Default position

[ratiocinator]

You will settle for? You will get what you get from the prophets. You don't order up prophecies like a burger at a restaurant.

I'm just setting out what would be a good enough standard to avoid even a small probability of false positives. That's required because a real god is an extraordinary claim.

Some prophecies contain an unambiguous description of events and if you put those together with other prophecies you get the timeline.

A New Understanding of the Perplexing Prophecies of Daniel

Of all the Hebrew prophets, perhaps Daniel is the most enigmatic. Biblical researchers and scholars rarely agree about any aspect of the book of Daniel, not even the dates when...

bahaiteachings.org

The title is enough to see they weren't unambiguous. Why would anybody describe something unambiguous as 'perplexing'?

There is no contradiction because God's existence and attributes are not hidden...

Why can't I see them, then?

You have to look at what God has revealed to know if God exists.

I see no revelations just humans who make claims claims about them.

The Messengers of God are the evidence, you can take it or leave it.

Again, just more humans with religious claims. No prima facie evidence.

What else could you expect? We are humans so we can only understand other humans, we cannot understand God directly, period.

If god exists and is omnipotent, then it could communicate with anybody it wanted to.

There are no games, only Progressive Revelation from God.

The Baha’i Concept of Progressive Revelation

The process of humankind’s spiritual evolution continues because God sends messengers to humanity from time to time. That concept, called progressive revelation, underpins the Baha’i teachings. These periodic messengers, known...

bahaiteachings.org

Just more religious claims from humans. If a god is hiding and needs to be looked for, it's playing silly games. I have no time for such a being. It would be untrustworthy anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm just setting out what would be a good enough standard to avoid even a small probability of false positives. That's required because a real god is an extraordinary claim.

That might work for science but it doesn't work for religion since the kind of evidence we have for religion is very different from the verifiable evidence we have for science.

The Bible prophecies are like a jigsaw puzzle and you have to look at all the pieces and fit them together in order to see the whole picture.

The title is enough to see they weren't unambiguous. Why would anybody describe something unambiguous as 'perplexing'?

Haven't you ever heard not to judge a book by its title?
If you read and understood the article you might find out how they can be both perplexing and unambiguous.

Why can't I see them, then?

Because you are not looking in the next room.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

I see no revelations just humans who make claims claims about them.

Of course they are humans, but they are both divine and human.
You will not see the Revelation from God unless you look for it.

The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

Again, just more humans with religious claims. No prima facie evidence.

No, you won't see any prima facie evidence, since that is evidence used in courts of law, not for religion.

If god exists and is omnipotent, then it could communicate with anybody it wanted to.

So what? It is self-evident that God chooses not to communicate to everyone, only to Messengers, and there are reasons for that.
One reason is because only the Messengers have a divine mind so only they can understand God. The other reason is because there is no need to communicate to everyone since everyone can get the messages from the Messengers.

Just more religious claims from humans. If a god is hiding and needs to be looked for, it's playing silly games. I have no time for such a being. It would be untrustworthy anyway.

Logically speaking, where do you think you would get religious claims, from a giraffe?
Of course the claims come through humans because only humans can talk and write.

God resides in His own high place and nobody has ever seen God, not even the Messengers of God.
God sends Messengers to represent Him, since God cannot show up on earth. It is drop dead logical, once you understand what God is.

 

[ratiocinator]

That might work for science but it doesn't work for religion since the kind of evidence we have for religion is very different from the verifiable evidence we have for science.

So, not evidence at all. If you can't verify it, it is worthless.

The Bible prophecies are like a jigsaw puzzle and you have to look at all the pieces and fit them together in order to see the whole picture.

More silly games/excuses.

Haven't you ever heard not to judge a book by its title?
If you read and understood the article you might find out how they can be both perplexing and unambiguous.

I've read Daniel - I already know there is no worthwhile, unambiguous prophecies in it.

Because you are not looking in the next room.

An analogy is not an argument. However, to run with it briefly, the problem is there are endless different people telling me to look in endless different rooms, and none of them are next door and easy to check in a few seconds.

Of course they are humans, but they are both divine and human.

Humans with religious claims are two a penny, and "they are both divine and human" is just another -YAWN- religious claim amongst thousands.

You will not see the Revelation from God unless you look for it.

And I've already told you why I won't. I won't play a silly game. Such a being would deserve no respect.

