Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Autodidact]

Where's my evidence? Nope, not till you show me yours, and I hope it's more than a picture this time.

It's a heck of a lot more than you have. btw, I've visited the Eiffel tower, so you can add my eye-witness testimony to the pictorial evidence. Do you have any? Of God, that is, not of children playing.

Maybe you should learn something about the universe, like maybe, how particles invent physical laws. Yeah, go figure that one out.

They do? Sez who?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I believe in God.

It is I

 

[Papersock]

This is pretty much how this conversation has developed.

SU: Do you know why you don't believe in god?
Atheists: Yes, because there's no evidence.
SU: Yes there is.
A: There is? What is it?
SU: Life, the universe, Everything.
A: That's not evidence.
SU: Yes it is.
A: No it's not.
SU: Yes, it is
Etc...

 

[Super Universe]

SU: Do you know why you don't believe in God?
A: Yes, a lack of evidence.
SU: But you don't require much evidence to believe in other things?
A: No, but they are different.
SU: Why are they different?
A: Because they don't cost me anything to believe in them
SU: Cost? What cost are you talking about?
A: Individuality for one, what you call "ego".
SU: So both YOU and God can't fit in your universe?
A: That's pretty much it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He didn't say, "and the baby." Obviously, from all the ones that don't die. Duh.[/size]
Actually, I did. Lots of babies died in or just after childbirth. Lots survived as well. The people who exist now are descended from the ones who didn't die, obviously.

Hmm, a good chance of killing the woman? Hardly. How does any population survive and grow to 6 billion when there's a good chance that both the baby and mother die?

Until the middle of the Victorian era, even in the western world, childbirth was the leading cause of death for women. This doesn't mean that every woman died in childbirth; as you pointed out, the human population survived and grew through all of history. However, it does mean that for any individual woman, going through pregnancy had a significant chance of killing her, even if most women survived at least one childbirth.

But please... read some history on the subject, for instance, this article:

Pregnancy and childbirth became the most dangerous time in the life of a Victorian woman. Maternal mortality, the deaths of women during pregnancy, labor, or post-partem, found itself as the main cause of death among women during the nineteenth century (Kiple 214).

A baby's skull at birth is usually only just large enough to pass through a woman's pelvis. If that relationship is just a bit off - if the pelvis is a bit too narrow or the head a bit too big - the baby can't be born and, if left unaided, the mother and baby will both die in childbirth.

Even with a successful birth, historically, there were many ailments that could befall either a new mother or her baby.

Now... if childbirth were "perfect" as you claim, why would a Caesarian section ever be needed?

God does exist.

People don't see the evidence for God for a number of reasons but their ego's are the main thing interfering. I cannot justifying something when absolute evidence of that thing is provided and people still refuse to accept it.

You provided absolute evidence? I must've missed it.

My purpose was not to sway anyone. I just wanted to ask, "Do you know why you don't believe?" Nobody's mind is going to change regardless of the logic or evidence provided. That's the whole point of this exercise. Stop being so afraid and relax, I'm not going to make you into a Catholic.

Don't worry; there's not much danger of that.

It's readily apparent. Why don't you know this?

Maybe we're stupid. I can't think of any other possible explanation for why baseless assertions and statements of opinion wouldn't get in through my thick skull at least.

I guess you'll have to break your argument down so we can understand it. Do it step by step so even the dullards like me can follow it.

 

[Papersock]

A: Because they don't cost me anything to believe in them

I thought that was your claim, not the atheists'.

A: Individuality for one, what you call "ego".

And this too was your assertion.
At least with my over-generalization of the conversation I attributed the sentiments to the right people.

 

[Super Universe]

He didn't say, "and the baby." Obviously, from all the ones that don't die. Duh.[/size]
Actually, I did. Lots of babies died in or just after childbirth. Lots survived as well. The people who exist now are descended from the ones who didn't die, obviously.

[/size]

Until the middle of the Victorian era, even in the western world, childbirth was the leading cause of death for women. This doesn't mean that every woman died in childbirth; as you pointed out, the human population survived and grew through all of history. However, it does mean that for any individual woman, going through pregnancy had a significant chance of killing her, even if most women survived at least one childbirth.

