As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not. — Frank Apisa

Right, I agree, because that type of belief is impossible to hold. It is empty. Let me give you an example. The statements “I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing, the absence of the possession of money. Unless you would argue that I actually do have/possess something if I say the latter. Maybe you would, because that’s what it seems you’re doing when the statements are about beliefs. I don’t see or understand what makes the term “belief” special to exclude it from following the same logic that’s used in the example.

I'm not sure what the difference is between those two wording with money. I have a belief, either way, in relation to the existence of God. I have no belief eithe way about the existence of God. Let's take a more mundane example of 'agnositicism'

I believe there is a feline, somewhere in the jungles or forests of the world, that has not yet been catalogued by scientists.

I do not believe there is a feline, somewhere in the jungles or forests of the world, that has not yet been catalogued by scientists.

IOW what would get called a 'new species' that might be discovered.

Neither of those fits for me. I lack BOTH beliefs. There might be. I would tend to guess we would have found one by now, but I am not sure.

I believe neither one of those statements.

I don't have any belief there is such a feline. I don't have any belief there is no such feline.
I have no belief there is such a feline. I have no believe there isn't such a feline.

I don't see what those two wording clarify or inform us or box someone in to differently from each other.

Pinprick
120
As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not.
— Frank Apisa

Right, I agree, because that type of belief is impossible to hold. It is empty. Let me give you an example. The statements “I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing, the absence of the possession of money. Unless you would argue that I actually do have/possess something if I say the latter. Maybe you would, because that’s what it seems you’re doing when the statements are about beliefs. I don’t see or understand what makes the term “belief” special to exclude it from following the same logic that’s used in the example. — Pinprick

Well...then look more closely, because you are missing it.

I can tell you it is absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD EXISTS.

And it is also absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. **

There are people who "believe" God exists. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

There are people who "believe" God does not exist. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM EITHER.

So there obviously IS a difference.

Think about it...or you will have to assert that I am wrong or untruthful in what I am saying.

As for your "money" example "“I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing"...YES. I agree.

But let's substitute "a 'belief' that God exists" for money: I don't have a 'belief' that God exists" and "I have no 'belief' that God exists" MEANS THE SAME THING.

But that does not go to the point of what I was saying.

** I normally use "gods", but am using "God" for the purpose of dealing with your question.

“I have no money” is making the claim that something is in my possession. However, if taken literally, it is a contradiction because really I don’t have anything. There’s nothing that I am actually in possession of. That’s why it is incorrect to negate the object of a verb, whether the object is money or existence. Claiming that the statement “I believe no Gods exist” means that I have a belief is like claiming that the statement “I have no money” means that I have something.

Pinprick
122
↪Coben ↪Frank Apisa

“I have no money” is making the claim that something is in my possession. However, if taken literally, it is a contradiction because really I don’t have anything. There’s nothing that I am actually in possession of. That’s why it is incorrect to negate the object of a verb, whether the object is money or existence. Claiming that the statement “I believe no Gods exist” means that I have a belief is like claiming that the statement “I have no money” means that I have something. — Pinprick

You are trying to make this into the kind of thing attributed to Hollywood Producer, Samuel Goldwyn, who at the end of a complicated production negotiation exclaimed, "Gentlemen, include me out."

If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."

On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them."

If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."

On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them." — Frank Apisa

Of course I accept this; it doesn’t imply belief in the nonexistence of God.

Pinprick
123
If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."

On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them."
— Frank Apisa

Of course I accept this; it doesn’t imply belief in the nonexistence of God. — Pinprick

Okay...we'll leave that be.

But this started when you wrote, "You’re either misunderstanding me, or are wording things wrong. I agree that an Atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m arguing that to say an Atheist believes God doesn’t exist is wrong."

I disagreed...and still do. My argument essentially was (and IS):

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If you disagree with that...let's discuss it because I consider it to be extremely important.

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

Which "people"? Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. :roll: (Oh, you don't, huh?)

180 Proof
926
People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
— Frank Apisa
Which "people"? — 180 Proof

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor. I said that in the sentence you quoted. Pay attention.

Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". — 180

I suspect they, too, either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If they did not, they probably would not choose "atheist" as a descriptor. The could use non-theist, skeptic, doubter, or agnostic instead. They use the "atheist" almost certainly because of a "belief"...not because of a dictionary.

Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. — 180

No they are not.

Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know.
— 180

No they are not. — Frank Apisa

:monkey: :rofl:

180 Proof
928
Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know.
— 180

No they are not.
— Frank Apisa
:monkey: :rofl: — 180 Proof

:vomit:

A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.

