^^^ Edited. Done. Sorry.

Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts. — SonOfAGun

I agree with everything except the first sentence. How can you believe something you don’t think is true? Notice, I’m not suggesting that it must be objectively true, only that you must think it is.

Notice, I’m not suggesting that it must be objectively true, only that you must think it is. — Pinprick

There is "what is true": uranium 235 has an atomic weight of 235.044 g/mol, and then there is "what is true to you": god does/doesn't exist. The only truth that actually maters, for ALL practical purposes, is the former: That which can be shared among all as "Truth". What you personally believe is relevant to only you and those you can convince to believe the same. Jumping off the empire state building with a set of aerodynamically unsound wings kills all people.

^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^

SonOfAGun
69
^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^ — SonOfAGun

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this edit (correction).

Some of the posts lately have got me wondering if some super brand of new pot is going around. When I read your post as originally written...I thought, maybe pot has nothing to do with it. Maybe I have gone bat-shit crazy.

But...here I have a reprieve...at least a temporary one.

SonOfAGun
69
^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^
— SonOfAGun

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this edit (correction).

Some of the posts lately have got me wondering if some super brand of new pot is going around. When I read your post as originally written...I thought, maybe pot has nothing to do with it. Maybe I have gone bat-shit crazy.

But...here I have a reprieve...at least a temporary one. — Frank Apisa

In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God. Doesn’t this essentially equate to a belief in “nothing?" — Pinprick

How did you come up with this question?

Care to show your work? What is the reasoning by which you start from "no God" and wind up at "nothing"?

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"?

What happens when we deny the existence of other putative or conceivable things? Does any denial of existence, i.e., any belief in the non-existence of some putative or conceivable thing, entail "belief in nothing" on your view?

If so, isn’t that self-defeating? A belief requires an object, that is, something as opposed to nothing. If there is no object your “belief” is referring to, then you don’t have an actual belief. — Pinprick

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster....

Do you agree these count as beliefs, even though these beliefs have a negative form, even though they have the form of denying the existence of a conceivable thing or state of affairs?

I agree. However, I would propose that “what is true to you” = belief. Again, how can you believe something that you don’t think is true?

↪SonOfAGun I agree. However, I would propose that “what is true to you” = belief. Again, how can you believe something that you don’t think is true? — Pinprick

Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods.

Care to show your work? What is the reasoning by which you start — Cabbage Farmer

In hindsight, that was poorly phrased on my behalf.

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"? — Cabbage Farmer

Yes

What happens when we deny the existence of other putative or conceivable things? Does any denial of existence, i.e., any belief in the non-existence of some putative or conceivable thing, entail "belief in nothing" on your view? — Cabbage Farmer

Actually, I would say that a denial of existence cannot be a belief. If you deny that something exists, you lack belief in its existence.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster....

Do you agree these count as beliefs, even though these beliefs have a negative form, even though they have the form of denying the existence of a conceivable thing or state of affairs? — Cabbage Farmer

No.

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"? — Cabbage Farmer

Why would you need to believe in any of these things? Their existence is demonstrable.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster.... — Cabbage Farmer

Why in the would you bother your brain with all of these beliefs?

Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods. — SonOfAGun

Ok, I can accept that. I think that’s the point that @180 Proof was making. That denying that any Gods exist is a meta-belief in the truth value of the claim. But that isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to me to be, what @Frank Apisa and others are insisting.

Ok, I can accept that. I think that’s the point that 180 Proof was making. That denying that any Gods exist is a meta-belief in the truth value of the claim. But that isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to me to be, what @Frank Apisa and others are insisting. — Pinprick

It is the same with theists. They believe that the claim "their is a god" is true.

Yah, that is not what an agnostic is. Literally: No gnosis/No "knowledge of spiritual mysteries". This includes both the claims to knowledge for or against the existence of any god or gods. In other words prove your claims or shut up, as defined by the person who coined the term Thomas Huxley — SonOfAGun

But what you said can be expressed in terms of god beliefs as neither accepting the existence of god nor accepting the nonexistence of god. Where does that land you? God may/may not exist, right?

If one doesn't know the truth value of a proposition, here "god exists", then the proposition may/may not be true/false. In my humble opinion, agnosticism is the epistemic state describable with respect to a proposition p as "not true that p and not false that p, but still possible that p". Possibility can be phrased in terms of "may/may not" right?

Thanks for letting me know Thomas Huxley coined "agnosticism" and I loved the part "prove your claims or shut up", although sometimes perspectives seem more valuable than actual proofs.

If we would consider all philosophies and all concepts and anything that could ever be conceived by our imagination to be part of a hypothetical sphere of existence, and we could call it "everything", we could put in there all the ideas about anything that has a limit or a boundary, being it physical or just a poorly made definition, and we could still consider it to "exist", even if just as a concept.

Now, what would be beyond that sphere, is what is not contained in in the "everything" sphere, and we could call it "Nothing".

