Are people born inherently atheist?

[Curious George]

But what if you say what you don't mean?
"The King of France does not exist" is harder to analyze as is then e.g.,
"There exists no x such that if x is the King of France, then x doesn't exist"
The reason the latter is preferable is because it lends itself to formalization:
~∃(x) ( ?→ ?)

The negated existential quantifier says that there is no x such that if x is...? If we let Kx = "is the king of Franch", we are still left with a question: ~∃(x) ( Kx → ?) ("There exists no x such that if x is the king of France then...)? To say "...then x doesn't exist" doesn't work because it entails that we can use as a predicate "exists" along with the existential quantifier: "There exists an x such that x has property P (being a person) and not property E (of existing)." Or, "for all x, x doesn't exist and x is green".

To illustrate informally:

Spoiler: example

Given a year (even month) between 1776 (or at least 1781) and 1783, a loyalist might say "the American nation doesn't exist". If a loyalist was trying to explain her or his position to some member of the Indigenous American population, but that member was unfamiliar with the word "nation", the loyalist may be asked to clarify what it is that doesn't exist. The answer isn't really "the American nation", for that does exist at least in some sense from the moment independence was declared (and even more so when the war was won). What doesn't exist according to the loyalist is the legitimacy of the American nation to call itself such, as it shouldn't be considered sovereign but an extension of the British empire. In effect, the loyalist is not speaking the truth. S/he is denying what does in fact exist.

The loyalist really means that there IS an American nation but that there shouldn't be one, or perhaps that the sovereignty of the nation is illegitimate

.

Can you explain this differently. If I am not mistaken, Willamina's explanation works in your spoiler example demonstrates why. In your example, legitimacy is a necessary property of an existing nation, and using the construction that is easier to formalize seems to bring this issues to the forefront, where as the other phrasing the American nation does not exist, does not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here's how I see it. If there is no King of France, then the King of France is proposed.

I'm not sure what that means, on several levels. Do you mean if "there is no King of France" is asserted, then the King of France is proposed? And what do you mean by "proposed"- how is "the King of France proposed"?

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure what that means, on several levels. Do you mean if "there is no King of France" is asserted, then the King of France is proposed? And what do you mean by "proposed"- how is "the King of France proposed"?

I mean that if we don't know that there is a King of France or if we know that there is no King of France, then any assertion of the King of France is proposed. (Am I now going to regret your introduction of "assertion"?)

If we don't know that there is a Sasquatch, or if we know that there is no Sasquatch, then any mention of Sasquatch is proposed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you explain this differently.

Easily. Can I explain it better? Totally different question.

If I am not mistaken, Willamina's explanation works in your spoiler example demonstrates why. In your example, legitimacy is a necessary property of an existing nation

It isn't that legitimacy is a necessary property of an existing nation (my example was deliberately fuzzy, but that can backfire). It's that when the tory/loyalist declares "the American nation doesn't exist", there must be one and what matters is they way in which it exists. That's why we have an existential quantifier rather than a simple existence predicate. If the loyalist says "the American nation doesn't exist", this implies that for any x, if that x is the American nation, then it doesn't exist. However, we can't even ask that question (and certainly not answer it) without there existing an American nation. We can if we recognize existence as capable of denoting that which doesn't exist and treating it using quantifiers rather than predicates.

That's why predicate calculus requires a quantifier like the existential quantifier. Because we want the loyalist to be able to speak of an American nation just the way we want to be able to speak of the "truth" of the proposition "Zeus is an Olympian" and the "falsity" of the proposition "Zeus is the god of the sea". We can only do this (at least in classical logic) if we make existence special and not a predicate. Also, if we treat existence as a predicate we can generate infinitely many paradoxes: "Zeus is married to Hera AND Hera doesn't exist".

using the construction that is easier to formalize seems to bring this issues to the forefront, where as the other phrasing the American nation does not exist, does not.

The American nation existed before there was one just as Zeus and square circles exist. It isn't that "the American nation doesn't exist" is problematic because it doesn't properly clarify whether such a nation does exist or doesn't, it's that it requires the American nation to exist just to say that it doesn't. It's that we cannot treat it as a predicate like any other because we cannot ascribe the property of being non-existent to anything if we can do so while ascribing other properties: "the American nation doesn't exist and the American nation is full of rebels".

 

[Willamena]

The American nation existed before there was one just as Zeus and square circles exist. It isn't that "the American nation doesn't exist" is problematic because it doesn't properly clarify whether such a nation does exist or doesn't, it's that it requires the American nation to exist just to say that it doesn't. It's that we cannot treat it as a predicate like any other because we cannot ascribe the property of being non-existent to anything if we can do so while ascribing other properties: "the American nation doesn't exist and the American nation is full of rebels".

"That atheist's non-existent belief is one in god."

 

[Falvlun]

It's about using a definition that reflects how the word is actually used...

Well, the word is most commonly used to refer to people who believe that gods don't exist.

unless you really do think that a person can't be a real atheist until they've carefully considered some random person's poorly-thought-out argument for God. Do you think this?

Wait. You think that the answer to a bad argument is to accept it, and change a definition of a word in order to avoid having to accept its conclusion?

Wouldn't it just be easier, and more informative, to simply state why it's a bad argument?

Here's the argument, as you have phrased it: "you've never rejected or even heard my slightly different version of some worn-out argument for God so you can't call yourself 'atheist'" claim. The fact that I've never heard it means I haven't explicitly rejected it, but this also means I haven't accepted it."

It sounds like you actually accept this as a valid argument.

Here are some responses you could give:
1. No, I do not need to know every specific god (or specific argument for god) in order to have a general god concept (or experience with enough arguments to know how they go) to come to the conclusion that nothing I would put in the category "god" does exist.