No, you won't see any prima facie evidence, since that is evidence used in courts of law, not for religion.

So, yet again we are left with nothing at all to distinguish your religious claims from the countless thousands of others.

It is self-evident that God chooses not to communicate to everyone, only to Messengers

It is self-evident that no god is communicating with everyone and it's only a religious claim that some god is doing so with 'messengers'. So the situation is indistinguishable from what we'd expect if no god existed.

Logically speaking, where do you think you would get religious claims, from a giraffe?
Of course the claims come through humans because only humans can talk and write.

Logically speaking, only a dimwitted god or one that wants to play silly games would make its message look exactly the same as all the other baseless religious claims in the world. And again, an omnipotent god could talk and write if it so wished.

God resides in His own high place and nobody has ever seen God, not even the Messengers of God.
God sends Messengers to represent Him, since God cannot show up on earth. It is drop dead logical, once you understand what God is.

No, it's just another baseless, unevidenced, unargued religious claim. It is not logical, it's a blatant case of begging the question.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Or it might imply that God has revealed everything that is necessary to resolve the conflicts and religious people just don't want what God has revealed. Since they are attached to their older religions, they refuse the new religion God has revealed. How is that God's fault?
God cares, but God is not going to override human free will to make people believe in the new religion.

Based upon omnipotence God could do anything, but God does not do everything God could do. God only does what God chooses to do.

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? If so then this God would already know about human weaknesses, and hence what follows should be known to this God. Why punish those not capable of making the right decisions?

 

[an anarchist]

We are humans so we can only understand other humans, we cannot understand God directly, period.

The Messengers of God have a twofold nature, so they are both divine and human, which is why they can understand God and humans and act as intermediaries between God and humans.

Don't you think that's quite an assumption?

What about all the animists in touch with the higher power without an intermediary? What about all the pagans in touch with their gods and goddesses without a special prophet?

It goes back to show how that 93% figure is not applicable to your version of belief.

You have a niche religious view. I'm sure many Christians would argue they need no intermediary to understand God.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, not evidence at all. If you can't verify it, it is worthless.

Spoken like a true atheist, but verifiable evidence does not exist for God since God can never be verified.
If God could be verified, the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.
However, that certainly does not mean God does not exist, it only means you won't ever get what you want.

I've read Daniel - I already know there is no worthwhile, unambiguous prophecies in it.

Not the kind of specific prophecies you want, but Daniel does point to a date and what is going to happen on that date:

Daniel Chapter 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

It was prophesied in Daniel 12 that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it.

Note that Dan 12:13 says "at the end of the days.” This chapter is about what will happen at the time of the end, when Christ returns.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

An analogy is not an argument. However, to run with it briefly, the problem is there are endless different people telling me to look in endless different rooms, and none of them are next door and easy to check in a few seconds.

Just because there are endless different people telling you to look in endless different rooms, that does not mean there is nothing in any of those rooms.
I never told you that it would be easy to check in a few seconds. Why should it be easy?

Humans with religious claims are two a penny, and "they are both divine and human" is just another -YAWN- religious claim amongst thousands.

That is correct, but logically speaking the fact that many religious claims are false does not prove all religious claims are false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually follows this pattern:

• Religious claim a is false
• Religious claim b is false
• Religious claim c is false
• Religious claim d is false
• Religious claim e is false
• Religious claim f is false
• Religious claim g is false

Therefore, Religious claim h is false.

It is true that the world is false religious claims, but logically speaking that does not mean that all religious claims are false.

And I've already told you why I won't. I won't play a silly game. Such a being would deserve no respect.

So what would earn your respect, a God that handed you a belief on a silver platter? I have to different Master's degrees and I did not expect anyone to hand those to me. I worked for years and years to earn them. How much more important it is to know the truth about God than anything that only pertains to this earthly life.

So, yet again we are left with nothing at all to distinguish your religious claims from the countless thousands of others.

There is plenty of evidence that distinguishes my religious claims from the countless thousands of others, not the least of which is that the evidence is verifiable.

It is self-evident that no god is communicating with everyone and it's only a religious claim that some god is doing so with 'messengers'. So the situation is indistinguishable from what we'd expect if no god existed.

It is a religious claim, but that does not mean it is false, since there is no reason to believe that all religious claims are false just because some religious claims are false, as noted above.