But please... read some history on the subject, for instance, this article:



A baby's skull at birth is usually only just large enough to pass through a woman's pelvis. If that relationship is just a bit off - if the pelvis is a bit too narrow or the head a bit too big - the baby can't be born and, if left unaided, the mother and baby will both die in childbirth.

Even with a successful birth, historically, there were many ailments that could befall either a new mother or her baby.

Now... if childbirth were "perfect" as you claim, why would a Caesarian section ever be needed?


You provided absolute evidence? I must've missed it.


Don't worry; there's not much danger of that.


Maybe we're stupid. I can't think of any other possible explanation for why baseless assertions and statements of opinion wouldn't get in through my thick skull at least.

I guess you'll have to break your argument down so we can understand it. Do it step by step so even the dullards like me can follow it.

Lots of babies die? But what human has ever lived forever? Why do you believe that a person was supposed to live longer than they did?

You really go to great lengths to try and prove to me that humans should be the main emphasis of God and the entire universe. It should be quite obvious to you by now that you aren't. It's just not about you.

Not just childbirth, but birth in general is perfect. Can you give life to something?

Yeah, you missed it, an entire universe full of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lots of babies die? But what human has ever lived forever? Why do you believe that a person was supposed to live longer than they did?

I don't. I don't believe in fate of any kind, so I don't believe that anyone is "supposed" to live for any particular length of time at all.

You really go to great lengths to try and prove to me that humans should be the main emphasis of God and the entire universe. It should be quite obvious to you by now that you aren't. It's just not about you.

If that's what you got out of what I wrote, then you mis-read it.

You brought up the "perfection" of childbirth as evidence for God. As I pointed out, childbirth is not "perfect" in any sense of the term. Bring up some other point and we can talk about that, but don't get pissy about the fact that I challenge you on stuff that you bring up.

Not just childbirth, but birth in general is perfect. Can you give life to something?

Depends on your sense of the terms involved. Birth's pretty neat, but as I've stated, it's not perfect.

Yeah, you missed it, an entire universe full of evidence.

Then enlighten us. Don't just talk about how there's lots of evidence, give some examples. In "an entire universe of evidence", you should have no shortage.

 

[yossarian22]

So, to summarize Super Universe's argument as it appears to me:
God must exist because the universe exists.

And this assertion has no underlying basis to it. I could just as easily say God must not exist because the universe exists.
Or, to summarize his apparent rebuttal.
You don't have any evidence for the existence of certain things, and yet you believe in them.
Similarly, there is no evidence for the existence of the universe.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok, S_U, you asked for it... here is the first stab.

All replies can be surmised in this one answer "God can't exist because, if there was a God, then everything would revolve around me".

I am somewhat breathless as to what leads you to make this global assertion. Not only does it not make sense, but I fail to grasp how "if there was a "god" then everything would revolve around me" part. Um... S_U, why is that?

In a "response" to Sunstone you state:

Hmm, lets see, my ego needs to aggrandize itself by identifying with a deity huh? Umm, how exactly have I identified with this deity?

You have identified yourself with "deity" by implying you hold special knowledge that is virtually completely unknown (or recognized AS knowledge) by your fellow human animals.

You give a further remark to Sunstone that is as clear as mud.

I don't have to. You are doing it for

me.

I assume simply by going against what you are saying is evidence for you? And you still claim no connection with deity, otherwise how precisely would you know?

In a pithy response to the fairly bored Buttercup you chose to respond with:

In order to ascend the dimensional ladder you have to understand how the universe works because you have to go up the ladder yourself, it's a ladder, not an elevator.

An advanced understanding of God theory will be provided to you, something that 99% of all beings believe in when shown all the support.

The other 1% are lost. Regardless of the proof provided you do not have to believe in anything if you do not wish to.

To which, I asked the simple question. "May I see the statistical analysis for this unfounded presumption, S_U?" It is a fairly important point and one I was expecting a serious response to.

You saw fit to respond with: Nothing; so much for backing up what you yourself are claiming.

Then you saw fit to reply to me with this wanton piece of derelict thinking:

Ego is not a miserable little creature, it is quite important and the reason for the earth and human existence. You were intended to be the most selfish beings ever created but, and this is a very big but, you weren't intended to always be that way.

