The Confused Athiest

[Pete]

Reasonably, it makes no logical sense to have a universe based on cause and effects that exists without reason.

Does that mean you're 100% certain that God (which is... what? An omnipotent sentience?) exists?

Or do you simply conclude that the existence of the Universe implies the existence of some necessary cause?

 

[Pete]

I answered what I have understood from most conversations here, especially the thread on what athiests consider evidence of God; I don't think your options apply as well as my explanation. Most athiests want a God presented to them, which I find a very odd notion.

But that last question didn't even mention God?
Come on Sam, this isn't a trick question. What do you understand someone to mean when they say "I believe that X is true"?

 

[S.A.M.]

But that last question didn't even mention God?
Come on Sam, this isn't a trick question. What do you understand someone to mean when they say "I believe that X is true"?

When I say, I believe you, I mean I believe you; same goes for I believe in you, I believe this is true, I believe that is possible etc.

Maybe other people define belief differently?

 

[Pete]

Differently to what? You still haven't told me what you mean by it! You've just given examples of things you might say, without indicating what those things mean!

Look, here's what I think.
I think that "I believe X is true" means "I think it is very likely that X is true."

Do you agree?

 

[Michael]

It makes no logical sense to have a universe based on cause and effects that exists without reason.

Firstly, there is the problem of what caused the first cause. If the first cause is eternal then we may as well say the Universe is eternal because it's more logical to not postulate the existence of a supernatural being we have no evidence for when we can simply stick with what we do have a evidence for - this universe.

Secondly, if there were a first cause and if it were an intelligent being "God" there is no reason to say that said being is still here. It could have created the Universe and then having fulfilled this role simply ceased to exist as an entity.

Thirdly, given the second premise, which IMO appears to fit the criteria of your statement then it seems perfectly logical to have cause and effect occurring now without any life-meaning reason. (I am of course assuming that bey "reason" you mean "meaningful reason" - or why postulate it at all?

Fourthly, IS this universe completely based on cause and effect? I was under the impression that particles wink into and out of existence all the time.


True or False
It is illogical for a universe to exist without any meaningful reason.

 

[S.A.M.]

Differently to what? You still haven't told me what you mean by it! You've just given examples of things you might say, without indicating what those things mean!

Look, here's what I think.
I think that "I believe X is true" means "I think it is very likely that X is true."

Do you agree?

Differently to the way I do?

If I say I believe you, I'm not thinking in some corner of my mind that you might be lying.

ergo:

I think that "I believe X is true" means "I think that X is true."

*some gibberish*

Hi Michael.

 

[(Q)]

But that last question didn't even mention God?
Come on Sam, this isn't a trick question. What do you understand someone to mean when they say "I believe that X is true"?

When I say, I believe you, I mean I believe you; same goes for I believe in you, I believe this is true, I believe that is possible etc.

Maybe other people define belief differently?

Clearly Pete, Sam considers the term 'belief' to mean absolute, without any shadow of doubt; complete certainty.

Anything else must have another definition. Your statement below winds up having no meaning.

I think that "I believe X is true" means "I think it is very likely that X is true."

 

[Pete]

Differently to the way I do?

If I say I believe you, I'm not thinking in some corner of my mind that you might be lying.

ergo;

I think that "I believe X is true" means "I think that X is true."

But if pressed, you could still consider the possibility that X is false, right? You wouldn't consider "X is false" to be absolutely impossible?

 

[S.A.M.]

But if pressed, you could still consider the possibility that X is false, right? You wouldn't consider "X is false" to be absolutely impossible?

You mean if you kept asking me, do you really really believe me? Are you sure? Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?

Well, I'd certainly begin to slowly back away or knock you out.

IOW, either I believe you or I don't. :shrug:

 

[Pete]

You mean if you kept asking me, do you really really believe me? Are you sure? Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?Are you? Are you? Are you?

No, that's not what I mean.
I'm just trying to understand what you think that atheists think. I think that you think that they think something they don't actually think at all.

IOW, either I believe you or I don't.

Yes, of course... but that's not informative, because you haven't clearly explained what you mean by "I believe you".
Not that it matters, because "believe" in that context generally has a subtly different meaning. The context I'm asking you about is in applying "believe" to a proposition rather than a person.

If you say you believe in the truth of a proposition, do you consider it impossible for that proposition to be false?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, that's not what I mean.
I'm just trying to understand what you think that atheists think. I think that you think that they think something they don't actually think at all.

You mean when they say I believe you, they're actually calculating the odds on it being true?

If you say you believe in the truth of a proposition, do you consider it impossible for that proposition to be false?

You mean when I say I believe 2+2=4 do I lie awake at nights wondering if it might not be?

Look, the way I see it, if it makes logical sense to me, belief is pretty much what I consider to be fact.

 

[Pete]

You mean when they say I believe you, they're actually calculating the odds on it being true?

No, I do not.
I mean that when pressed (by theists, usually), they will acknowledge that it is not impossible for it to be false. That they are making a judgment call, not a leap of faith.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I do not.
I mean that when pressed (by theists, usually), they will acknowledge that it is not impossible for it to be false. That they are making a judgment call, not a leap of faith.

Everyone is different, I guess. I usually do not make up my mind until I am fairly convinced and once I am, you'd have to make it pretty clear to me why I am wrong.

So far, it hasn't happened.

 

[Pete]

You mean when I say I believe 2+2=4 do I lie awake at nights wondering if it might not be?

No, I don't think you're that weird.
Mind you, saying "I believe 2+2=4" would be a weird thing to say!

The way I see it, if it makes logical sense to me, belief is pretty much what I consider to be fact.

I accept that, while noting the distinction between "consider to be fact" and "know to be fact".

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I don't think you're that weird.
Mind you, saying "I believe 2+2=4" would be a weird thing to say!

Not at all, unless you're a literal thinker.

I accept that, while noting the distinction between "consider to be fact" and "know to be fact".

I haven't discovered objective reality yet.

 

[Pete]

I mean that when pressed (by theists, usually), they will acknowledge that it is not impossible for it to be false. That they are making a judgment call, not a leap of faith.

Everyone is different, I guess. I usually do not make up my mind until I am fairly convinced and once I am, you'd have to make it pretty clear to me why I am wrong.

So far, it hasn't happened.

:bugeye:
You appear to be saying that if you believe something to be true, you would never acknowledge the remotest possibility that it could be false... that you prefer to rely on leaps of faith rather than judgment calls?

 

[S.A.M.]

:bugeye:
You appear to be saying that if you believe something to be true, you would never acknowledge the remotest possibility that it could be false... that you prefer to rely on leaps of faith rather than judgment calls?

Yup, if I believe you are truthful for instance, I'd need a videotape of you lying to believe I am wrong.

And even then I'd wonder if there wasn't a trick to it.

I don't reinvent the wheel on a regular basis.

 

[Pete]

Not at all, unless you're a literal thinker.

I'm really not impressed by pop-psychology labels.

I haven't discovered objective reality yet.

Precisely! That is exactly why some atheists shy away from being labeled as "believing" in the proposition in question - because they do not claim to have infallible knowledge.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm really not impressed by pop-psychology labels.


Precisely! That is exactly why some atheists shy away from being labeled as "believing" in the proposition in question - because they do not claim to have infallible knowledge.

Solipsism is not my forte either.

 

[Pete]

Yup, if I believe you are truthful for instance, I'd need a videotape of you lying to believe I am wrong.

And even then I'd wonder if there wasn't a trick to it.

Do you think that's a healthy attitude when examining questions under debate?
For example, if you were given a journal article that disagreed with something you had been led to believe through your own research, would you read the article with an open mind?