For me the concept of God holds no meaning, so I reject A, B, and C as the same sort of alien stuff. I reject the topic itself as meaningless in both theory and practise, not the propositions as untrue.

Also, how you phrase things often determines what the negative is:

To use Cobens example (abridged because I'm too lazy to type it all):

A1: There is a feline that hasn't been catalogued by science.
B1: There is no feline that hasn't been catalogued by science.
C: There may or may not be a feline....

A2: Not all felines have been catalogued by science.
B2: All felines have been catalogued by science.
C2: All felines may or may not have been catalogued by science.

Can anyone here think of a way to phrase "God doesn't exist," as a positive, to which "God exists," would be a negative? I can't.

Dawnstorm
92
A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C. — Dawnstorm

They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.

Can anyone here think of a way to phrase "God doesn't exist," as a positive, to which "God exists," would be a negative? I can't. — Dawnstorm

You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion.

A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.

For me the concept of God holds no meaning, so I reject A, B, and C as the same sort of alien stuff. I reject the topic itself as meaningless in both theory and practise, not the propositions as untrue. — Dawnstorm

Agreed, but qualified (from an old post):

What concerns us here are two propositions:

1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist
— TheMadFool

"God" undefined - sans definite predicates (i.e. what type of g/G? or what differentiates g/G from non-g/G?) - renders these statements incoherent (i.e. nonsense).

Rather:

1. Theism is true.
2. Theism is not true. — 180 Proof

I think this because 'theism' is defined - definite - insofar as it's a 'conception of divinity' that consists of distinct truth-claims about g/G, and therefore, to my mind, are not "meaningless" ontologically, epistemically or ethically. g/G, I agree, is meaningless, but what we say about g/G - if it's proposition - is not. (Obviously, I exclude noncognitive theism, for instance, from consideration and give the mainstream / classical theists their cognitive due.)

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If you disagree with that...let's discuss it because I consider it to be extremely important. — Frank Apisa

I really don’t have a way to argue for or against this. It’s possible Atheists use that term to mean what you describe, but that doesn’t mean they’re using it correctly.

Can anyone here think of a way to phrase "God doesn't exist," as a positive, to which "God exists," would be a negative? I can't. — Dawnstorm

Perhaps?

All Gods are fictional.
No Gods are fictional.

I think this because 'theism' is defined - definite - insofar as it's a 'conception of divinity' that consists of distinct truth-claims about g/G, and therefore, to my mind, are not "meaningless" ontologically, epistemically or ethically. g/G, I agree, is meaningless, but what we say about g/G - if it's proposition - is not. — 180 Proof

I don’t understand this. If God is meaningless, then doesn’t that render Theism meaningless as well, since it is defined by one’s belief in this meaningless concept? BTW, when I use the term God, I mean any Theistic conception of the term.

If God is meaningless, then doesn’t that render Theism meaningless as well, since it is defined by one’s belief in this meaningless concept? BTW, when I use the term God, I mean any Theistic conception of the term. — Pinprick

Only if g/G is undefined as I point out in previous posts. Theism (as I understand it's sine qua non attributions) defines g/G with claims (1) there is at least one Mystery (2) that Created - and/or sustains - Existence & (3) Intervenes - causes changes - in the Universe (as per e.g. scriptures, prophesies, testimonials, theodicies, metaphysics, etc) which can be examined; if any or all of these claims are falsified or demonstrated to be not true, then theism is not true, and therefore every theistic g/G is merely fictional, no?

Only if g/G is undefined at I point out in previous posts. Theism (as I understand it's sine qua non attributions) defines g/G with claims (1) there is at least one Mystery (2) that Created Existence & (3) Intervenes - causes changes - In the Universe (as per e.g. scriptures, prophesies, testimonials, theodicies, metaphysics, etc) which can be examined; if any or all of these claims are falsified or demonstrated to be not true, then theism is not true, and therefore every theistic g/G is merely fictional, no? — 180 Proof

Makes sense to me, but when is God ever defined as something different than claims 1,2, and 3? I’m just not understanding why it is necessary to ask for a specific/formal definition of God every time someone uses the term. Isn’t it safe to assume the definition Theism provides is the one meant by whomever is using the term?

You’re saying God is a meaningless concept unless it is defined, but I think it is always defined, at least implicitly.

... when is God ever defined as something different than claims 1,2, and 3? — Pinprick

See wiki re: (e.g.) pandeism, gnosticism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire:

I’m just not understanding why it is necessary to ask for a specific/formal definition of God every time someone uses the term.

It's not in most cases. Only when there is a truth-claim about g/G at issue (e.g. "g/G exists", "g/G did this or that", etc) and not when using nonpropositional (e.g. figurative, colloquial, avowal) expressions such "g/G is love".