I'm a theist and I hold no magic marble. I'm stuck here just as you are. We're in the same boat, you're shoveling water into it, and I'm not one bit happy about it.

In one paragraph you refer to what I assume is mankind and not specifically citing yours truly. I have not done a forensic audit of your words, but this seems to be one of the first times you imply that you are dissociated from the race of the human animal.

THEN, in the very next paragraph you claim to be in the same boat as the rest of us and that I am somehow drawing water into that little "boat" and yet you fail to recognize that it is a boat of your own logic that simply does not float.

Next you hit with this telling little missive to LogDog.

I don't believe my evidence is sufficient for everyone else. I didn't expect any of you to reply.

Since you are beginning to bare your soul here I thought I add one more cup of water to the sinking boat. You see, S_U, threads on RF have been exceptionally dull of late and I was drawn by your fascinating interaction with my dear friend Buttercup. All I can say is that boredom makes for strange bedfellows. I think what occurred was essentially a feeding frenzy created by your somewhat imperious and ludicrous answers. “Ye reap what ye sow, eh”, as someone once is alleged to have said.

If you want to know the truth, this topic was intended to touch one specific person, not everyone. That is like trying to change a dog into a human. I can't help the rest of you, be who you are.

Might I be so bold to ask if your effort to "touch" a specific person paid off? I don't especially care who it is, but I am curious if your ill-conceived project has borne any fruit.

God spares no one. God gives evidence to no one. We all get equal treatment. The idea that God sends one to hell and another to heaven is not true. God sends no one anywhere, you earn your next destination.

Again, we have a statement that clearly displays that you have some direct connection to deity. Do you have something like the Psychic hotline or perhaps are you channeling your information? If you are channeling, I would advise that you change the station because your reception may be adequate, but your broadcasting mode seems to be sadly lacking.

Next you attempted to "school" TheNewReality with this morsel:

If it was important for us to believe in God, then we would believe in God. God created the universe, He could force us to believe with the slightest thought.

You are flat out saying that it is not important to believe in god, period. Then you assert with a weak appeal to authority something that cannot be substantiated although admittedly most of the world's religions would agree. Allah Akbar, baby -- and all that sort of drivel. Such thinking always makes me think of looking at a jet in flight and saying, "That goes fast!" Since it is the nature of the beast, as it were, the statement is somewhat meaningless to anyone with an IQ beyond single digits. It's like jumping in the water and saying, "Wow, this is wet, eh! Why is it so wet?"

Doppelganger then came by with what is perhaps inspired genius and said to you:

Ego is actually the reason for believing rather than non-believing. "God" imagined as "Creator" is a shadow cast by the "God"-observer's self-consciousness. Everyone's "God" bears an uncanny resemblance to themselves . . . but if horses had gods, they'd look like horses.

As far an non-belief goes, I'd like to hear someone clearly define what it is I'm supposedly not believing in . . . That would be the threshold question.

Is "God" a thing? If so, what kind of thing? If not, what sense does it make to talk about the "existence" of a non-thing?

Now I understand EXACTLY what he is talking about as it mirrors my own dwarfed understanding. You, however, responded with this peculiar response that reminded me of our previous conversations about conscience vs. consciousness.

So you are saying that a lack of self esteem is the reason people believe in God? That they must be afraid of everything and so they are comforted by imagining an all powerful and loving Creator?

I can understand this reasoning. There is some logic to it.

But you didn't answer the OP.

For the life of me I do not know how on Earth you equate what he said with a lack of self esteem. That is bizarre reasoning, so bizarre in fact that it clearly demonstrates a utter abandonment of generally accepted logic. What he is actually saying is that the ego gets puffed up into a wild sense of grandeur that becomes "god-like". Man perceives "god" in his own image and hypothetically horses, if they are egotistical too, who envision "god" as a horse, in their own image. This isn't rocket science.

That is quite enough for now; I haven't even got warmed up yet, more tomorrow.

 

[eudaimonia]

Life happens through abiogenesis? But you can't get it to work.

Can't get what to work?

