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

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by Panda

Don't be stupid. How could the atom be better? Should it be smaller? Should it be bright pink? No you are asking a nonsensical and stupid question that has no relevance at all.

I'm not being stupid. It's a perfect question.

Now, how did the atom create itself so perfect? Must have been a series of highly fortunate accidents and all in a perfect order.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

And, to be more correct, what I said was:
The LIMIT of the universe is not known, that does not negate the fact that it still has some width, length, and height that we can see and even measure.

Size, width and length are not limits?

[Panda]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Although I am no astrophysicist, even I can understand that there does not have to be boundaries. What you are stating is the view of some scientists who think we are within a "closed" system. It is entirely possible that if one follows a given point infinitely in any direction they will never reach the "edge" of the physical universe. My own theory is that the physical universe is growing faster than the speed of light (at the supposed "boundary areas", that is) and so our measurements will never be able to keep up with the expansion as our perception and instruments are bound by the current laws of physics. Oh well, I never assume I am right, so there is always room for corrections unlike those who have things all figured out. If I wanted to be a total snot, I could get indignant and demand folks prove me wrong, lol. Good luck.

Ahh I see. I was under the impression that scientists thought the universe wasn't expanding at that speed yet. But even if it expanding faster than the universal speed limit I would have thought it would still have a width, height and length? I personally think if one can travel infinitely fast without any of these horrible side effects caused by speeds close to that of the speed of light we could reach the edge of the universe. Even with your train of thought I don't see how that would make the universe infinitely large and without boundaries.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

I'm not being stupid. It's a perfect question.

Now, how did the atom create itself so perfect? Must have been a series of highly fortunate accidents and all in a perfect order.

No your question is not perfect and it is in fact stupid. How is the atom perfect? What makes it perfect?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

What agenda did the man who put on a Big Foot suit have? Maybe to fool people?

I don't know. To sell a story, maybe? To feel important?

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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.

Originally Posted by Super Universe

What on Earth are you on about? And what meaning does "better" have in this context?

Just because past events have led to this point, where we have life, humanity, society, religion and all that does not automatically imply that we were the reason for everything that came before us. To suggest otherwise (without foundation, at least) is the height of hubris.

As an analogy, consider wind. Could I come up with something that's more suited for driving sailboats and windmills than wind? Probably not. Does this mean that wind must be caused by the Breath of God, and not by natural convection and pressure differentials? Definitely not.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

I'm not being stupid. It's a perfect question.

Now, how did the atom create itself so perfect? Must have been a series of highly fortunate accidents and all in a perfect order.

How do you know an atom is perfect? What characteristics do you think something must have for it to be perfect?

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

[/size]

I don't know. To sell a story, maybe? To feel important?

[size=2]
What on Earth are you on about? And what meaning does "better" have in this context?

Just because past events have led to this point, where we have life, humanity, society, religion and all that does not automatically imply that we were the reason for everything that came before us. To suggest otherwise (without foundation, at least) is the height of hubris.

As an analogy, consider wind. Could I come up with something that's more suited for driving sailboats and windmills than wind? Probably not. Does this mean that wind must be caused by the Breath of God, and not by natural convection and pressure differentials? Definitely not.

Wind might not be caused by the actual "Breath of God" but it does make for a poetic story. It's your fault if you took it literal.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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?

So your argument is based on the premise that you know the bricks are incapable of forming themselves into the shape of a building without direction. I'm sure you meant this but just to make it non-ambiguous, I would say that this "direction" needs to be qualified with the adjective "intelligent" leaving your premise as "the bricks are incapable of forming themselves into the shape of the building without intelligent direction".

I agree that if you could demonstrate a reason to believe this premise, I would be forced to accept some form of theism (probably deism).

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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

That is correct. I do believe that the Eiffel Tower exists.

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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?

I am not "absolutely sure" about anything. I'm not "absolutely sure" that God does not exist. I am not "absolutely sure" that the Eiffel Tower does exist. I merely believe that his existence is less likely than his non-existence and therefore it is justifiable to conclude that he does not exist.

However, if I was absolutely sure God did not exist then I would need a pretty convincing argument in order to be justified in holding that belief. The same is true for the person who is absolutely sure that God does exist.