Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[UnTheist]

Great! Now simply... prove it!

Go to Paris...

 

[Super Universe]

It is the lack of evidence which is preventing me from seeing that God created the universe.

To which you respond that there is evidence. And so I ask what evidence:


And so now I ask you "How does the universe support the existence of God?"

My claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. My evidence is the lack of evidence for the existence God.

Incredible complexity supports the conclusion that sentience created the complexity.

Your evidence is simply that you will accept nothing as evidence.

 

[Super Universe]

Go to Paris...

Go to heaven...

 

[UnTheist]

Go to heaven...

You'll have to tell me where that is, and I will get a plane ticket as soon as possible

 

[Fluffy]

Incredible complexity supports the conclusion that sentience created the complexity.

Please develop this argument. Why or how does incredible complexity support the conclusion that sentience created the complexity?

Your evidence is simply that you will accept nothing as evidence.

I have already given you an example of evidence that would convince me that God existed. More generally, complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes such as evolution. Therefore, there is evidence that I will accept.

 

[Ozzie]

What is the reason you don't believe in God? Or the reason you're not absolutely positively sure God exists?

I'd guess the number one reason is because people see bad things happening all around them and can't understand why God would allow it to happen.

How would you rate the other reasons not to believe?

Now the key question, where would you rate your own ego as a reason and do you realize it's the main reason?

Based on the logic of your OP, I'd rate self-preservation as a positive in formulating the proposition, "God exists".

 

[Super Universe]

You'll have to tell me where that is, and I will get a plane ticket as soon as possible

Heaven is the center of the multiverse surrounded by the eleven dimensions. As God energy leaves heaven it changes density, essentially it condenses, it becomes more dense.

This change in density causes the time effect, time is faster here, slower as you move through the dimensions toward heaven while heaven is non-space/time. In order to get to heaven you have to enlighten yourself.

I don't think your plane will take you there.

 

[Super Universe]

Please develop this argument. Why or how does incredible complexity support the conclusion that sentience created the complexity?


I have already given you an example of evidence that would convince me that God existed. More generally, complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes such as evolution. Therefore, there is evidence that I will accept.

Cause and effect particles do not have sentience, thus, they cannot form that which they cannot imagine. They cannot become more than they are.

Simply put, lava does not make a Samurai Sword. Ever...

Evolution, while true, does not explain the origin of life. Evolution of energy/matter does not explain the origin of physical laws that control cause and effect particles.

 

[Super Universe]

Based on the logic of your OP, I'd rate self-preservation as a positive in formulating the proposition, "God exists".

Are you suggesting that one might choose to believe in God as a means for continued existence?

With the opposite being death and nothing else?

 

[Ozzie]

Are you suggesting that one might choose to believe in God as a means for continued existence?

I'm suggesting that using ego as a support for the proposition "God exists" might be motivated by self-preservation.

With the opposite being death and nothing else?

I suppose you might like to ask the audience how they define "death".

 

[Super Universe]

If someone tells you that your neighbor just got a cat, you choose to believe it because it is of no concern to you. You do not need to change to believe it.

If suddenly you were to believe in God. Well, that would just change everything now wouldn't it?

What would it change?

 

[Buttercup]

Why are you upset? Why are you afraid? Why do you feel that God has not done enough for you?

I've already answered these questions twice. Please quit trying to sound like my mother. You needn't worry about my emotional well being, thank you.

Give me your top three impossible questions, then we'll work on your next three impossible questions afterwards.

1. How many teaspoons of water in the Pacific Ocean?
2. How many pounds of salt in the Mediterranean Sea?
3. How many fish in all the oceans?

I don't know how the universe formed? I wasn't there, no. But then, neither were your scientists yet they don't just say "I don't know" and give up pondering. Still, they are quite the role models for you, aren't they? They are your god.

What exactly is your point with the above statement? That science should not investigate mysteries of the universe?

 

[Super Universe]

I'm suggesting that using ego as a support for the proposition "God exists" might be motivated by self-preservation.
I suppose you might like to ask the audience how they define "death".

I believe you misunderstood the OP. I did not use ego as a support for the proposition that "God exists".