All these particles forming perfectly within incredibly precise tolerences and then somehow forming physical laws and then time and then life?

I find it highly ironic that you would accuse us of ego, and then assert that the universe must have been designed to support life simply because life exists. The non-ego view would be that the universe could have been much different, and might not have produced us, or any living being, at all.

Not only that, they had to form it all in a perfect order and it had to all work the first time. If the first time you try to form a universe it does not work, game over! There is no second chance. It doesn't go back to the beginning to give you another chance.

Not necessarily so. You assume too much here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[eudaimonia]

You believe in many other things without evidence for them. So why don't you believe in God? What is it that are you afraid of?

This wasn't addressed to me, but it's worth answering.

There are many issues in life where a belief or disbelief is of little consequence. For instance, let's say that you are waiting for the bus, and the bus is five minutes late. If you are optimistic, you could tentatively believe that the bus is on its way, and is simply running behind schedule. If you are pessimistic, you could lack the belief that the bus is on its way -- perhaps it ended up in an accident, who knows? -- and you are already using your cellphone to call for a taxi. I call these "half-beliefs", since they are held with little conviction.

What you believe at that time will most likely be of little-to-no consequence the next day. It won't change the way you look at life, the universe, and everything. It won't be one of your "personal truths".

The big philosophical questions, such as "how did the universe we see get here?", are worldview-influencing questions. People who care about such issues spend years contemplating them, because they want to know the truth, or at least get as close to it as they are able. The answers they arive at could have influence on virtually all of their other beliefs. This is why tentative belief is inappropriate here. The cost is too great.

So why don't you not believe in God? What are you afraid of? I suspect that you simply want to have the best answers you can to the big questions of life, just like we do. We're in the same boat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

God has texts, eyewitnesses, and construction blueprints if you know where to look (philosophy).

Texts? Show me that the texts are accurate.

Eyewitnesses? Show me the accounts are valid.

Blueprints? Show me that philosophy can only come from God.

Countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower? So to you, photos are always proof? Photo's have been faked many times. And eyewitnesses? Don't eyewitnesses sometimes see UFO's? And blueprints? But aren't blueprints just drawings, the thing might never have been built?

All of them faked in exactly the same way? Over the last how many years? yeah, it's all fake. [/sarcasm]

And the thing is, I am capable of going to see for myself that the Eiffel Tower is real. Aside from death, how do you propose to go and see for yourself regarding God?

Care to show you anything like that for God? Umm, the atom.

And please explain how you have determined that the atom is evidence for God? How did you eliminate every other possibility? Hopefully not by that old argument from ignorance, I hope!

The atom is not enough proof of intelligence to you? Okay, try this, design something that an entire universe will be based on? Something better than the atom.

So you conclude that the atom could only have come to be through intelligence? Again, I ask, how did you eliminate all the other possibilities? And don't give me that argument from ignorance crap.

But are all things equal?

Even if they were, which is more simple:

1) That a series of extremely precise accidents formed particles, the physical laws, time, the universe and life, and all in an extremely precise order

or

2) Intelligence is behind it all

You could care less if God exists? Sure, go on with your life. It's yours to live as you wish. But... why are you here, on RF, then?

Well it all depends. because option two must also explain where that intelligence came from. How simple is that explanation? Can you even provide an explanation? Until you can, you're just guessing, and so far your guesses aree less than convincing.

Hmm, a good chance of killing the woman? Hardly. How does any population survive and grow to 6 billion when there's a good chance that both the baby and mother die?

The fact remains that Childbirth can kill if there are complications. It is inheritantly risky and dangerous - hardly perfect.

God does exist. People don't see the evidence for God for a number of reasons but their ego's are the main thing interfering. I cannot justifying something when absolute evidence of that thing is provided and people still refuse to accept it.

or maybe you just want to believe so much that you've convinced yourself that what you see is proof and that anyone who doesn't share your views is just blind. Ever stop to think that others might have a valid reason for believing what they do and that they might even be right? if not, then you are the very definition of "close-minded".

Vision, yes! Go watch children playing. Watch a family out for dinner. Watch someone sleep.

Hearing, yes! Listen to children playing. Listen to the wind blow through the trees. Listen to people talking in a crowded bar.

