Belief...a choice?

2+2 is based on mathematics, it is more by definition than "emperical".God and the BB are very different. We may both agree on sets of data that we can both observe that are, perhaps, supporting of the idea of a god or the BB.Then we need an idea of what could explain the observed data. That is where the idea of a god and the BB become very, very different. The god idea never proves to be checkable in anyway, it never leads to any further ideas to investigate, it never makes predictions that are different and separate it from alternative explanations.The BB idea makes various predictions about what we should see if we research, it allows for ways of showing it to be wrong and it has undergone modification when it shows itself wrong. It made predictions that separated it from the steady state theory.The two ideas for explaning things in the natural world are very different indeed. Though neither are particularly comparable to 2+2.If someone wishes to question or disagree with the god idea there seems to be no way to determine who is right or wrong. That is why centuries go by with different groups making different assertions about the nature of the god and with no resolution.With any ideas that are, like the BB, scientific there is a way to determine which are right (or at least the best available) and which are clearly wrong. That is why, though it might take a long time, we do settle arguments in science. The BB and steady state ideas being an example of that.

Welcome to EvC. I'm sure you'll find a lot to talk about here.Your problem with not seeing the wind is that you want to use the literal word "see". The correct word to use is "observe".We observe with many more senses and capabilities (some highly technical) than just seeing with our naked eyes. You have, I presume, used binoculars? With them you observe something that you can not, unaided, see.No one here is argueing with the existance of things which are, in some way, observable. Some do, however, find it difficult to decide which of a large number of unobservable things one should believe in.Again, welcome, you will find the level of discourse here at a rather higher level than that offered in your first post however.

Schraf, I think you have hit the nail on the head.Of course, if individuals really made a choice there would be no such grouping of religious beliefs. Communities would be a complex mix of all types.The grouping shows that you are right. Religious belief is, generally, not a choice that individuals make at all. It is made for them by their parents.

But it is exactly because we can sense the wind in other ways, "touch" being one, that means your analogy breaks down. The wind is not unobservable.You are asking for acceptance of things that are not objectively observable to be accepted. There are an infinite number of such things. How would one distinguish between them?