Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Super Universe]

I'm a bit confused about something. How is not believing in god caused by my ego wanting god and the universe to be all about me?

If god does not exist, then I just happen to be here due to natural and mostly random forces and I make absolutely no difference to the universe.

If god exists, then he created the world and the whole universe for us to exist in it.

Which is more egotistical?

Quite the twisty little maze you've posted, otherwise known as spin.

Well something causes you to not see intelligence at work to create the incredible complexity required for life to form, survive, and evolve. What do you think it is?

Which is more egotistical? You as you are now, or a God who designs and forms a whole universe and earth for you and allows you complete free will while forcing nothing on you?

 

[Nanda]

Well something causes you to not see intelligence at work to create the incredible complexity required for life to form, survive, and evolve. What do you think it is?

It could just as eaily be said that what causes you to see intelligence at work in the creation of the universe is your ego. You're used to seeing humans create, so you assume that there can't be anything that isn't created by a sentient being. It's narcissism.

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]

It could just as eaily be said that what causes you to see intelligence at work in the creation of the universe is your ego. You're used to seeing humans create, so you assume that there can't be anything that isn't created by a sentient being. It's narcissism.

I've never seen a human create a single thing. They mix and match, and that's it.

 

[Nanda]

I created something once. Best thing I ever made. You won't be able to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid, and you'll never really understand, either.

 

[yossarian22]

I've never seen a human create a single thing. They mix and match, and that's it.

So what is thought by that reasoning?

 

[Super Universe]

I created something once. Best thing I ever made. You won't be able to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid, and you'll never really understand, either.

Well lets see now, does a parent really create a child?

Do parents bring atoms into existence that will form the child's body? No.
Do they assemble the personality elements that will make this child unique? No.
Do parents attract a life giving soul to their offspring? Nope.
Do parents know how it all works? Something about a strand of DNA from mother and father and then ?

You give yourself all the credit for something you don't even understand. You know what that's called... ego.

Mix, and match.

 

[Nanda]

Well lets see now, does a parent really create a child?

Do parents bring atoms into existence that will form the child's body? No.
Do they assemble the personality elements that will make this child unique? No.
Do parents attract a life giving soul to their offspring? Nope.
Do parents know how it all works? Something about a strand of DNA from mother and father and then ?

You give yourself all the credit for something you don't even understand. You know what that's called... ego.

Mix, and match.

I'm going to ignore all your reasoning, because I have experienced it myself, and therefore know better than you. Maybe someday you'll let go of your ego, and be able to comprehend.

 

[Papersock]

Quite the twisty little maze you've posted, otherwise known as spin.

Why thank you.

Well something causes you to not see intelligence at work to create the incredible complexity required for life to form, survive, and evolve. What do you think it is?

I think it is my current understanding of physical reality, history, and human nature that leads me to believe it is more probable that the concept of god is a human invention.

Which is more egotistical? You as you are now, or a God who designs and forms a whole universe and earth for you and allows you complete free will while forcing nothing on you?

I simply am as I am now. I’m not sure what that has to do with being egotistical. Believing that a god designed me and a whole universe for me would make me feel more important than I believe I actually am.
But really I don’t think either is more egotistical than the other. It’s more a matter of interpretation.

 

[Super Universe]

Why thank you.


I think it is my current understanding of physical reality, history, and human nature that leads me to believe it is more probable that the concept of god is a human invention.


I simply am as I am now. I’m not sure what that has to do with being egotistical. Believing that a god designed me and a whole universe for me would make me feel more important than I believe I actually am.
But really I don’t think either is more egotistical than the other. It’s more a matter of interpretation.

So to you it's more probable that unintelligent energy created itself in an incredibly precise form that has both a stable and active nature and this energy created physical laws that controlled it and then somehow this unintelligent energy thing created time and life as if it knew exactly where it was going and what it was doing?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Thanks guys - had a good chuckle today!

You makes me happeh!

 

[Papersock]

So to you it's more probable that unintelligent energy created itself in an incredibly precise form that has both a stable and active nature and this energy created physical laws that controlled it and then somehow this unintelligent energy thing created time and life as if it knew exactly where it was going and what it was doing?

