Express your religion in terms of chess pieces? (Is Buddhism a real religion?)

https://theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

I proved the topic of my discussion..instincts..

as for religion....we  can provide  proof of its historical reactionary  nature.

And as for God..we already agreed whose borden of proof does that belong to.....you !

Why am I wrong ? And based on what counter agreement / proof ?

Only in your own mind.

There is something in my mind at least.

Amen!

" Amen ", is a backward word..comiing from human stupidity of the past.

NO NO NO! Knowledge MAY overpower instinct but instinct may also be more accurate than belief, or knowledge. Example, I know I can trust a person insofar as they lead me to believe but my gut may tell me otherwise. 

Seems woefully badly reasoned.

The idea that something obeying mathematical laws indicates there is some single being with superpowers behind it is just a wild claim with no valid reasoning.

Note also that there is really no alternative to the Universe obeying mathematical laws other than it being some sort of random noise (which itself would be described mathematically).

I acknowledge there are many religious beliefs that cannot be disproved by reason, but it is also truth that attempts to "prove" religion by reasoning modelled on that used to deal with the real world are (in my experience) always ways for religious people to fool themselves into being more certain!

Very probably is mathematically sound anyway. 

I think it was JimmyKay who taught me physics is an authoritative body. Blew my fucking hair back, bro. 

I'm not trying to prove religion. Only saying the possibility of a higher being seems possible maybe even likely given our very limited knowledge of the universe.

To say flatly the humans are the height of intelligence in the universe seems a little naive.    

It would be a rather outrageous speculation!

What does that mean?

As in we must live according to physics, we can trust the laws of physics, that sort of thing. If we try something crazy, like building a tall structure that ignores the laws of physics it is going to fall. 

ok. It was the word "body" that was confusing. But I suppose if you had said "body of knowledge", it would have been very clear.

I would say physics is both the most fundamental and the most general knowledge we have about the Universe in which we live. As Fermilab's Don Lincoln loves to say "physics is everything", which means that as well as the previous sentence, literally all the behaviour that exists in the physical universe is the consequence only of fundamental physics (in an often very complex and impractical to calculate way!)

My father passed away November 2018 and it is painful to remember he's not there any more so I started to wonder what would be the downside of letting my mind believe most of the time that he's still alive somewhere and it doesn't matter really where or how. It makes sense in a way, to think he's alive, because he's alive in the memories of events that i have, and it is a lot of work to go back and edit the memories to carry the new information.  It doesn't seem to be worth it.  That's psychology, and psychology reduces to biology, and biology reduces to chemistry and electricity (maybe because of neurons and how they transmit information?) and biophysics, etc   so religion can reduce to physics  but it's just extremely inconvenient to calculate it as physics!   (I noticed there is a new theory, where people are trying to find a little gap in the Standard Model, that a probability wave acts like an octopus when it collapses, when it's touched, and retracts in a specific way to being detected, like an octopus contracting when it feels fear from a stimulus.  it is an additional term in the Schroedinger equation. I guess octopuses would be very good at speed chess, if they are allowed to use more than one tentacle at a time.)

i still think existence of a God is easy to prove but it involves choosing the definition of God to be identical with physics, e.g. God is simply equal to the physical universe.  most religions are valid with enough reinterpretation until they start to get too specific or too miraculous.  some great religions have aspects that are just difficult to reinterpret.   But compared with actual religious people, I seem shallow for staying stuck on this idea, and not letting my mental self go farther into my experiences of the mental realm of things that are greater than myself, that involve changes on a greater time and space scale, scoped to my lifespan or beyond, than physics is apt to think about.   I suppose the original question about chess doesn't help very much.  A religion based on chess would have to answer 'why did my king die?' so it's a fairly silly question in a way.  i don't know what kinds of rituals could help anything with it.  maybe chess needs a great prophet to tie the spiritual in with strategy and tactics somehow.  i am not sure whether a religion like Christianity has any role to play in it.