What a logical person would expect to see if God existed is one of two things:

1. God would communicate through an intermediary, what I refer to as a messenger, or
2. God would not communicate at all

Logically speaking, only a dimwitted god or one that wants to play silly games would make its message look exactly the same as all the other baseless religious claims in the world.

The message of Baha'u'llah does not look the same as the other messages and that is why I believe it came from God, the only reason.

And again, an omnipotent god could talk and write if it so wished.

That is patently absurd. Omnipotent does not mean 'can do anything,' it means all-powerful.
God can neither talk nor write because God is not a man. Only humans can talk and write.
That is precisely why God sends Messengers who can talk and write, since there is NO OTHER WAY for God to communicate to humans.

No, it's just another baseless, unevidenced, unargued religious claim. It is not logical, it's a blatant case of begging the question.

It is an evidenced and arguable religious claim and it is not begging the question since I do not assume the truth of the conclusion. Rather, the evidence supports the conclusion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? If so then this God would already know about human weaknesses, and hence what follows should be known to this God. Why punish those not capable of making the right decisions?

When did I ever say that God punishes anyone? All God expects is that people make an effort, but if they are not capable God knows that.
I don't know if anyone will be punished. The only punishment is our own punishment, that being we will not get the reward we could have had.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
Gleanings, p. 339

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't you think that's quite an assumption?

What about all the animists in touch with the higher power without an intermediary? What about all the pagans in touch with their gods and goddesses without a special prophet?

It goes back to show how that 93% figure is not applicable to your version of belief.

You have a niche religious view. I'm sure many Christians would argue they need no intermediary to understand God.

It is not an assumption, it is my belief, and of course other people have different beliefs.
I believe we need an intermediary to understand God's attributes and message since we cannot understand God directly.
However, that does not mean we cannot feel God's presence and inspiration without an intermediary.

Christians believe that Jesus is their intermediary, and Jesus was the intermediary during the Christian dispensation.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Spoken like a true atheist, but verifiable evidence does not exist for God since God can never be verified.

Then there is no evidence worthy of the name. End of.

If God could be verified, the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.

Yes. I don't do belief without some solid facts (evidence) to back it up .

However, that certainly does not mean God does not exist, it only means you won't ever get what you want.

I didn't say I wanted anything. I was just pointing out what would be required for a rational person to accept your god claim.

Not the kind of specific prophecies you want, but Daniel does point to a date and what is going to happen on that date:

Then you go on about the "end times" which haven't happened yet. Even if it was specific enough (it wasn't), we can't check it. Useless.

Just because there are endless different people telling you to look in endless different rooms, that does not mean there is nothing in any of those rooms.
I never told you that it would be easy to check in a few seconds. Why should it be easy?

How many times do I need to explain this to you? I'm not going to spend time playing silly games of "seek the god" because, firstly, there is no reason whatsoever to think I'd be looking for anything real, and secondly, even if it was, it would be playing silly games and such a god is not worth finding.

That is correct, but logically speaking the fact that many religious claims are false does not prove all religious claims are false.

I didn't say it did. But a god that hides itself amongst false claims is an idiot or a prankster.

So what would earn your respect, a God that handed you a belief on a silver platter?

Not belief but evidence, yes, absolutely. Anything else (assuming a god wants people to find it) is unfair.

I have to different Master's degrees and I did not expect anyone to hand those to me. I worked for years and years to earn them. How much more important it is to know the truth about God than anything that only pertains to this earthly life.

Yes, so much more important that it shouldn't be anything like getting a degree or any studying, which is the preserve of the gifted, motivated, and those with time to spend. That's why a god that requires this is unjust and not worthy of any respect.

There is plenty of evidence that distinguishes my religious claims from the countless thousands of others, not the least of which is that the evidence is verifiable.

You said before that verifiable evidence wasn't available. Anyway, how can it possibly be verified?

It is a religious claim, but that does not mean it is false, since there is no reason to believe that all religious claims are false just because some religious claims are false, as noted above.

See above.

What a logical person would expect to see if God existed is one of two things:

1. God would communicate through an intermediary, what I refer to as a messenger, or
2. God would not communicate at all

On what basis do you exclude a god that directly communicates with everybody (and please no more of the nonsense that would deny a god's omnipotence - it most definitely could do that, or the "you have to work for it" nonsense)?

