No. 2 is not logically possible IMO. What do you mean by God, and what do you mean by existence? In Peter Pan, Tinkerbell exists like other objects, as far as some people are aware. Or do you think she doesn't? Jan.
2. There is no God, but I believe in God. Is it that you think that it is impossible to believe in God unless God Is, or that you think that if you believe in God then God necessarily Is? Also, can you please explain why you think that option 4 is logically possible? Can you answer my question, please? If you stop believing in God, does God vanish? And if you start believing in God, does that make God real?
I think it is impossible to believe in something that does not exist, as far as you are aware. I don't know that it is logically possible. But atheist exist, so it is possible in some way. Yes I can, but I need more info from you. If you stop believing in God, then God would vanish, as far as you're aware. If you start believing in God, God wouldn't vanish, God would just be, as far as you're aware. Jan.
Yep, all you need to do is look at history to see how many gods have died because people stopped believing in them. There was a time when everyone believed in many gods. Where are they now? We now call them the gods of mythology. When science comes up with the Causality of the Universe, God will die also. The only thing that keeps God alive is ignorance.
Jan Ardena: 2. There is no God, but I believe in God. Look carefully. This statement doen't mention awareness. It is concerned only with God and belief. So, once again, please tell me why you think it is logically impossible simultaneously for a person to believe in God, while at the same time there is no God. You're saying you're unsure whether it is logically possible for a person not to believe in God, when there is no God? Really? How does the existence of atheists demonstrate to you that it is possible in some way? Would you not also require that there is no God, for a real-world demonstration of that contention? I'm not talking about awareness here. Just belief and the reality of God. Understand? I will repeat the question: would God vanish if people stopped believing in him? I am surprised that you are struggling so much to answer these questions. Maybe we ought to backtrack to a more basic question: Do you agree that it is logically possible that there is no God?
I responded to this; Is it that you think that it is impossible to believe in God unless God Is, or that you think that if you believe in God then God necessarily Is? I don't know what the distinction between impossibility, or logical impossibility. Maybe you can enlighten me. But the segment I responded to only mentioned "impossibility. If I am to think that I can't believe in God, unless God Is, then that implies some sort of awareness. What do you mean by "logically possible"? Why don't you just ask if it is possible? The playing field allows two scenarios. God Is, and without God. There are two positions regarding the scenarios. Theist and atheist. The theist believes in God, and God does not exist as far as the atheist is aware. Why should the atheist position be taken any more seriously than the theist one? There can be no belief without awareness. Understand. James. I've answered them. Either bring your point, or leave it. I'm not going to play your games. Jan.
One merely needs to think they are aware of what they believe in, but that awareness could be a misconception. I.e. one could believe that Paris is the capital of Spain. One might think they have awareness of Paris being the capital of Spain. But there would be no such actual awareness, given that Paris is not the capital of Spain. Thus you could be left with belief in something without any actual awareness. Thus thinking you have awareness or not is irrelevant to the argument that JamesR is putting forth, and to continue along it would simply be a red-herring on your part.
You look at it from your perspective, and I look at it from mine. There is no God, as far as you're aware. That's what it means to be atheist. Accept, deny, or reject it. It makes no difference to me. Jan.
Logic isn't concerned with perspectives, Jan. Quite simply, it is demonstrably possible to believe in something for which you have no actual awareness but instead an awareness of something you mistake for what you believe in. As exampled in my post above. To dismiss the argument as merely a perspective is factually incorrect on your part. I accept that your perspective is one that often overlooks issues of logic, but you are now veering toward (if not fully in the lane of) Spicer's "alternative facts". So you keep claiming - although it has nothing to do with the specific issue I raised above. Stop with the red herrings, please, Jan. Clearly. But you're still wrong in your assertion that there can be no belief without awareness.
I disagree. Your example was nonsensical. Try again. Then I don't get what the specific issue is. I've asked James to clarify. No I'm not. I suggest you try a better example. Jan.
Of course you do, Jan. And by disagreeing you fail Logic 101. Again. No it wasn't; it was actually fairly straightforward. Your auto-rejection of anything that shows your comments to be false is telling. If only you actually understood the logic behind it. Until then I guess you'll roll yourself up in the comfort-blanket of your ignorance in the matter, and put your fingers in your ears and simply go "la la la la I can't hear you la la la la". Until you can show that you have an ounce of understanding of the logic, or even an appetite for understanding, there is clearly little point. Clearly you don't get it, Jan, which is why you obfuscate with such drivel, and use your ignorance of logic as a defense mechanism when people try to explain it to you. Says the person ignorant of the logic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unfortunately your lack of understanding of the example doesn't make you correct, Jan. There is no point - if you can't grasp the logic of why you are wrong then you will remain ignorant of it, irrespective of example. So hold on to that comfort-blanket, Jan. Don't let anyone try and take your ignorance of logic away from you! You hold on to it tightly! That way you can remain ignorant of why you are wrong. As long as you are happy in that ignorance, Jan.
This is my point. Explain in a format that I can comprehend. Try again, cause neither of you are making much sense. Jan.
This is fine, provided you acknowledge the inverse to be true. The possibility that 'There is no God, yet you believe there to be one.'
