Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[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 "Bricks made the building".

Ah, so you are a being who needs proof before believing in anything? But what is proof?

 

[Super Universe]

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.

You've seen cats? Prove it! You know people keep cats? But you don't know that your neighbor keeps a cat. Regardless of whether your neighbor is a liar or not, he could be telling the truth this time.

You've seen pictures of the Eiffel Tower? If I show you a picture of God will you accept it? Will you accept as proof a confession from people who have seen God? I doubt it, so why is this different from you believing in the Eiffel Tower?

Many personal accounts contradict each other? Who told you that each person sees God in exactly the same way?

 

[Fluffy]

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".

Okay. Every object is a building and all buildings are made from bricks. Provide a contrary example.

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

It is not a psychological restraint but a logical one. I do not need proof but I need proof if I wish to be justified in holding a belief. If a person does not have proof then they are not justified.

I would not say proof because I believe that word should be reserved for deductive arguments only. However, if there exists evidence and an argument that links this evidence to a theory then there is sufficient justification to believe in that theory.

 

[Super Universe]

Okay. Every object is a building and all buildings are made from bricks. Provide a contrary example.

It is not a psychological restraint but a logical one. I do not need proof but I need proof if I wish to be justified in holding a belief. If a person does not have proof then they are not justified.

I would not say proof because I believe that word should be reserved for deductive arguments only. However, if there exists evidence and an argument that links this evidence to a theory then there is sufficient justification to believe in that theory.

Provide a contrary example? That is not the argument, the argument you are making is that the bricks assemble themselves into a building while I infer that there was an intelligent designer at work, even though you can only see a building, not the Designer.

So, every belief you have is supported with proof huh? Everything fits in your system. Nothing makes waves, everything fits nicely. You can either see everything or see it's effect on something.

 

[Super Universe]

Okay. Every object is a building and all buildings are made from bricks. Provide a contrary example.

It is not a psychological restraint but a logical one. I do not need proof but I need proof if I wish to be justified in holding a belief. If a person does not have proof then they are not justified.

I would not say proof because I believe that word should be reserved for deductive arguments only. However, if there exists evidence and an argument that links this evidence to a theory then there is sufficient justification to believe in that theory.

How about the speed of light? What proof do you have that it is what they say it is?

How about E=MC2? Certainly you don't have proof of it so then, you cannot believe.

 

[Papersock]

You've seen cats? Prove it! You know people keep cats? But you don't know that your neighbor keeps a cat. Regardless of whether your neighbor is a liar or not, he could be telling the truth this time.

I guess we shouldn't believe in anything since nothing can be proven.
I guess nothing exists.

Anyway, I’m not talking about proof, I’m talking about evidence. Also I'm talking about reasonable certainty. Based on evidence and past experiences we can reasonably certain about some things. Although there is always a slight chance of being wrong.

You've seen pictures of the Eiffel Tower? If I show you a picture of God will you accept it? Will you accept as proof a confession from people who have seen God? I doubt it, so why is this different from you believing in the Eiffel Tower?

As I said, visions of god are more subjective than pictures of the Eiffel Tower.

Many personal accounts contradict each other? Who told you that each person sees God in exactly the same way?

No one. I said people see god differently. And if god is different to everyone, how can we know what god is or that god is anything?

 

[methylatedghosts]

:biglaugh: How can you presume to know me well enough to discern if I'm angry? Even my RF friends who know me very well are sometimes not sure. Tis the limitations of communicating solely through typed text.

Thank God for emoticons huh?

Or wait... who actually created those funny little characters? God or the big bang!?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Okay, try this... If you were face to face with God, what would you say?

Go ahead. Hold nothing back, give it to Him.

*sees God*

WOW you really ARE a guy!!

 

[Buttercup]

Thank God for emoticons huh?

:yes:

Or wait... who actually created those funny little characters? God or the big bang!?

>>>>>>>>:magic:

 

[Fluffy]

Provide a contrary example? That is not the argument, the argument you are making is that the bricks assemble themselves into a building while I infer that there was an intelligent designer at work, even though you can only see a building, not the Designer.