Isn’t it safe to assume the definition Theism provides is the one meant by whomever is using the term?

So it's safe to assume the definition of Communism is the one meant by whomever is using the term? :roll: Like Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less"? Independent of context / community of usage, etymology, genealogy, etc? Does Witty's 'private language argument' means anything to ya, 'prick? :point:

You’re saying God is a meaningless concept unless it is defined, but I think it is always defined, at least implicitly.

So what? How does an "implicitly" defined g/G differ significantly from un-defined g/G in a purportedly propositional (i.e. truth-claiming/counter-claiming) discourse? For casual banter, the issue of explicit definitions is pedantically irrelevant; not so, however, in a technical, analytical, hermeneutical or critical discussion like we philosopherizers try to get up to every now and again (on & off these wily fora).

They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C. — Frank Apisa

?

You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion. — Frank Apisa

This isn't about the burden of proof. It's a negative statement, because it negates a positive statement. I brought this up precisely because the relation between the syntax and the semantics isn't as straightforward as it appears.

If I were to claim that the platypus doesn't exist, that would be negative statement, but the burden of proof would be on me. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative in syntactic structure doesn't really impact the burden of proof.

I'll demonstrate why I brought this up with my reply to Pinprick.

Perhaps?

All Gods are fictional.
No Gods are fictional. — Pinprick

That may work. The question, then, is if "All Gods are fictional," are semantically tied together with "Gods don't exist," phrased once with a positive and once with a negative structure. If so, can you say that there is a "believe in nothing"?

I don't really have an answer to this myself, except that I think it pays to make a difference between intutive concepts, semantics tied to word structures, and the structures themselves.

I think this because 'theism' is defined - definite - insofar as it's a 'conception of divinity' that consists of distinct truth-claims about g/G, and therefore, to my mind, are not "meaningless" ontologically, epistemically or ethically. g/G, I agree, is meaningless, but what we say about g/G - if it's proposition - is not. (Obviously, I exclude noncognitive theism, for instance, from consideration and give the mainstream / classical theists their cognitive due.) — 180 Proof

I tried to address this in a longer post, but I talked myself into a corner and got confused.

Basically, I view statements like "God exists," to have the structure of a statement, but its social function is appellative rather than referential. A complex of behaviours is tied to ritualistic verbiage. Except that's clearly not how the theists around me see it. And that's where my confusion enters.

Note that I make a difference between "undefined" and "meaningless". It's my impression that God being "undefined" (or "undefinable") is part of the mystery and thus meaningful to theist. I can't mine meaning that way. I don't know how that works. And that's what makes me an atheist.

Dawnstorm
93
They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.
— Frank Apisa

? — Dawnstorm

You wrote:

A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.

NO ONE has to "believe" C...because C is obviously absolutely true. Anyone with a brain KNOWS that C is true...even those who "believe" A and those who "believe" B.

I am saying that there is a significant difference between "know" and "believe."

You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion.
— Frank Apisa

This isn't about the burden of proof. It's a negative statement, because it negates a positive statement. I brought this up precisely because the relation between the syntax and the semantics isn't as straightforward as it appears.

If I were to claim that the platypus doesn't exist, that would be negative statement, but the burden of proof would be on me. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative in syntactic structure doesn't really impact the burden of proof.

I'll demonstrate why I brought this up with my reply to Pinprick. — Dawnstorm

I'll pass this over for now and read what else you write.

My point is that THE ASSERTION "There is (at least one) God" IS a positive statement. THE ASSERTION "There are no gods" (a form of 'God does not exist') IS also a positive statement...no matter the inclusion of the word "not."

Left this out of my first comment:

This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition.

See wiki re: (e.g.) deism, pandeism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire: — 180 Proof

Ok, there are other ways God is defined, but it just seems like God is so commonly used in the context of Theism that that would be your default assumption. When someone says that “God exists,” I assume they believe in the existence of God as defined by Theism. Maybe that’s wrong of me to do, but if I assume wrong it usually becomes apparent that I did as the conversation progresses, at which time I can ask for clarification. But whatever, I wasn’t trying to bust your balls about this, I was just curious.

That may work. The question, then, is if "All Gods are fictional," are semantically tied together with "Gods don't exist," phrased once with a positive and once with a negative structure. If so, can you say that there is a "believe in nothing"? — Dawnstorm

I’m going to say no. A lot of this question comes down to sentence structure and which words are used. “All Gods are fictional” and “Gods don’t exist” are synonymous, but add “I believe” to the front of each and (perhaps?) one negates itself, while the other does not. Hence why I say it comes down to sentence structure and essentially the logic behind grammar. Verbs make sense when their objects are phrased positively, but when they’re phrased negatively, the verb itself is what becomes negated. It may even be the same logic that’s applied to mathematics that’s being applied here, although I’m not sure. Consider that a positive times a negative results in a negative.