Smell? Smell the flowers. Smell the air just before it rains. Smell the ocean spray.

I defined God as First Cause. You're the one who thinks this is all He is. You made the box, not I.

So God looks like a sleeping person? God looks like playing children? God sounds people in a bar talking? God smells like ocean spray? Because it sure sounds to me that you've just picked some things you like and redefined God to include them. Not really any evidence unless you can explain that such a redefinition is justified.

But how could it be rerun? The thing is, the universe not only had to create itself with in almost infinite degree of precision, it also had to do it right the first time.

Once you try to create a universe and it fails. Game over! There is no second attempt.

And the puddle said to itself, "This hole in the ground fits me perfectly! It must have been designed to fit me! There's an intelligence out there that has created holes in the ground for me to rest in! Proof of intelligent design!"

And the puddle is wrong.

Okay, maybe the atom alone is not enough evidence for you.

How about the universe?

How about the Earth?

How about life?

Think of how intelligent humans are and yet, we barely understand it all. How could there NOT be intelligence be at work, at least, in some way?

Right, before you give any more of these things as evidences for intelligent design, could you PLEASE explain how you have eliminated all other possible explanations for these things???

And I'm going to stop quoting your posts here because I am tired and to be honest I have better things to do.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm dropping out of this debate now and unsubscribing from the thread so if you want me to see anything posted towards me, you'll need to PM me first.

Thanks for debating, Super Universe, it was both useful and interesting.

 

[camanintx]

Ah, you have to have a reason to believe in God? You need a benefit, a return? And people ask what ego has to do with it?

It has nothing to do with benefit or return. Call it a minimalist world view. There are many things that would be nice if they existed, but just believing it doesn't make it so.

 

[Willamena]

Texts? Show me that the texts are accurate.

Eyewitnesses? Show me the accounts are valid.

Blueprints? Show me that philosophy can only come from God.

Show me that your photos are accurate. Which one accurately portrays the Eiffel Tower? Whose eyewitness accounts will be the same (and would you believe them if 10 people gave identical stories?)?
http://phototravels.net/paris/N0031/paris-eiffel-tower-30.3.jpg
http://www.martellistudio.com/images/black_white/Eiffel_Tower.jpg
http://www.3dphoto.net/stereo/world/europe/befraluxmon/paris/eiffel_tower_night-wallpaper.jpg

And as to that last, blueprints come from the building rather than the architect? That's an odd thought.

 

[Willamena]

There are many things that would be nice if they existed, but just believing it doesn't make it so.

Although, conversely, just making it so makes us believe it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And as to that last, blueprints come from the building rather than the architect? That's an odd thought.

As-built drawings would come from the building.

Construction blueprints would indicate the deliberate attempt to build a building, even if they don't come from the building itself.

 

[Autodidact]

SU: Do you know why you don't believe in God?
A: Yes, a lack of evidence.
SU: But you don't require much evidence to believe in other things?

Yes, I do. I don't believe something exists unless I see some evidence that it does. Now, do you have any evidence that your God exists?
SU: Yes, everything either is God or is evidence of God, or both, I'm not really sure.
A: How so?
SU: It's obvious, and if you can't see it there's something wrong with you.
A: O.K., whatever.

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]
I don't. I don't believe in fate of any kind, so I don't believe that anyone is "supposed" to live for any particular length of time at all.


If that's what you got out of what I wrote, then you mis-read it.

You brought up the "perfection" of childbirth as evidence for God. As I pointed out, childbirth is not "perfect" in any sense of the term. Bring up some other point and we can talk about that, but don't get pissy about the fact that I challenge you on stuff that you bring up.


Depends on your sense of the terms involved. Birth's pretty neat, but as I've stated, it's not perfect.


Then enlighten us. Don't just talk about how there's lots of evidence, give some examples. In "an entire universe of evidence", you should have no shortage.

Here are all the examples I've given as evidence of intelligence:

The universe
The Earth
atom
gravity
strong and weak nuclear forces
relative physics
life

and here is all the evidence the athiests have provided:

removes lollipop from mouth- "Um, no it's not..." -puts lollipop back in