I'm saying that if every building can be seen to be assembled from bricks then this is not sufficient to infer a designer. The necessary suppressed premise is "buildings are the sort of things that require designers". I can see how to justify that in the case of an actual building e.g. I've seen a designer design a building. Therefore, you need an equivilant justification for inferring a designer from particles assembling themselves into objects.

As above, stating "I can't imagine how bricks could assemble themselves into buildings" is still not sufficient since it fails to justify the suppressed premise due to being an argument from ignorance.

So, every belief you have is supported with proof huh? Everything fits in your system. Nothing makes waves, everything fits nicely. You can either see everything or see it's effect on something.

Actually, I hold beliefs that I am justified in believing and beliefs I am not justified in believing. However, I am ready to admit that those beliefs I am justified in believing constitute knowledge, that those beliefs I am not justified in believing constitute faith and that knowledge is always superior to faith.

However, I also hold that my atheism is not faith but knowledge.

How about the speed of light? What proof do you have that it is what they say it is?

How about E=MC2? Certainly you don't have proof of it so then, you cannot believe.

If I have no evidence for the speed of light or general relativity then I would not be justified in believing that those things were as they are stated. Evidence is necessary for justification and justification is necessary for belief to be justified.

I don't wish to debate whether those concepts are true or not so for the purposes of this debate, my argument still holds if I simply say I have no evidence for either of those beliefs and so my belief is not justified.

 

[Panda]

How about E=MC2? Certainly you don't have proof of it so then, you cannot believe.

Um there is lots of proof of E=mc^2 (and please use the correct notation, I know I am picky but it is something that annoying me). Anyway every nuclear device is proof of E=mc^2, every star is proof and every photon is proof. Would you like the entire derivation of E=mc^2? I am sure neither of us would understand it, I know I don't.

 

[Willamena]

Um there is lots of proof of E=mc^2 (and please use the correct notation, I know I am picky but it is something that annoying me). Anyway every nuclear device is proof of E=mc^2, every star is proof and every photon is proof.

Those aren't "proof," those are evidence.

More proper to say that the formula is evidenced by such things.

 

[doppelganger]

Those aren't "proof," those are evidence.

More proper to say that the formula is evidenced by such things.

Excellent point. Evidence demonstrates a theory or model is useful for predicting with higher accuracy future motion and interaction between observable things. Evidence doesn't relate to "truth" though, because useful and truth are not the same thing. The most one can prove is that one model results in a higher accuracy and more complete mode of prediction than another model.

 

[Super Universe]

I guess we shouldn't believe in anything since nothing can be proven.
I guess nothing exists.

Anyway, I’m not talking about proof, I’m talking about evidence. Also I'm talking about reasonable certainty. Based on evidence and past experiences we can reasonably certain about some things. Although there is always a slight chance of being wrong.

As I said, visions of god are more subjective than pictures of the Eiffel Tower.

No one. I said people see god differently. And if god is different to everyone, how can we know what god is or that god is anything?

Things can be proven. You do believe in things, but what is the level of evidence that you require to believe in God?

Visions of God are more subjective than pictures of the Eiffel Tower? Why, because you understand the process behind how a camera works and you don't understand the process behind how God works?

God isn't truly different to everyone, you just see what you want to see.

How can we know what God is? Can you tell what a puzzle is when you only have part of it assembled?

 

[Super Universe]

I'm saying that if every building can be seen to be assembled from bricks then this is not sufficient to infer a designer. The necessary suppressed premise is "buildings are the sort of things that require designers". I can see how to justify that in the case of an actual building e.g. I've seen a designer design a building. Therefore, you need an equivilant justification for inferring a designer from particles assembling themselves into objects.

As above, stating "I can't imagine how bricks could assemble themselves into buildings" is still not sufficient since it fails to justify the suppressed premise due to being an argument from ignorance.

Actually, I hold beliefs that I am justified in believing and beliefs I am not justified in believing. However, I am ready to admit that those beliefs I am justified in believing constitute knowledge, that those beliefs I am not justified in believing constitute faith and that knowledge is always superior to faith.

However, I also hold that my atheism is not faith but knowledge.

If I have no evidence for the speed of light or general relativity then I would not be justified in believing that those things were as they are stated. Evidence is necessary for justification and justification is necessary for belief to be justified.

I don't wish to debate whether those concepts are true or not so for the purposes of this debate, my argument still holds if I simply say I have no evidence for either of those beliefs and so my belief is not justified.