In the last sentence of the OP, I said that ego was the main reason for not believing.

 

[Super Universe]

I've already answered these questions twice. Please quit trying to sound like my mother. You needn't worry about my emotional well being, thank you.

1. How many teaspoons of water in the Pacific Ocean?
2. How many pounds of salt in the Mediterranean Sea?
3. How many fish in all the oceans?

What exactly is your point with the above statement? That science should not investigate mysteries of the universe?

[/size]

I'm not worried one bit about your emotional well being. It's not like you live next to me. Uh, you don't, do you?

1. A lot
2. More than a bucketfull
3. One multiplied by X.

I'm saying that you look for your scientists to explain everything for you but even your scientists admit that they don't know many things. On the other side, religious people look to their religious leaders to explain their own religious books yet even they do not understand it all.

How come no one tries to figure things out for themselves?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You know what Jay, how about joining a debate ...

I will gladly 'join the debate' as soon as you prove capable of a cogent argument. So, tell me, what is your criteria for claiming a result to be the product of 'intelligent design'?

 

[Nanda]

Then don't.

Not a problem.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm not worried one bit about your emotional well being. It's not like you live next to me. Uh, you don't, do you?

Trick or Treat!

1. A lot

2. More than a bucketfull
3. One multiplied by X.

Thank you for your profoundly astute answers. I think I'll skip the next three impossible questions.

I'm saying that you look for your scientists to explain everything for you but even your scientists admit that they don't know many things. On the other side, religious people look to their religious leaders to explain their own religious books yet even they do not understand it all

How come no one tries to figure things out for themselves?

Contrary to what you might believe, since becoming agnostic I've discovered that atheists/agnostics ask more questions and do more introspection about the universe than any other group of people I've known so far. They know they don't have all the answers so they keep their ears and eyes open just in case something good stops by.

 

[Fluffy]

Cause and effect particles do not have sentience, thus, they cannot form that which they cannot imagine. They cannot become more than they are.

I don't know what the difference is between "cause and effect" particles and particles that cannot be described as "cause and effect". However, I agree that any sort of particle is not sentient.

However, there are many examples of particles forming things that they cannot imagine (since they have no imagination). For example, water is formed from 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. This happens despite the individual atoms being unable to imagine water. Another example would be the development of a zygote into a human being.

Evolution, while true, does not explain the origin of life. Evolution of energy/matter does not explain the origin of physical laws that control cause and effect particles.

Inferring from the lack of an explanation is committing to an argument from ignorance which is a fallacy.

The correct response to not knowing how life formed would be agnosticism not theism or atheism (before you ask, my atheism is not a response to this).

 

[Papersock]

If someone tells you that your neighbor just got a cat, you choose to believe it because it is of no concern to you. You do not need to change to believe it.

I would believe it because I've seen cats and I know they exist. I also know people keep cats as pets and I might know from past experience if my neighbor is prone to lying or telling the truth.

I know the Eiffel Tower exists because I've seen pictures, I know how cameras work, I know you can't take a photo of something that doesn't exist, and there are many, many verified accounts of people who have seen it, without contradictions.

In contrast, we have no idea what a god might be like, how it might effect anything, all the accounts of seeing god are subjective personal experiences and so many of them contradict each other. Furthermore, god supposedly exists in another dimension that we cannot sense so there is absolutely no way we can be sure it is there at all.

 

[Super Universe]

I don't know what the difference is between "cause and effect" particles and particles that cannot be described as "cause and effect". However, I agree that any sort of particle is not sentient.

However, there are many examples of particles forming things that they cannot imagine (since they have no imagination). For example, water is formed from 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. This happens despite the individual atoms being unable to imagine water. Another example would be the development of a zygote into a human being.

Inferring from the lack of an explanation is committing to an argument from ignorance which is a fallacy.

The correct response to not knowing how life formed would be agnosticism not theism or atheism (before you ask, my atheism is not a response to this).

I didn't say there were non"cause and effect" particles.

Water is formed by particles? It's an assembly of "cause and effect" particles, the particle does not change.

That's like saying a "Bricks made the building".

Ah, so you are a being who needs proof before beleiving in anything? But what is proof? Do you even know?