yea, and we walk around with a bunch of meaningless self-doubt too. Anyone who has undergone therapy can attest to "wow [thunk] I could have had a V-8!" ;)

Now that was funny.

I never said he willfully lied. I'm not sure the parents did either. That is not the same as reality.
I have mostly been tending my own posts and comments today. I'll get to it. :)

Birds can count their eggs:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
There are many other examples of untrained animals that can count and having a sense of numbers, including primates. One quick article:
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/mg20...
As noted in the above article, animals with some counting ability can more readily sense the difference between numbers when the difference is large (e.g. 6 and 21). Humans also do this much faster than smaller differences (e.g. 31 and 45).
Animals clearly perceive causality, a near future. Animals also reinforce their own behaviors to develop positive outcomes:
http://io9.com/5828440/banana-hiding-wea...
I believe the gap you are identifying is Episodic Memory, which relates to recalling the specific episode in detail or making plans far into the future. Primates have rudimentary skills in this area, far inferior to humans. Clearly animals do not posses the ability to plan far into the future. However, 50 years ago people were largely unaware animals could count, use tools or do a multitude of things. For example, research to discriminate between culture and instinct among other examples has shown we had a "world is flat" view of animal cognition. Given how far this has gone, it seems quite unreasonable to assert they never will (over millennia not years); that they cannot be trained to and then pass it on to other animals or that there is some fundamental capability we have that they can never have.
Again, I'm not making some ethical argument here that animals are as important as we are. Any human has a wealth of learned information and understanding far in excess of any animal, and are at least that much more valuable. Setting aside any other moral distinction.

Would this logic make us also agnostic toward the existence of khalling's pink flying elephants?

The strict term for agnosticism would be your latter definition that the existence of a god is scientifically unknowable. For someone who follows Rand's logic, this form of agnosticism is the logical conclusion because neither a god's existence or lack thereof can be scientifically proven.

What is easier to accept? Is it reasonable to accept a statistical impossibility of random occurrences just so that there would be a planet capable of supporting life, not to mention the evolution of that life into intelligence? Or is it easier to accept that a rational being chose to make such circumstances? I know I will be in a minority in this forum. This is the argument for deism, which is supported by a few around here. Undoubtedly a number of random occurrences have transpired for things to get to where they are now, but not that many. When someone proves the existence of life, regardless of how primitive, on another planet somewhere else in the universe, I will reconsider my position. Until then, I will argue that to deny an intelligence higher than our own is a far more reasonable explanation for intelligent life than life without any intervention by a more intelligent life form. The number of circumstances that would have to go correctly is beyond my ability to attribute it to luck.

Right. All universe with intelligent creatures would have wonder about creation. All universes w/o intelligent creatures would not have wonder about creation. So no matter how unlikely a universe with intelligent creatures may be, we can't say "isn't it odd that the people wondering about creation just so happen to be in a universe conducive to intelligent life?" It's not odd. It's the only thing possible.

As you said in your other post, this claim is not scientifically falsifiable. We can't make a hypothesis and do and experiment. We do not know.

I think you define atheist as asserting there's no god. I call that strong atheism. If you just have no reason to believe in gods, by my definition that's atheism.

Agnostic means someone on the fence about it, thinking maybe there is a god. It could also mean someone asserting the existence of a god is fundamentally unknowable.

A universe with intelligent creatures wondering about it certainly does not disprove the existence of a god.

You are correct. It is not scientifically falsifiable. It is outside the realm of science. Some questions just cannot be answered via science or anything else. As a PhD, I know that I don't know very much, and compared to all that there is to know, neither does anyone else.

Isn't this just the anthropic principle? Obviously a universe with intelligent creatures wondering about it would be compatible with intelligent creatures.

I find this meaningless b/c the claim of existence of god(s) is not scientifically falsifiable. It's not in the realm of science.

My point it that to people who require rational argument before adopting facts, neither do you have an answer, because, a belief (faith) is not the foundation of an rational argument. The point is communication. Clearly you believe you have an answer.

BTW, I greatly appreciate this argument. Clearly demonstrated by your posts, you are a very learned and intelligent person that I quite respect, although disagree with in this area.

With plenty of due respect, as you are an excellent debater, Khalling, the probability that there is no God is so small as to be statistically impossible. In keeping with the thread, it really would take luck for any of us to exist here on Earth.
The proof that there is no god takes far more of a leap of faith than to believe that there is a god. I will continue to argue that agnosticism should be the correct stance for an objectivist, but the odds that life on Earth evolved without some external intervention is the argument that requires more proof.

Whether you agree with all that is in the link below, I would argue that the odds described therein are actually far longer than those cited in that link.
I do agree that evolution has happened, but the list of 322 items in the link below doesn't even begin to address the number of things that would have to go right for the formation of DNA in the most primitive of organisms, let alone intelligent life.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/evidenc...

These are not the definitions of sentience. Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive or said differently, responsive to sensory input or conscious. I understand what you mean, but lack the single word to describe it.
Animals do have a recollection of past, present and future. Animals understand causality. Animals can count. Other than the skill/facility in each of these cognitive areas, the main thing animals lack is written language (as we humans also lacked some 4,000 years ago) and abstraction (probably). What is quite arguable is whether a written language accounts for a majority of the shortcomings of animals cognitive abilities. If dolphins or apes could write, how quickly would they abstract and develop "standing on the shoulders of giants" as we have. If one were not taught to read and write, how sophisticated would this person appear above animals.

In the case of the boy, it is information explained after the fact. His parents are the only witness. I think he and they completely believe . I respect their wonder in the events and their son coming back to life. I don't think there is evidence to prove he was in a place-heaven. Don't get me started on the shroud. I agree there was someone who likely taught a philosophy that was based on belief in God but separate and distinct from Judaism, and was very influential, with followers who also were influential and charismatic. Notice how there are never "miracles" where limbs are replaced.

we don't need to authenticate a shroud as proof Aristotle existed. We have his writings. We have Plato's writings. I might grant you Socrates-but Plato was writing about him in his lifetime. I am not saying an evangelist named Jesus didn't exist.

Half of what gets published in scientific papers is not reproducible by other researchers, so I don't have much that I consider factual in any field outside of mathematics.

Regarding the heresay argument, I won't argue with you. All recorded history is heresay.
Indeed, the four books of the story of Jesus are composites. If Jesus had not resurrected from the dead, he would have been buried in the annals of history.

prophesy is easy when you're writing about the past.