The message of Baha'u'llah does not look the same as the other messages...

Does to me. Nothing you've said makes it remarkable at all.

Omnipotent does not mean 'can do anything,' it means all-powerful.

What are you talking about? If it's all-powerful, of course it can do anything it wants - that's what the word means: omnipotent "having unlimited power and able to do anything".

It is an evidenced and arguable religious claim and it is not begging the question since I do not assume the truth of the conclusion.

Your statements all asumed that god existed (and what's more, was the way you claimed it was). There was no hint of any logic to get there.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The Messengers of God.

Who are they?

It is hypothetically that 93% of people are all wrong and there is no God, but it is more likely that there is a God and people all believe different things about that God since they all have different backgrounds and different religions.

That does not follow. Belief without good reasons by a lot of people is not evidence the claim is true.

I agree. Most people don't think in terms of evidence, they simply believe what they were brought up to believe and/or what appeals to them, and some believers imagine things about God from their personal experience, like believing that God is talking to them.

I can agree.

 

[an anarchist]

That is precisely why God sends Messengers who can talk and write, since there is NO OTHER WAY for God to communicate to humans.

You limit god

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. I don't do belief without some solid facts (evidence) to back it up .

I would never expect anyone to do belief without facts (evidence) to back up the belief. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

I didn't say I wanted anything. I was just pointing out what would be required for a rational person to accept your god claim.

It is not required of a rational person, it is only your requirement.
You can only say what YOU require in order to believe that God exists. You consider that rational but it is only rational for you.

Then you go on about the "end times" which haven't happened yet. Even if it was specific enough (it wasn't), we can't check it. Useless.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The end times are here. The end times are not the end of the world, they are the end of the age.
The previous age ended when Christ returned so we are now living in the new age, the Age of Fulfillment.

How many times do I need to explain this to you? I'm not going to spend time playing silly games of "seek the god" because, firstly, there is no reason whatsoever to think I'd be looking for anything real, and secondly, even if it was, it would be playing silly games and such a god is not worth finding.

It is and has always been your choice since you have free will to choose, but thumbing your nose at God because God you think God is playing 'silly games' is not going to get you anything. What is amounts to is that you expect God to do it your way, so you are setting the parameters for an omnipotent God, which is illogical. An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, period, for obvious logical reasons.

I didn't say it did. But a god that hides itself amongst false claims is an idiot or a prankster.

God is not hiding amongst those false claims. The only reason those false claims exist in the world is because free will exists.
God revealed a new religion that straightened everything out but most people have rejected that religion and that is not God's fault.

Not belief but evidence, yes, absolutely. Anything else (assuming a god wants people to find it) is unfair.

God did give us the evidence, and the capacity to recognize it, as anything else would be unfair.

Yes, so much more important that it shouldn't be anything like getting a degree or any studying, which is the preserve of the gifted, motivated, and those with time to spend. That's why a god that requires this is unjust and not worthy of any respect.

I never said that God requires that much effort on our parts, as that would be unjust and unfair. Everyone is different, but I only studied the Baha'i Faith for a few weeks before I knew it was the truth from God, and that was over 52 years ago. Since then I have been exposed to all kinds of dissenters so I have studied a lot more, each time with the same result. I became firmer in my faith because of these dissenters, Christians and atheists, since I had to do more research to respond to them.

You said before that verifiable evidence wasn't available. Anyway, how can it possibly be verified?

When I say the evidence is verifiable I mean that the history of the Baha'i Faith, including the person, life and mission of Baha'u'llah, are verifiable.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah have also been verified to have been written by Him.

On what basis do you exclude a god that directly communicates with everybody (and please no more of the nonsense that would deny a god's omnipotence - it most definitely could do that, or the "you have to work for it" nonsense)?

It is easy-peasy to exclude such a God on a purely logical basis. If a God that communicated directly with everybody existed then everyone would have been communicated to by that God. Everyone would claim that God had communicated to them and there would be no atheists. The fact that this has never happened means that if God exists, God would never communicate directly to everyone.

Does to me. Nothing you've said makes it remarkable at all.

What I say to you is not what you are to go by. Everyone needs to investigate the message of Baha'u'llah for themselves.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

What are you talking about? If it's all-powerful, of course it can do anything it wants - that's what the word means: omnipotent "having unlimited power and able to do anything".