As I've said before, yeah pretty much. Except I think time is an inevitable part of the universe and on closer inspection it doesn't seem to me to know exactly what it is doing. We are not a goal. To think we are a specifically desired outcome is to give more importance to us than I think we deserve. We are a happy accident, as far as I can tell. Happy for us, not so much for the rest of the world.

 

[eudaimonia]

So to you it's more probable that unintelligent energy created itself in an incredibly precise form that has both a stable and active nature and this energy created physical laws that controlled it and then somehow this unintelligent energy thing created time and life as if it knew exactly where it was going and what it was doing?

That isn't my precise view, but I would find this view much more probable than a universe and life creating intelligence creating itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BucephalusBB]

in an incredibly precise form

Is that what you think?
If energy wasn't perfect it would not have survived and you wouldn't notice it. So the only option for you to see energy is in perfect shape. created or not..

 

[YmirGF]

Oh no, there is no room for error, Super_Universe. I am never wrong because there is no possibility that I am seeing your "situation" incorrectly, so

you must be mistaken. Um... where did I say your floors are made of wood?

Do I have to do everything here? I am not coming over and fixing your floor, so you must deal with it yourself. Here I am just trying to be helpful and encourage you to do something and this is the thanks I get. No doubt you are going to insist that there is no stain on your floor. Sheesh... some people's kids.

Drat. I somehow thought that mirroring your own mode of logic would sink in somewhat indelibly. Silly me. My example above was given to illustrate your own unerring egotistically based "understanding". The simple fact is Super_Universe you post assertion after assertion after assertion, belittling any thoughts to the contrary and yet provide proof simply by "insistence". This only serves to underscore to the reader a distinctly capricious disregard for the cognitive process itself exemplified in the repeated dismissal of opposing points of view.

It is my judgment that you will, Super_Universe, attract only the most simple-minded followers to your vision of reality. Tell me, have you had any PM's from people who are deeply impressed with your understanding and wish to know more about your beliefs since you created this thread? I have noted that your furballs have not gone up substantially, and though they are for fun, they are a good measure of how people regard your overall thinking.

 

[Willamena]

Drat. I somehow thought that mirroring your own mode of logic would sink in somewhat indelibly. Silly me.

That *never* works.

 

[Super Universe]

Drat. I somehow thought that mirroring your own mode of logic would sink in somewhat indelibly. Silly me. My example above was given to illustrate your own unerring egotistically based "understanding". The simple fact is Super_Universe you post assertion after assertion after assertion, belittling any thoughts to the contrary and yet provide proof simply by "insistence". This only serves to underscore to the reader a distinctly capricious disregard for the cognitive process itself exemplified in the repeated dismissal of opposing points of view.

It is my judgment that you will, Super_Universe, attract only the most simple-minded followers to your vision of reality. Tell me, have you had any PM's from people who are deeply impressed with your understanding and wish to know more about your beliefs since you created this thread? I have noted that your furballs have not gone up substantially, and though they are for fun, they are a good measure of how people regard your overall thinking.

Nice post time...

Again with the big words in an attempt to impress the simple minded folk. Yes, you think you are so smart. But if you are so smart, then why haven't you figured anything out?

Frubals? You think I'm here to join a clique and build an online support group dependant on trading frubals back and forth? That's what's important to you, not to me. I'm not a sheep herder, I'm a specialist in search of one specific identity. And you're not it.

 

[Random]

Again with the big words in an attempt to impress the simple minded folk. Yes, you think you are so smart. But if you are so smart, then why haven't you figured anything out?

Psst. Don't you know, that's how you get loads of furbals so that, like, you can claim everyone identifies with your thinking! Geez, how long you been here on RF already...?

Frubals? You think I'm here to join a clique and build an online support group dependant on trading frubals back and forth?

Secretly, yes, that's what they all want! Form a little clique and furbal each other for the sake of appearances, having cool, well-furballed friends..."we're oh-so-intelligent, y'see? The proof's in the points". It's sad.

That's what's important to you, not to me. I'm not a sheep herder, I'm a specialist in search of one specific identity. And you're not it.

In Paul's defence, he's a genuinely smart person. But that doesn't preclude the righteousness of another person, any person.

