[MD] Confirming the existence of God?

[Mary]

Hello Mark, Ant, and Dave (whom I'd like to drag into this conversation to
answer an architectural question),

[Mark said] 
I could ask, why did the cars crash.  The answer 
could be: because they were driving too fast.  But then I would ask
why were they driving too fast?  Because they were late, then, why were
they late, etc, etc.  This is what I mean, reasons for reasons.  Now, it is
common to think that since you have more reasons, you understand it
better.  But do you?  Why do the extra reasons make you feel like you
understand it better?...

Those reasons are not my choice.
-----
[Mary replies]
At first I misread you, I think.  I thought you were saying you didn't have
any choice about what reasons were satisfactory to you to explain anything,
then it occurred to me that you probably meant just those particular
scientific or logical reasons.  But my misreading got me thinking.  

Do we have any choice about what reasons we find acceptable as an answer to
anything?  

>From personal experience I say, that instant when you become _convinced_ of
something is a Dynamic Quality Event.  Think about the last time you
wrestled with a question.  Maybe it bothered you for a long time, then one
day, after thinking about it off and on for weeks or months or years, you
suddenly _knew_ the answer.  Can one of you explain what qualities (with a
little q, as in attributes) are required for us to become convinced?  Do you
think these attributes are the same for everyone?

When we are _convinced_ we have added another conclusion to our set of
beliefs.  Conclusions we are convinced of form the entirety of our belief
system.  The scientific method is a way to bring flexibility to our beliefs;
making them contingent upon new information.  But it is itself a belief,
apparently.

Dave, why do you think it is that everyone, everywhere feels correctness or
satisfaction in the Golden Ratio?

A+B is to A, as A is to B.


Mary