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
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
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
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
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
Which "people"? Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. :roll: (Oh, you don't, huh?)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
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
Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". — 180
Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. — 180
:monkey: :rofl:Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know.
— 180
No they are not. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
928
Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know.
— 180
No they are not.
— Frank Apisa
:monkey: :rofl: — 180 Proof
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
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
Agreed, but qualified (from an old post):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
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.)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
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 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
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?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 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
See wiki re: (e.g.) pandeism, gnosticism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire:... when is God ever defined as something different than claims 1,2, and 3? — Pinprick
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".I’m just not understanding why it is necessary to ask for a specific/formal definition of God every time someone uses 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:Isn’t it safe to assume the definition Theism provides is the one meant by whomever is using the term?
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).You’re saying God is a meaningless concept unless it is defined, but I think it is always defined, at least implicitly.
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
Perhaps?
All Gods are fictional.
No Gods are fictional. — Pinprick
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
Dawnstorm
93
They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.
— Frank Apisa
? — 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.
— 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
See wiki re: (e.g.) deism, pandeism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire: — 180 Proof
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
This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition. — Frank Apisa
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
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? — Frank Apisa
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
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
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
Intuitively, I'd consider that move a rhetorical trick rather than anything philosophically meaningful. — Dawnstorm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.