs played in order to tell me a message! I was here for a reason. It was easy to feel that way well into my teen years and beyond, but at a certain point I had to grow up and accept not only that these feelings were bull****, but that God was imaginary. And if he werent, certainly undesirable. But thats an ambivalent feeling at best. It doesnt do anything for fact that I can feel a presence in the wind, and hating an old friend doesnt mean I miss him any less.

Nah it was not because you grew up. You just were insecure and therefore let society break you. Nowadays, believing in the supernatural is considered "uncool." Not strong, intelligent, masculine. And so you subconsciously stopped believing to preserve either your pride or your reputation.

It is incredibly common nowadays, especially with young people. They believe in supernatural beings while young and stop in their late teens-20s, because that's what the other kids do.

My advice? Stop associating with irreligious people for a while and become immersed in spirituality. (that includes internet, tv, etc). Go back to that mental and physical place you were in during childhood. I.e remember who you really are or who you were before society changed you.

Once you have gained enough confidence, you can return to the irreligious world, but this time you'll feel secure and equal to them, without any shame of your beliefs.

Personally I was in a somewhat slightly similar position, but I have always been confident enough to stay true to myself. Virtually all my friends in childhood and today are rabid atheists. As long as you are confident, you will never change your principles for other people.

[Himster]

Of course, the crutch of irrationality has an immensely comforting quality. I don't think anyone can claim immunity from such a tempting embrace.
Recovering heroine addicts have the same issue... an unkind analogy perhaps, but can anyone say it's inaccurate?

I think most people who are "atheists" are just following the herd and infect the label with all sorts of implied dogmas, being in essence just godless Christians: the second worst kind of Christian.

as a young kid, absent any religious upbringing I just created my own kind of spirituality.

I'm pretty sure I remember you were a super hard core Christian back in the day, or what it someone with a similar name?
I think your inclination is towards extremes. I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of the right guy. Well, this is the Ethos, Mores et Monastica sub-forum not the personal advice sub-forum..... it, this is more interesting.

It doesnt do anything for fact that I can feel a presence in the wind, and hating an old friend doesnt mean I miss him any less.

Feeling phantom presences and so forth isn't uncommon. It is decidedly banal.
What is noteworthy is the fact that you think it is noteworthy. This gives a very strong implication as to your deepest inclination: towards faith, a desire for faith.

[Muizer]

If spirituality is something between you and something divine, relying on others to give meaning to it can only warp and debase it. If it is just an internal dialogue, the views of others are irrelevant.

[bigdaddy1204]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Dr. Legend again". It was good post and true in many ways.

The OP raises an interesting point. I believe that many aspects of this world we live in are completely crazy anyway, so why should we abandon our own identity to please some idea of what other people think is 'cool'?
So I tend to agree with Dr. Legend's suggestion. Thing is, there are many ways to view god, e.g. as energy, or even the universe itself. Spirituality goes beyond the concepts and dogmas of "a man who lives in the sky". It's about something much deeper and more elemental. This energy speaks to us through thunder, the rain, the sun, the clouds, storms, waves on the sea, the alternation of day and night, experiences in our lives - perhaps it is the sum total of existence itself.

I'd say it'd be worth exploring this feeling you have a bit further. At the very least, there are a ton of interesting books to be read about it from a virtually infinite spectrum of viewpoints. Or perhaps you could simply prefer experiencing nature at first hand and allow insights to come to you. Either way it's really up to you but it sounds like there is something valuable and interesting happening in your life and it is surely worth seeing where it leads.

[Iskar]

This is a bit of an odd thread, not sure what I want out of it or what anyone can do with it per se, but these thoughts are on my mind and I want to express them.

Humans have a natural tendency towards pattern seeking behaviour, anthropomorphization of animals, random objects, a sense of connectedness. Basically, the spiritual inclination, we all have it. I know its irrational. I know that when I feel a nice breeze, and a single solitary leaf is carried on that wind to land in my palm, that its just the wind. But I feel and have always felt a presence in that breeze, or in a tree. Alone in a room I have never felt alone. I was essentially an animist for all intents and purposes as a young kid, absent any religious upbringing I just created my own kind of spirituality. When I was younger it was easy to lean into this natural tendency of people (a tendency I suppose I might have at a stronger than average degree), the feeling of numinous and connectedness. The trees were alive, the grass! Songs played in order to tell me a message! I was here for a reason. It was easy to feel that way well into my teen years and beyond, but at a certain point I had to grow up and accept not only that these feelings were bull****, but that God was imaginary. And if he werent, certainly undesirable. But thats an ambivalent feeling at best. It doesnt do anything for fact that I can feel a presence in the wind, and hating an old friend doesnt mean I miss him any less.

