Soyeong: I've asked repeatedly how it is possible to form a belief without anything indicating it is true, and so far no one has been able to give an example. The fact of the matter is that all beliefs have causes and whatever that cause is qualifies as evidence.
You're being "smart" in selecting what to answer, but ultimately you keep conflating knowledge with belief. A very Garden of Eden situation...
When you ask How can belief exist without a cause? You are basically rephrasing the eternal question of How can
anything exist without a cause. You should be able to - theoretically at least, even if you don't believe it - understand that an atheist arguing with you rejects that there is a cause to the universe itself. Compared to that, stating that beliefs can kind of pop up from environmental accidents of chance is peanuts.
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is a very old argument, it's even scientific (conservation of energy, etc...) but it
hides the real metaphysical dilemma.
Krypsyn: Without proof, yes. I am not saying assumptions are bad; we all make them. I only ask that people call it what it is.
jamotide: So I need to proof that someone elses baseless assumption is false, otherwise I am making my own baseless assumption? Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff?
Krypsyn: Regardless, I think we have long since reached the point int he debate where neither of us will budge and it has devolved into rewording arguments with different semantics.
jamotide: No, I have a lot more to say to you, please come back. I had alot planned on what is theoretically possible and what is not.
I assume you won't mind a different target :)
I note you were the one bringing an obligation - "need to proof" - into the above. It's a strawman...
You don't
need to prove the falsehood, unless you want to prove the falsehood (and you do, clearly). As agnostic you might find a less "demanding" position. ;)
As you use rethoric well, thought you'd enjoy the above. But let's get down to business?
People like (ab)using Occam's razor, and forget it is not a proof of anything. Some would say it's an aesthetic principle. Just because you see no need for theism, does not prove it false.
To rehash the classic argument, ultimately either the universe merely exists, or it was caused. There is no ultimate proof either way. Affirming one of these over the other is therefore an assumption, and likely a belief. Both are baseless, and both are based, at least on the existance of the universe itself.
Now, since you are so willing to share your thoughts. Which one of the two options (unconditional existence vs external cause) do you pick? Or are you agnostic? :)