Ahh, so in your view, if every building is made of bricks then you can't assume there is a designer?

You can only say that "buildings are made of bricks". You need absolute proof before believing in God yet you do not need absolute proof to believe in other things. Believing in God requires a higher standard of evidence, an impossibly high standard, for you to believe.

But what if the argument is not from ignorance?

So you have faith in some things? Perhaps people? Machines at times? You have faith in governments and groups maybe? But what knowledge could you possibly have that leads you to believe that God does not exist?

 

[doppelganger]

Visions of God are more subjective than pictures of the Eiffel Tower? Why, because you understand the process behind how a camera works and you don't understand the process behind how God works?

Visions of "God" are shadows cast by uncertainty in a world imagined as certain. I don't believe in "God" because I don't perceive the Universe as certain.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm saying that if every building can be seen to be assembled from bricks then this is not sufficient to infer a designer. The necessary suppressed premise is "buildings are the sort of things that require designers". I can see how to justify that in the case of an actual building e.g. I've seen a designer design a building. Therefore, you need an equivilant justification for inferring a designer from particles assembling themselves into objects.

As above, stating "I can't imagine how bricks could assemble themselves into buildings" is still not sufficient since it fails to justify the suppressed premise due to being an argument from ignorance.

Actually, I hold beliefs that I am justified in believing and beliefs I am not justified in believing. However, I am ready to admit that those beliefs I am justified in believing constitute knowledge, that those beliefs I am not justified in believing constitute faith and that knowledge is always superior to faith.

However, I also hold that my atheism is not faith but knowledge.

If I have no evidence for the speed of light or general relativity then I would not be justified in believing that those things were as they are stated. Evidence is necessary for justification and justification is necessary for belief to be justified.

I don't wish to debate whether those concepts are true or not so for the purposes of this debate, my argument still holds if I simply say I have no evidence for either of those beliefs and so my belief is not justified.

Ahh, so in your view, if every building is made of bricks then you can't assume there is a designer? You can only say that "buildings are made of bricks".

You need absolute proof before believing in God yet you do not need absolute proof to believe in other things. Believing in God requires a higher standard of evidence, an impossibly high standard, for you to believe. But you still have not told me why?

And what if the argument is not from ignorance?

So you have faith in some things? Perhaps people? Machines at times? You have faith in governments and groups maybe? But what knowledge could you possibly have that leads you to believe that God does not exist?

 

[eudaimonia]

What is the reason you don't believe in God?

I see no sufficiently persuasive reason to believe in God.

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.

It's not that for me. The number one reason for me is just that the universe appears to be a godless one to me. I just don't see any good reason to explain it by reference to a God.

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

Where do you rate your own ego, and do you realize it's the main reason behind your key question?

(I can ask leading questions too! It's fun!)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Super Universe]

Um there is lots of proof of E=mc^2 (and please use the correct notation, I know I am picky but it is something that annoying me). Anyway every nuclear device is proof of E=mc^2, every star is proof and every photon is proof. Would you like the entire derivation of E=mc^2? I am sure neither of us would understand it, I know I don't.

There is a lot of proof of Einsteins Theory? But what evidence of it have you ever tested? You trust strangers when they say this or that. You choose to believe in things you have never seen or experienced. Your level of evidence to believe in this is extremely low.

What evidence do you require to believe in God?

 

[Super Universe]

Visions of "God" are shadows cast by uncertainty in a world imagined as certain. I don't believe in "God" because I don't perceive the Universe as certain.

What power does uncertainty have? Do you see visions? Any at all? Yet you have just as much uncertainty as others? Why do they see visions and you do not? Perhaps genetics has something to do with it?

You don't perceive the universe as certain? So, it might not truly exist? It might all just be a complex hologram. Hmm, maybe it's all just a dream that God is having?

Did you ever think that it's impossible for anything to truly exist because it would have to come from something and that something would then have to come from something and on and on forever... Think of it this way, God made a deal with the void, the value of the universe will stay at zero so in order to balance the positives an equal amount of negatives will be created.

It's like your checking account. You shouldn't be able to go into debt unless something allows you to. And if something allows you to do that it opens up a whole other set of options.