 

[Autodidact]

After getting over the psuedo-psychological presentation and sifting through the OP for the underlying argument, I find a position that is common among apologists. (Is that what we call practitioners of apologetics?) The assertion, or assumption, is that since we cannot know anything absolutely and with certainty, we should go ahead an believe in God, although we cannot know with certainty that God exists. Just as we use faith in our daily lives for ordinary things, we should extend the same faith to God.

The problem with this argument is that while absolute certainty is rare (or some may say, non-existent) it does not follow that all knowledge or belief is therefore equally warranted. What we actually have is varying degrees of certainty, depending on the quantity and quality of evidence in favor of the proposition. This may vary from very weak (astrology, the invisible dragon in my garage) to very strong (earth revolves around sun, this post was typed by a human being.) And everything in between. (Big bang, UFOs, Pluto, life on other planets, quantum mechanics, string theory, acupuncture, etc. etc.) So the question isn't: Why don't you believe in God, when you believe in other things that you can't know with absolute certainty? And the answer is: What is the quantity and quality of the evidence in favor of the existence of God.

Super asserts without support, (nor does he feel he needs to provide, nor does he intend to provide) that the world itself is evidence, compelling evidence, in favor of the existence of God. This is, in essence, the ever popular watchmaker argument. However, IIRC, I think I tried to engage in that argument early in this thread, and Super does not seem willing or able to do so, rather repeating his trademark raw and unsupported assertions. Therefore, this thread appears unproductive to me.

I will just assert that I have searched for more specific evidence for God in general as well as several specific Gods, and failed to find it.

 

[Super Universe]

After getting over the psuedo-psychological presentation and sifting through the OP for the underlying argument, I find a position that is common among apologists. (Is that what we call practitioners of apologetics?) The assertion, or assumption, is that since we cannot know anything absolutely and with certainty, we should go ahead an believe in God, although we cannot know with certainty that God exists. Just as we use faith in our daily lives for ordinary things, we should extend the same faith to God.

The problem with this argument is that while absolute certainty is rare (or some may say, non-existent) it does not follow that all knowledge or belief is therefore equally warranted. What we actually have is varying degrees of certainty, depending on the quantity and quality of evidence in favor of the proposition. This may vary from very weak (astrology, the invisible dragon in my garage) to very strong (earth revolves around sun, this post was typed by a human being.) And everything in between. (Big bang, UFOs, Pluto, life on other planets, quantum mechanics, string theory, acupuncture, etc. etc.) So the question isn't: Why don't you believe in God, when you believe in other things that you can't know with absolute certainty? And the answer is: What is the quantity and quality of the evidence in favor of the existence of God.

Super asserts without support, (nor does he feel he needs to provide, nor does he intend to provide) that the world itself is evidence, compelling evidence, in favor of the existence of God. This is, in essence, the ever popular watchmaker argument. However, IIRC, I think I tried to engage in that argument early in this thread, and Super does not seem willing or able to do so, rather repeating his trademark raw and unsupported assertions. Therefore, this thread appears unproductive to me.

I will just assert that I have searched for more specific evidence for God in general as well as several specific Gods, and failed to find it.

A well thought out reply. Except I have given support, an incredible design requiring billions of precise steps does not do so without direction.

But can you do one thing, make one stretch for the sake of the original question in this thread, what is it that is really keeping you from believing in God?

I know you all say it's a lack of evidence but that's not it. Essentially, by saying that, you are saying "I haven't figured enough of Him out yet so until I do I cannot believe", as if you are afraid of being made a fool of. If there is one thing worth being a fool for, isn't it your Father?

Maybe you've been looking in the wrong place and maybe you've been asking the wrong people? The priests can't even figure out their own book let alone begin to explain how the universe works.

There are answers and they are available but it helps if you're not afraid to go looking for them.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The assertion, or assumption, is that since we cannot know anything absolutely and with certainty, we should go ahead an believe in God, although we cannot know with certainty that God exists. Just as we use faith in our daily lives for ordinary things, we should extend the same faith to God.

I would say that this is a reason we may believe in God, rather than we should. God exists as at least a symbol; not having all the answers and living for a finite amount of time, it is perfectly reasonable and logical for some to believe in God.