Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Panda]

No. The formula is right because nuclear bombs and the sun work. They evidence it.

I guess we have different definitions of proof.

 

[Fluffy]

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".

Not quite. If every building is made of bricks then you need more evidence in order to be justified in assuming a designer.

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?

I don't require absolute proof to believe in God nor do I require a higher standard of evidence. I require the same standard of evidence. Justify how you have drawn this conclusion.

And what if the argument is not from ignorance?

As long as the argument committed no other fallacies, you would have a valid argument. You'd then need to show the argument was sound and you'd be left with a conclusion you'd be justified in believing. That is the case no matter what the argument is about.

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?

My knowledge first rests on the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If I can't convince you that there is no evidence then it is pointless to talk about the rest since it all rests on that point. I've posted on it extensively in the past and I will do so again on this thread but only after we have resolved the contention of whether there exists evidence for God's existence.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you begin by defining "God?" Thank you.

 

[doppelganger]

Can you begin by defining "God?" Thank you.

Good luck with that . . .

 

[Super Universe]

Not quite. If every building is made of bricks then you need more evidence in order to be justified in assuming a designer.


I don't require absolute proof to believe in God nor do I require a higher standard of evidence. I require the same standard of evidence. Justify how you have drawn this conclusion.


As long as the argument committed no other fallacies, you would have a valid argument. You'd then need to show the argument was sound and you'd be left with a conclusion you'd be justified in believing. That is the case no matter what the argument is about.

My knowledge first rests on the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If I can't convince you that there is no evidence then it is pointless to talk about the rest since it all rests on that point. I've posted on it extensively in the past and I will do so again on this thread but only after we have resolved the contention of whether there exists evidence for God's existence.

What if you know the nature of bricks and you know they are incapable of forming themselves into the shape of the building without direction?

You need the same standard of evidence for believing in God as believing in anything else? Do you believe the Eiffel Tower exists?

How can you be so absolutely sure that the universe itself, the earth, and life, are not evidence of intelligent design? You don't see any intelligence whatsoever in it?

 

[Super Universe]

Can you begin by defining "God?" Thank you.

First Cause. That which caused all other causes and effects.

 

[doppelganger]

First Cause. That which caused all other causes and effects.

Your homework is now really late. I'm going to have to grade you down.

 

[Panda]

First Cause. That which caused all other causes and effects.

So can't the big bang be the first cause?

 

[Super Universe]

Well if you considered the big bang to be the first cause then you would simply have to ignore the ten other dimensions, heaven, and God who caused the big bang to happen.

 

[Papersock]

First Cause. That which caused all other causes and effects.

By that definition god could be anything. It could even be non-intelligent.

 

[doppelganger]

Well if you considered the big bang to be the first cause then you would simply have to ignore the ten other dimensions, heaven, and God who caused the big bang to happen.

And if you considered "God" to be the first cause, you'd have to ignore the other 15 dimensions beyond those ten, Nirvana and Ogthnank the caveman, who caused "God" to happen.

 

[Super Universe]

By that definition god could be anything. It could even be non-intelligent.

Any definition of God is lacking.

But you are interpreting it to mean non-intelligence. Why? Why don't you want there to be a God?

 

[Panda]

Well if you considered the big bang to be the first cause then you would simply have to ignore the ten other dimensions, heaven, and God who caused the big bang to happen.

You said there were eleven dimensions, you now say without God we would be living in one dimension. I wonder if you even know what a dimension is?

 

[Papersock]

Any definition of God is lacking.

Since we have no idea what god might actually be, we have no way of knowing what kind of evidence might suggest that the unknown thing exists.

But you are interpreting it to mean non-intelligence. Why? Why don't you want there to be a God?

You are interpreting it to mean intelligence. Why do you want there to be a god?
I simply do not think the "first cause" has to be intelligent, or even a "god."

 

[Super Universe]

You said there were eleven dimensions, you now say without God we would be living in one dimension. I wonder if you even know what a dimension is?

Yes, I know what a dimension is.

Your primitive dimensional understanding (width, then width and length, then width/length/height) is incorrect.

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]

Since we have no idea what god might actually be, we have no way of knowing what kind of evidence might suggest that the unknown thing exists.



You are interpreting it to mean intelligence. Why do you want there to be a god?
I simply do not think the "first cause" has to be intelligent, or even a "god."

We have no idea what God might actually be? Not true at all. You just haven't even tried.

I interpret enormous complexity to mean intelligence? Yes.

Why do I want there to be a God? I didn't. It was news to me.

First Cause does not have to be intelligent? Not if it, whatever it is, is the only thing that comes from it. Once it develops to an incredible level of complexity it should be obvious.

 

[Papersock]

We have no idea what God might actually be? Not true at all. You just haven't even tried.

You cannot assume what I have or have not tried.

I interpret enormous complexity to mean intelligence? Yes.

Fair enough. I interpret as not needing intelligence to form.

Why do I want there to be a God? I didn't. It was news to me.

If your belief has nothing to do with what you want, you should not assume that my belief is because I don't want there to be a god.

 

[Panda]

Yes, I know what a dimension is.

Your primitive dimensional understanding (width, then width and length, then width/length/height) is incorrect.

No sorry you don't know what a dimension. Width, length, height and time are 4 of the dimensions. However perhaps we only live in one of the eleven things that you make up call dimensions but aren't dimensions.

 

[Super Universe]

No sorry you don't know what a dimension. Width, length, height and time are 4 of the dimensions. However perhaps we only live in one of the eleven things that you make up call dimensions but aren't dimensions.

Name one thing that does not have width, length, and height.

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]
You cannot assume what I have or have not tried.

Okay, so maybe you tried to figure out what God is, got frustrated, then gave up.

No one said this stuff was easy, that's what makes it so incredible.