God cannot become a man and speak and write like a man because God is not a man. If God became man God would no longer be God.
God cannot be any less than all-powerful because God is by definition all-powerful.

Your statements all assumed that god existed (and what's more, was the way you claimed it was). There was no hint of any logic to get there.

I never assumed that God exists. I believe that God exists, but only after doing my research. I used logic applied to the evidence to get there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who are they?

Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are the primary ones, but there might be others.

That does not follow. Belief without good reasons by a lot of people is not evidence the claim is true.

No, belief without good reasons by a lot of people is not evidence the claim is true, but people of different religions have good reasons to believe in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You limit god

No, God is not limited by any human. It is humans who are limited, which is why God has to use Messengers to communicate to humans.
God could communicate to humans in another way but humans could not understand the communication.

 

[an anarchist]

No, God is not limited by any human. It is humans who are limited, which is why God has to use Messengers to communicate to humans.
God could communicate to humans in another way but humans could not understand the communication.

Can't your God, being powerful, elevate whoever he wants to greater understanding?

Again, you said "God has to use Messengers"...

And your last sentence doesn't make sense. Saying God can do something but it wouldn't work means that God can't do that something.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can't your God, being powerful, elevate whoever he wants to greater understanding?

Again, you said "God has to use Messengers"...

I cannot really say 'what God can do' based upon being all-powerful. All I can say is what the Baha'i Faith teaches.
Humans do not have the 'capacity' to understand direct communication from God since humans do not have a divine mind...
Messengers of God have a divine mind so they can understand communication from God through the Holy Spirit...

If God can elevate humans to greater understanding by using Messengers, why would God want to use another method?

And your last sentence doesn't make sense. Saying God can do something but it wouldn't work means that God can't do that something.

I meant that even if God 'could' speak to humans directly it would not work because humans could not understand God speaking to them directly.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I cannot really say 'what God can do' based upon being all-powerful. All I can say is what the Baha'i Faith teaches.
Humans do not have the 'capacity' to understand direct communication from God since humans do not have a divine mind...
Messengers of God have a divine mind so they can understand communication from God through the Holy Spirit...

If God can elevate humans to greater understanding by using Messengers, why would God want to use another method?

I meant that even if God 'could' speak to humans directly it would not work because humans could not understand God speaking to them directly.

I would presume that since God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and so on, God could Himself use ways to communicate with us that only each individual him or herself understands, and indeed this actually does happen. Of course there are Messengers, or Prophets, of God that figure out ways to explain divinity to certain people in certain ways, but nobody, and I mean nobody, understands God completely in the same ways as anybody else. The way everybody understands God, from a group of atheists, to the most fervent fundamentalist Christian religious denominations, is going to be unique to each individual, no matter what label or description of God they use to describe themselves. This is because God is reality, and that perception of reality is different from each brain and from each unique individual experience each person has. Likewise, I call my idea of God being reality panentheism, but even those who agree with me, and also believe in panentheism, might disagree on core concepts of divinity and other theological beliefs.

God doesn't just have the ability to communicate with anyone, in my panentheist beliefs, God already does this by natural means of evolution and the core five senses we have: hearing, sight, taste, touch and smell. And with our ability to think and perceive things with language, each and every person has the ability to interpret this reality as they sense it themselves. This is why God is so contested from so many people: different experiences from different people with different thoughts and different backgrounds are obviously going to have different results when it comes to understanding God. Understanding God means you understand reality, something no person been able to fully been illustrated to this point yet. There have been movies which God is character, explaining Himself to someone using the vernacular they understand, typically setting things to happen a certain way to correct them, like with An Interview With God or with the popular show God Friended Me.

The truth is, however, reality itself already does all the things that character does on all of those shows, we don't need some all-knowing, all-powerful person to guide us in any of it, because we already know innately what we're here to do and why we're doing it. Wikipedia has a long article dedicated to the reason why people exist, but it's obvious to me that people exist to have the time to do things they want to experience while they're alive, and as long as they aren't harming anyone else, or themselves in fact, there should be no barrier between the reality that is and the reality they wish to see one day. And that to me is how I understand God.

 

[an anarchist]

If God can elevate humans to greater understanding by using Messengers, why would God want to use another method?

Idk the why he would want to, but why wouldn't he want to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

We were born without gods at the start of this life so that's the default position.

 

[Jimmy]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

Go with your gut.