An interesting account. I would raise two main points in response to it:
1) From a scientific point of view God is of course imaginary. Most people react to the realisation that there will and can be no scientific proof for a deity with simple rejection of the idea. However, there is actually no reason to reject the idea on every level of cognition just because it does not hold on the scientific level. Faith as a personal connection with the divine can be perfectly well maintained on a subjective and emotional level, as long as one does not commit to follies like making scientific claims based on religious creeds (like young earthers do). It requires a bit more mental discipline than naive childhood beliefs, of course, to keep actual faith (how we relate us and others to a common transcendent concept) separate from mere magical thinking ("if I pray God will make the rain stop").

2) Unlike your idea of God your emotions and feelings described above are not scientifically baseless. If you felt a certain way back then, then you did so no matter whether God exists or not. (You might even break this down to the neurophysiological level, but I am not a great friend of the mechanistic approach to the human mind, due to logical inconsistencies emerging when the mind tries to deconstruct itself using scientific models created by that very mind.) Anyway, the point is, while people may call bullcrap on the assertion that God exists in a scientifically provable way, they cannot do so on your emotions related to that, and if those emotions made you feel good as a human being while causing no harm to others, why should that be bad?

I would, however, disagree with Dr. Legend's suggestion to cut ties with the "profane" world to refoster faith. If faith as subjective conviction is to be of any worth it needs to be forged in the fires of doubt, scepticism and critical discourse with people not sharing it. Don't be afraid that critical arguments might force you to abandon parts of it for logical consistency or other reasons - it will help to identify the truly relevant parts, cut away the slag and make yourself become much clearer about why you actually hold that faith.

[fkizz]

How many times a day do you give your heart a direct manual command to beat and how many times a day you command your lungs to breath? Do you command your liver to work?

If it happens naturally, automatically then there is some hidden very well designed intelligence inside your body, taking care of you.
Such a thing did not happen by "uninterrupted very long streak of luck" over millions and millions of years (which is what pure random darwinism would require), unless you believe in a 0,000000000001% event streak having come true, which ironically is a miracle by itself aswell, even if a numbers one.

And take some time to consider on how all the zeitgeist and culture around you wants you desperatly to kneel before the Materialistic view of the world, to the point of practically enforcing a new (ironically atheistic) Dogma of Omni-Materialism. Yet another pure coincidence to add to the list?

[Sar1n]

Geez. fkizz and basics never fail. fkizz, how many times have you ignored someone trying to explain to you basic facts about science and evolution? And basics...just try to see world without the thick layer of Bible over it for once.

Anyway, to the topic. While I recommend you to explore this feeling, I can't agree with recommendation to seek out other people with similar feeling, or read about such stuff, at least at first.

You feel a certain way about the world. Everyone does, and everyone feels different. And every single feeling is equally valid, and equally likely to be true reflection of reality (if there is a shared reality at all, but that's a topic for another time). You let others' gods change yours once, don't let it happen again. So go out, follow the feeling. It is part of the way how you percieve the world, part of what makes you unique. Just accept it, explore it yourself, see where it leads you.

To go a bit on a tangent here, this is one of reasons why I hate religions. For making people scrap their own personal gods in favour of someone else's idea, while their own god is just as likely.

[basics]

Sar1n,

My experience of God is built purely on proving that what He says is true and so far He has not let me down. When God had written, " In the beginning God ctreated the heaven and the earth," in those words lie all that science requires for us to be here. Time, space and matter are all in that sentence and when He had finished His work what was left was an up and running planet mature in every way surrounded by the sun, moon and all the other stars. For all the trillians spent on trying to disprove that has to date been a failure and strange as it may seem science has not stopped people all across this globe actually embracing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Science and knowledge along with all the ism's that exist have failed but Jesus lives on.