You've got some responsibility here. Until you acknowledge that you being mistaken in your beliefs is as much a possibility as an atheist being mistaken in his beliefs, there is no amount of logic that can reach you. Grant it, and we can move on.
There is no God for you (atheist). I accept that. You should accept that God Is, and I believe in God (theist). Why do you accept your position, but not mine? Jan.
this is the part of my post that irked you and prompted you to make your apologetic post for sociopathic behavior after mine but too cowardly to address it directly because your reasoning isn't actually true. i can read you like a book because i've had extensive experience with conservative mindsets. and you are a ridiculous typical conservative-branded hypocrite. you excuse behavior based on the notion that there is no choice due to one's nature, yet did you report me for my rude reply to your own veiled immoral post by being butthurt? oh, where is your sympathy? where is your excusing others due to lack of responsibility and choice due to their nature and nurture? but if you are offended, you expect them to exercise choice and hold themselves back from offensive behavior, don't you? all of a sudden, the tune changes. do you see why i attacked your post? your post was actually way more rude and even socially irresponsible because you only took the side of those who are perpetrators which is their responsibility and excusing them while ignoring victims but then you (as i figured) would report over even a more trivial offense because the offense is toward you. if you want to be taken seriously and not leave yourself open, i would suggest you try some semblance of integrity in your reasoning.
OK, so you've at least dispensed with any pretense that you're arguing honestly. That's progress of a sort. I have more than met my obligation to treat you with respect. That's my personal requirement.
Yes, very simple. So you agree that we should teach kids that the flying spaghetti monster has three immutable qualities: #1 He is invisible and everywhere. #2 He can pass through solid objects. #3 He is made of pasta. So I'm sure you also agree that this guy in full pirate regalia could help us re-write school text books , since he explains it all so well: Some fun quotes: "There is no hell, there is only the love of the noodly embrace." "Dressing as a pirate is awesome." "We make as much sense as any other religion."
Jan Ardena: I know that you believe in God and you reject the idea that there is no God. If I were to simply ask you whether you think that it is possible that there is no God, you would no doubt reply that such a thing is impossible. You would reply like that because, for you, the idea that there might not be a God is inconceivable. Since I already understand very clearly what your personal worldview is, I would like to explore your understanding of logic. All indications are that you have a poor grasp of logic, and I want to drill down to find out exactly what the problem is. By "logically possible", I mean only that the idea is not absurd - that it is not in breach of some basic principle of reasoning, and that it is not in breach of some known and generally agreed truth about the world. I will ask you again: Do you think that it is logically possible that there is no God? Note: I don't want you to import your belief that God Is into your answer. I want you to consider what is and isn't possible in the world, as a matter of logic. A similiar question might be: is it logically possible that there are no ghosts? (And you can answer that one too, if you find the one about God too difficult.) Focus, please. 2. There is no God, but I believe in God. You say this is not logically possible. I take it from what you have written that this is because you think that for somebody to believe in something they need to be aware of it, and therefore it must have existence/Is-ness. I am aware of the story of Peter Pan - I am aware of the character Peter Pan - but I do not believe that there is a real boy called Peter Pan who can fly. Similarly, I am aware of various descriptions of God and stories about God, but I do not believe in God. Now, suppose that, hypothetically, there is somebody (let's call her Wendy) who does believe that there is a real boy called Peter Pan who can fly. We might say: 2. There is no Peter Pan, but Wendy believes in Peter Pan. Do you regard this as a logically possible state of affairs, or not? Wendy, naturally, will be aware of Peter Pan in the same way that I am aware of him - she knows all the stories, she has seen the movies, she knows the usual descriptions of Peter, and so on. Wendy might, in addition, claim to have some kind of awareness of Peter that I don't have. For example, Wendy might believe that she sees Peter's shadow in her bedroom as he flies past the window at night. Wendy is confident that, one night, Peter will come in and take her to Neverland. Is it logically possible that Peter Pan does not exist, yet Wendy believes in him anyway? Is this scenario logically any different from a person believing in God when there is no God? I would like your analysis and comparison of these two situations, please. Notice that you personal belief in or non-belief in Peter Pan is irrelevant to the question I am asking you. I assume I can take it as given that you are sufficiently "aware" of Peter Pan (but please let me know if this is an unwarranted assumption on my part). Similarly, if you think your personal belief in God is relevant to the logical question I am asking you, please explain how and why it is relevant. No. The playing field allows 4 scenarios, which I set out for you previously. Focus. Here they are again: 1. God Is, and I believe in God. 2. There is no God, but I believe in God. 3. God Is, but I don't believe in God. 4. There is no God, and I don't believe in God. We are currently investigating why you think that scenario 2 is a logical impossibility, despite the fact that you think that 4 is logically possible "in some way". We'll need to investigate scenario 4 in more detail, but let's concentrate on 2 for now. Notice in my list of 4 scenarios, the atheist and theist positions are equally represented. You want to rule out scenario 2, thus weighting the scales towards theism. We need to see if you can justify that bias. Awareness of what? Stories about the thing? The description of the thing? The thing itself? We need to get to the bottom of what you think one needs to be "aware" of, exactly. Consider the Peter Pan scenario; that might help to clarify things. Your ongoing problem with distinguishing objective reality from subjective belief is noted, and already dealt with. Why should we accept that God Is? You provide no reason to do so.
