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

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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]

Originally Posted by Panda

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.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

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]

Originally Posted by Papersock

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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