[Prodromos]

I would, however, disagree with Dr. Legend's suggestion to cut ties with the "profane" world to refoster faith. If faith as subjective conviction is to be of any worth it needs to be forged in the fires of doubt, scepticism and critical discourse with people not sharing it. Don't be afraid that critical arguments might force you to abandon parts of it for logical consistency or other reasons - it will help to identify the truly relevant parts, cut away the slag and make yourself become much clearer about why you actually hold that faith.

My impression of the OP is that he didn't leave spirituality because it was disproved, but simply because he felt it was "irrational" and "childish" to continue believing. However, what is "childish" or "irrational" is very subjective, and is dependent on our worldview, or culture.

That's why I suggested he go back to the environment he was in during childhood, whether physically or mentally, so as to stop feeling overwhelmed by the naturalistic environment he is in now. It is a good suggestion and I don't think you should dismiss it out of hand.

Our environment has a big effect on our mentality. If you are palling around with people of a different worldview, you will slowly adapt to it bit by bit, until one day, you're a completely different person. You have to be very confident to stick to your guns, to stand out, to be different. People are more afraid of public speaking than of death. They are extremely reluctant to stand out and be judged by their peers. They'd rather keep their head down and get along with everyone. I'd guess most people do this subconsciously. Nobody consciously thinks "I'm too weak and insecure to fight for what I believe. I will just abandon my principles."

Here's an example.

1) From a scientific point of view God is of course imaginary. Most people react to the realisation that there will and can be no scientific proof for a deity with simple rejection of the idea. However, there is actually no reason to reject the idea on every level of cognition just because it does not hold on the scientific level. Faith as a personal connection with the divine can be perfectly well maintained on a subjective and emotional level, as long as one does not commit to follies like making scientific claims based on religious creeds (like young earthers do). It requires a bit more mental discipline than naive childhood beliefs, of course, to keep actual faith (how we relate us and others to a common transcendent concept) separate from mere magical thinking ("if I pray God will make the rain stop").

Maintaining one's masculinity is very important for almost all guys. It can override many other instincts and wishes, including self-preservation.

In humanity, men are strong, and women are weak. When a woman believes in spirituality, nobody thinks anything of it. It is in women's nature to be naive and to believe in fantasy. They are not expected to do anything, but simply to have things done for them by men.

However, when you say that spirituality is unscientific and imaginary, you're implying that anyone who believes in it is less masculine. That, if he had a problem in the material/real world, such, say, his wife or child being attacked, he would be less able to live up to his role as a man, and defend them because he is weak and lives in an imaginary world, like a woman. Only women are allowed to believe in things beyond their control. Men are supposed to be cynical, realistic, omnipotent.

What is the average young man supposed to think when everyone tells him he is weak, stupid, childish, unmasculine, for believing in a sky daddy and "fairy tales"? In order to preserve all his pride and reputation, he will of course renounce spirituality, consciously or subconsciously.

P.S.:

There is plenty of scientific evidence for the spiritual: countless billions of people in history have had spiritual encounters.

[Iskar]

My impression of the OP is that he didn't leave spirituality because it was disproved, but simply because he felt it was "irrational" and "childish" to continue believing. However, what is "childish" or "irrational" is very subjective, and is dependent on our worldview, or culture.

That's why I suggested he go back to the environment he was in during childhood, whether physically or mentally, so as to stop feeling overwhelmed by the naturalistic environment he is in now. It is a good suggestion and I don't think you should dismiss it out of hand.

Our environment has a big effect on our mentality. If you are palling around with people of a different worldview, you will slowly adapt to it bit by bit, until one day, you're a completely different person. You have to be very confident to stick to your guns, to stand out, to be different. People are more afraid of public speaking than of death. They are extremely reluctant to stand out and be judged by their peers. They'd rather keep their head down and get along with everyone. I'd guess most people do this subconsciously. Nobody consciously thinks "I'm too weak and insecure to fight for what I believe. I will just abandon my principles."

You ignore the reciprocity there is between the individual and its environment. Said environment is not an unreachable monolithic block but consists of individuals itself whose each environment you contribute to. As much as the people around you may challenge your beliefes, you have the same effect on their beliefs. If people of spiritual convictions withdraw from their environment they not only foster a faith that is ultimately incapable of dealing with opposition and disagreement but they also surrender the social environment to the opposition. In the field of religious/spiritual convictions where there can be no empirical evidence and the prevalence of an idea is based on discourse alone this is fatal.