This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition. — Frank Apisa

My entire point, though, is that so far, no-one's been able to convince me that "God" is a valid value for X in that instance.

A lot of this question comes down to sentence structure and which words are used. “All Gods are fictional” and “Gods don’t exist” are synonymous, but add “I believe” to the front of each and (perhaps?) one negates itself, while the other does not. Hence why I say it comes down to sentence structure and essentially the logic behind grammar. — Pinprick

Language isn't that logical, though, when used in the wild. If you insist on thorough grammatical logic within philosophy, you either have to be very careful how you phrase things, or you create a insulated bubble, where your conclusions have little to do with the world we live in.

Under the assumption that "All Gods are fictional," and "Gods don't exist," are synonymous (which is not a given in every context), you could lead someone to commit to the positive phrasing and thus have them have a belief. Intuitively, I'd consider that move a rhetorical trick rather than anything philosophically meaningful.

Dawnstorm
94
This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition.
— Frank Apisa

My entire point, though, is that so far, no-one's been able to convince me that "God" is a valid value for X in that instance. — Dawnstorm

Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us?

OF COURSE "the possible existence of at least one god" or if you prefer "the possibility that no gods exist" can be a valid value for X in that instance. A dedicated theist or atheist might argue otherwise, but it would be a contrived, self-serving argument.

Why do you suppose "God" does not fit into the general "either X or not-X"...where X and not-X are mutually exclusive?

Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us? — Frank Apisa

"World War II" is a valid value for "occurring". Even if we had no evidence, the meaning is fairly straightforward. "God", the creator god of the monotheistic religions at the very least, is different from that. If "God" created everything there is, then existance is a product of that process, and to say that "God" exists either sends me into an Escher painting equivalent of meaning, or it's an incomprehensible mystery for which I have no intution.

In any case, the logic for the empirical world, which I'd be prone to apply to things like "World War II" doesn't apply. If it did, most theists I know wouldn't be able to believe in God; as it is, when I outline what sort of God I don't believe in ("bearded man in the skay") then they say they don't either.

God concepts are manyfold, and Shintoist kami are very different beings from the monotheistic Gods, but there's also this spiritual, transcendental whiff to it that I have trouble understanding. I always end up at a point where there is no discenible difference between any one God existing or not. The only difference I can see is the word-behaviour of the believer.

Dawnstorm
95
Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us?
— Frank Apisa

"World War II" is a valid value for "occurring". Even if we had no evidence, the meaning is fairly straightforward. "God", the creator god of the monotheistic religions at the very least, is different from that. If "God" created everything there is, then existance is a product of that process, and to say that "God" exists either sends me into an Escher painting equivalent of meaning, or it's an incomprehensible mystery for which I have no intution.

In any case, the logic for the empirical world, which I'd be prone to apply to things like "World War II" doesn't apply. If it did, most theists I know wouldn't be able to believe in God; as it is, when I outline what sort of God I don't believe in ("bearded man in the skay") then they say they don't either.

God concepts are manyfold, and Shintoist kami are very different beings from the monotheistic Gods, but there's also this spiritual, transcendental whiff to it that I have trouble understanding. I always end up at a point where there is no discenible difference between any one God existing or not. The only difference I can see is the word-behaviour of the believer. — Dawnstorm

Nothing you have said here impacts on the proposition, "Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist."

This has become discussion by scattergun.

Choose one thing...and we can discuss it.

Language isn't that logical, though, when used in the wild. If you insist on thorough grammatical logic within philosophy, you either have to be very careful how you phrase things, or you create a insulated bubble, where your conclusions have little to do with the world we live in. — Dawnstorm

Not sure if I agree or not. Rules of grammar dictate the relationship between different types of words (i.e. verbs and adverbs), as well as things like punctuation; and as far as I can tell these rules are applied logically with very few, if any, exceptions. If you’re meaning that the rules of grammar aren’t adhered to very well, then I would agree, but otherwise I’m not certain.

Under the assumption that "All Gods are fictional," and "Gods don't exist," are synonymous (which is not a given in every context), you could lead someone to commit to the positive phrasing and thus have them have a belief. — Dawnstorm

True.

Intuitively, I'd consider that move a rhetorical trick rather than anything philosophically meaningful. — Dawnstorm

Yes, but then the issue becomes which statement is correct or accurate, and which one is a trick of rhetoric. How would you propose we distinguish between the two?