EveryThing would be "the group that contains all groups that do not contain themselves (Russell's paradox), and NoThing, would be the outher layer of it, indefinite and indefinibile, because from the moment that a definition is made out of this "NoThing", it becomes "SomeThing", thus making it part of the group "EveryThing".

No matter how many "SomeThings" are defined out of "NoThing", "NoThing" will always be indefinite and indefinable, and endlessly so by such property.

"Everything" would instead be evergrowing and indefinitely "bigger".

What if God is actually the combination of "Everything" and "Nothing" watching itself from both perspectives while just Being what it is, indefinitely trying to know itself?

What if God is actually the combination of "Everything" and "Nothing" — Vinicius

Now there is a reasonable view point. If God by its very nature incorporates the entire thing, then yes, God must incorporate both. The real question is, how do we understand "nothing". We could say, this is God manifested in the dichotomy (polar opposites). One pole is "everything", the other pole is "nothing". Unity of them both = God / Creator / First Cause.

The problem about "nothing" is that it becomes "something" as soon as there is any definition of it, and the original "nothing" goes back to it's original, indefinible state.

I would say that nothing is very much like the origin of Everything, but before everything, nothing wasn't even a concept that could be grasped, because only something con realize that nothing is actually a concept.

Would then be deducible that nothing may need everything, as everything needs nothing to have an "understanding" of what each other is.. I would dare say that if there was a creation, that creation is nothing more than the "introspection of nothing", if you get what I mean.

that would translate in "The All" (nothing+everything), looking into itself, and that might mean that all consciousness is but an eye of the All, learning about himself from many different perspectives.

Why would you need to believe in any of these things? Their existence is demonstrable. — SonOfAGun

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean to suggest that all beliefs are beliefs about things or propositions or states of affairs that are "not demonstrable"? Or perhaps you mean only that all useful beliefs are beliefs about things or propositions or states of affairs that are "not demonstrable"?

That would sound like an extraordinary abuse of the term "belief" to me, not at all in keeping with the customary uses I'm aware of. Do you know of any precedent for this usage, or is it something you've invented? Or have I misunderstood you?

What does it mean for a thing or a proposition or a state of affairs to be demonstrable?

On what sort of grounds should we affirm or deny claims that entail the existence of nondemonstrable things or states of affairs, or claims that entail the truth of nondemonstrable propositions?

Why in the would you bother your brain with all of these beliefs? — SonOfAGun

For the same reason an atheist bothers to express denials of the proposition that God exists: To make a point in conversation.

In this case the point is to demonstrate that denials of the existence of a putative thing do not entail "belief in nothing".

I thought this was quite clear the first time around.

What do you suppose we're doing here, nattering on like this in a philosophy forum about the logical form of beliefs about things thought not to exist?

Actually, I would say that a denial of existence cannot be a belief. If you deny that something exists, you lack belief in its existence. — Pinprick

Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?

Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept.

It's instructive to consider the way the conventions of elementary predicate logic enable us to analyze the form of propositions at issue in such beliefs. For instance (feel free to substitute another conception of the deity):

There is an x such that x is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent creator of the world. I suppose a belief that God exists, or an affirmation of the claim "God exists", may entail some such claim.

There is no x such that x is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent creator of the world. I suppose a belief that God does not exist, or a denial of the claim "God exists", may entail some such claim.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead. — Frank Apisa

Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Is it only a guess of yours that they are guessing? What evidence can you provide for your claim?

I am however inclined to agree that many of those theistic and atheistic arguments involve speculation beyond the horizon of evidence. As a skeptical naturalist, I aim to train my power of belief or expectation away from such speculative claims.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead. — Frank Apisa

I don't see how that is any different than what I said.

Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Is it only a guess of yours that they are guessing? What evidence can you provide for your claim?

I am however inclined to agree that many of those theistic and atheistic arguments involve speculation beyond the horizon of evidence. As a skeptical naturalist, I aim to train my power of belief or expectation away from such speculative claims. — Cabbage Farmer

I recognize that they provide bullshit rationalizations for their blind guesses that either "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

Some people have an allergy to "I do not know."

I don't see how that is any different than what I said. — SonOfAGun

Okay.

I do not post only when I disagree...but sometimes call attention to comments of agreement.

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, — Cabbage Farmer

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes.

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes. — SonOfAGun

PRECISELY!

That is part of the problem I have with the word "believe"...especially when used in the "believe in" form. It is used carelessly and inappropriately WAY TOO OFTEN.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster.... — Cabbage Farmer

Again, we will try another approach. While you are technically correct, and can believe in everything you have listed there, this is not how the human brain works. If the human brain were forced to consider all of these things every time it looked at a table, or anything else for that mater, it would quickly overload and become nonfunctional. It would not be the proper tool we require to navigate the universe.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ." — Frank Apisa

Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll:

Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll: — 180 Proof

If it is not a "blind guess", present your evidence and we will resolve the mater.

Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?

Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.