Maintaining one's masculinity is very important for almost all guys. It can override many other instincts and wishes, including self-preservation.

In humanity, men are strong, and women are weak. When a woman believes in spirituality, nobody thinks anything of it. It is in women's nature to be naive and to believe in fantasy. They are not expected to do anything, but simply to have things done for them by men.

However, when you say that spirituality is unscientific and imaginary, you're implying that anyone who believes in it is less masculine. That, if he had a problem in the material/real world, such, say, his wife or child being attacked, he would be less able to live up to his role as a man, and defend them because he is weak and lives in an imaginary world, like a woman. Only women are allowed to believe in things beyond their control. Men are supposed to be cynical, realistic, omnipotent.

What is the average young man supposed to think when everyone tells him he is weak, stupid, childish, unmasculine, for believing in a sky daddy and "fairy tales"? In order to preserve all his pride and reputation, he will of course renounce spirituality, consciously or subconsciously.

No wonder you run into strange positions with such a premise. You're basically saying women have no agency and men are supposed to be one-dimensional fact-oriented. That is one of the saddest social models I have seen in a long time and, what's more, it is philosophically and logically untenable.

You also need to make an important differentiation (although differentiations does not seem to be a strong point of your above perspective): "Unscientific" refers to ideas/procedures/opinions that are subject to the scientific method's standards, but happen to ignore it. Spirituality/Religion are a different field of cognition and are, at most, a-scientific. What you describe as "sky daddy" and "fairy tales" is exactly the magical thinking I denounced above that has little to do with actual sprituality. You're also mixing up "rational" with "scientific". You can be perfectly rational about your faith, even though it is not scientifically graspable/veri- or falsifiable, simply by maintaining the intrinsic logical consistency of your convictions and their compatibility with the other fields of human conduct, where they happen to meet.

P.S.:

There is plenty of scientific evidence for the spiritual: countless billions of people in history have had spiritual encounters.

NB: Evidence for personal experiences described as spiritual (faith) =/= evidence for the supposed object of said spirituality (god). That was my main point above: God may or may not "exist" (whatever that means for a being beyond observability), but faith as a human experience is doubtlessly real.

[Sar1n]

Come on...do we have to hijack another thread to try again and teach you basic facts about science? Running out of time so I have to be brief.

Sar1n,

My experience of God is built purely on proving that what He says is true and so far He has not let me down. When God had written, " In the beginning God ctreated the heaven and the earth," in those words lie all that science requires for us to be here. Time, space and matter are all in that sentence and when He had finished His work what was left was an up and running planet mature in every way surrounded by the sun, moon and all the other stars. For all the trillians spent on trying to disprove that has to date been a failure and strange as it may seem science has not stopped people all across this globe actually embracing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Science and knowledge along with all the ism's that exist have failed but Jesus lives on.

Despite your beliefs, science never tried to disprove god. It simply states that god is irrelevant to it, for a good reason. Basic premise of science is, very simply, asking "how", and then proceeding to explain the phenomena under premises of determinism and causality. For that reason, the idea of god is irrelevant to science, as the idea of god is inherently not bound by these, so no phenomena can be attributed to it. And guess what...it works. The proof to you is simply the fact that you use a device created thanks to applied science to view this message.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for the spiritual: countless billions of people in history have had spiritual encounters.

There is only evidence for spiritual tendencies of humans. The spiritual phenomena, however...well, see what I wrote above. It applies to any spiritual phenomena, not just the idea of god.

[basics]

Sar1n,

Really, then what is Darwin's theory all about? What is the purpose of the Hadron Collider? Why is creation not allowed in schools across the globe?

[Iskar]

Really, then what is Darwin's theory all about? What is the purpose of the Hadron Collider?

To understand how things work - not even touching the question why they work or who/what may have "set them in motion". The answer to the latter question(s) is entirely subjective and may well be "God" for a religious person (which would include me), while the answer to the former question is bound to be the same for everybody (unless you disregard logics and choose to live with high cognitive dissonance).

Creation is being taught in schools - in religion classes, not science classes, because that's what you do: Teaching every subject in its appropriate class, creation in religion classes, cosmology and elementary particles in physics classes, evolution in biology classes. Conflicts arise only for those that confuse the subjects.

[Muizer]

When God had written, " In the beginning God ctreated the heaven and the earth," in those words lie all that science requires for us to be here. Time, space and matter are all in that sentence and when He had finished His work what was left was an up and running planet mature in every way surrounded by the sun, moon and all the other stars.

