Do You Know Why You Don't Believe? (beliefs, experience, atheist)

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Papersock

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]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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.

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

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]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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!!