Perhaps we were all created yesterday. How would you know? All our memories He implanted in our brains as part of the design, before setting everything in motion. Everything you thought you experienced you did not.

[Himster]

As usual, Iskar is right and everyone else is wrong.

You can be perfectly rational about your faith, even though it is not scientifically graspable/veri- or falsifiable, simply by maintaining the intrinsic logical consistency of your convictions and their compatibility with the other fields of human conduct, where they happen to meet.

Can you give some difficult examples. The compatibility of the tale of Exodus and science/the laws of nature for instance.

Also, as an aside: Would you agree that faith can only meaningfully exist concerning the unbelievable, ie. if it is believable/rational then it undermines and demeans the essential qualities faith?

[fkizz]

Geez. fkizz and basics never fail. fkizz, how many times have you ignored someone trying to explain to you basic facts about science and evolution? And basics...just try to see world without the thick layer of Bible over it for once.

I hope you realize I passed exams to join engineering university, and had the option to join biology or biochemestry based degree, before seeing the calling in something more accounting related.

Point being, while I'm not a professional biologist or medic, you're not talking to someone who does not know those areas. Even Pope Francis has a Masters Degree in Chemestry. So much for le science "Disproving" religion.

In humanity, men are strong, and women are weak. When a woman believes in spirituality, nobody thinks anything of it. It is in women's nature to be naive and to believe in fantasy. They are not expected to do anything, but simply to have things done for them by men.

However, when you say that spirituality is unscientific and imaginary, you're implying that anyone who believes in it is less masculine. That, if he had a problem in the material/real world, such, say, his wife or child being attacked, he would be less able to live up to his role as a man, and defend them because he is weak and lives in an imaginary world, like a woman. Only women are allowed to believe in things beyond their control. Men are supposed to be cynical, realistic, omnipotent.

What is the average young man supposed to think when everyone tells him he is weak, stupid, childish, unmasculine, for believing in a sky daddy and "fairy tales"? In order to preserve all his pride and reputation, he will of course renounce spirituality, consciously or subconsciously.

You raise a good point. There was a lot of subversion going into culture to sell spirituality as an effeminate thing...

Until XVIII century "spirituality" for males implied accepting and not fearing death in case you had to physically fight to defend your family or were picked for the draft for example. So the chance of fleeing in a "fight or flight" situation would drastically drop. To fight even if all was lost: this is what spirituality for males Traditionally implied for millenia, but hidden nowadays.

That type of spirituality can be seen everywhere: From typical military family, to knighthood, to bushido, to templars, to janisseries, etc.

Of course some people will find such male warrior ethos as burdening and will prefer materialism if it raises chances of fleeing in one of those scenarios.

It's no coincidence the Spartans were fervently religious. Or that Roman Soldiers and Centurions often practiced their religious cults before going into battle (even before Christianism).

[Sar1n]

I hope you realize I passed exams to join engineering university, and had the option to join biology or biochemestry based degree, before seeing the calling in something more accounting related.

Point being, while I'm not a professional biologist or medic, you're not talking to someone who does not know those areas. Even Pope Francis has a Masters Degree in Chemestry. So much for le science "Disproving" religion.

Then you have to realize how utter load of crap your first post here was. Or perhaps your "university" is one of those religious schools?

Interestingly enough, engineering, biology and accounting are areas in which your post fails most. Let's start with engineering. You must realize that machines, whether designed or evolved, do not need some underlying intelligence to work. And body is, after all, just evolved, organic machine. Most processes are automatic, complex deterministic chains that work without any conscious input, just like, for example, clock. And if you really had interest in engineering, you should know that old clockmaker argument is void. There were many famous experiments about application of evolution to engineering, and it didn't remain just experimental. Evolutionary principles are now widely applied in computer engineering, in fact current development of AI is based on it.

And biology and accounting should tell you just how stupid your "incredible lucky streak" is. Evolution is a spammer. It spews out myriads of tiny variations, and grim reaper does the selection. Some succeed by surviving and thus passing their genes on, vast majority does not. And thus, life improves, not through guided process, not through sheer luck, but by trying everything...and what survives sticks and is further improved. You're basically just repeating the old, void and disproven creationist argument about eye, just applied to other organs.