This is just like I do not need to eat every type of pear to know that I do not like pears, or to hear every ghost story to know that I do not believe in ghosts.

2. My current beliefs are not set in stone. They are subject to change and new information. If, at some point in the future, I discover a new god concept or argument or evidence that I find convincing, my beliefs may very well change. However, possibility of change does not negate my current set of beliefs.

For example, right now, I do not believe that intelligent alien life exists. But, if some time in the future, intelligent alien life makes itself known to humankind, then my belief will change. I do not have to consider myself agnostic in regards to intelligent-alien-life just on the off-chance that my beliefs will change in the future. Likewise, with gods.

 

[Falvlun]

No, not any more than it is open to the idea that I don't exist. I experience God. I'm not about to turn my back on my own experiences. It is the atheist who has no cause for his belief. I have cause for my belief. The atheist doesn't.

If you don't experience something, and are given no convincing reasons to believe something, then generally, for everything else in life, that is considered a good enough cause for belief.

If it should turn out that I'm crazy or nuts, I will be quite happy to have dedicated my life to something so wonderful as the notion of God. Even if God does not exist, I have been blessed because of my faith in Him. I wouldn't trade what I have for anything in this world.

I'm happy that you are content.

 

[Sonofason]

That's unfair.

I rather enjoyed Augustine.

Please note that Augustine was on my list of recommended readings. But I did not included it for it's apologetic arguments.

 

[Sonofason]

Why? Thats like saying Unicorns must exist because Penguins do.

If I were as certain that unicorns exist as I am that God exists, I would agree.

 

[Falvlun]

If I were as certain that unicorns exist as I am that God exists, I would agree.

You would agree that unicorns exist because penguins do?

Even if unicorns did exist, why would penguins be evidence of it?

 

[Sonofason]

To the question posed by MonkOfReason

"Is your mind open to the idea that god doesn't exist?"

Sonofason had written:

No, not any more than it is open to the idea that I don't exist. I experience God. I'm not about to turn my back on my own experiences. It is the atheist who has no cause for his belief. I have cause for my belief. The atheist doesn't.

Falvlun writes:

If you don't experience something, and are given no convincing reasons to believe something, then generally, for everything else in life, that is considered a good enough cause for belief.

If you don't experience God, and you are given no convincing reasons to believe in God, then I believe that one is justified to believe that he has not experienced God, and he is also justified in his belief that he has not been given convincing reasons to believe that God exists. That's it.

It is not justification to take the blind faith step of belief where he then asserts a belief that no God exists.

 

[Willamena]

You would agree that unicorns exist because penguins do?

Even if unicorns did exist, why would penguins be evidence of it?

His point was not about one thing existing because another does. it was misstated.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

His point was not about one thing existing because another does. it was misstated.

No way. If I remember right, Sonofason claims never to use his words incorrectly.

Edit: Yep. I went and looked it up. Sonofason told me: "I'm sorry to inform you, I never use words incorrectly."

 

[Falvlun]

To the question posed by MonkOfReason


Sonofason had written:


Falvlun writes:


If you don't experience God, and you are given no convincing reasons to believe in God, then I believe that one is justified to believe that he has not experienced God, and he is also justified in his belief that he has not been given convincing reasons to believe that God exists. That's it.

It is not justification to take the blind faith step of belief where he then asserts a belief that no God exists.

I really don't think it's a blind step to come to the conclusion that something you have never experienced, or been given good reasons to believe exists, doesn't exist.

I think it's just good mental housecleaning.

 

[Willamena]

No way. If I remember right, Sonofason claims never to use his words incorrectly.

Edit: Yep. I went and looked it up. Sonofason told me: "I'm sorry to inform you, I never use words incorrectly."

It wasn't by him that it was misstated, but by Monk of Reason.

 

[Sonofason]

You would agree that unicorns exist because penguins do?

Even if unicorns did exist, why would penguins be evidence of it?

This is not what I've been saying at all. It is a twisted version of what I said. It is not because penguins exist that unicorns would exist.

If I were as certain that unicorns exist as I am that penguins exist, I could say, just as there is no possibility that penguins do not exist, there is also no possibility that unicorns do not exist.

It's not about the penguins, and it's not about the unicorns. It's about my certainty.

Thus I can say, as I did say:
Just as there is no possibility that I do not exist, there is also no possibility that God does not exist.

It's about my certainty of the existence of God.

I have more evidence that God exists then I have that you exist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I really don't think it's a blind step to come to the conclusion that something you have never experienced, or been given good reasons to believe exists, doesn't exist.

I think it's just good mental housecleaning.

Yeah, but I've welded an iron plate to my butt so I'll feel safer when I turn my back to unicorns. (Pascal's Unicorn Wager)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It wasn't by him that it was misstated, but by Monk of Reason.

Whew! My faith is restored!

 

[Falvlun]

This is not what I've been saying at all. It is a twisted version of what I said. It is not because penguins exist that unicorns would exist.

If I were as certain that unicorns exist as I am that penguins exist, I could say, just as there is no possibility that penguins do not exist, there is also no possibility that unicorns do not exist.

It's not about the penguins, and it's not about the unicorns. It's about my certainty.

Thus I can say, as I did say:
Just as there is no possibility that I do not exist, there is also no possibility that God does not exist.

It's about my certainty of the existence of God.

I have more evidence that God exists then I have that you exist.

Got it.

But, for communication's sake, you might want to change your phrasing to "Just as there is no doubt in my mind that I exist, there is also no doubt that God exists." It makes it more clear that certainty, and not contingency, is the message you are conveying.

 

[Willamena]

Got it.

But, for communication's sake, you might want to change your phrasing to "Just as there is no doubt in my mind that I exist, there is also no doubt that God exists." It makes it more clear that certainty, and not contingency, is the message you are conveying.

Too wordy. The way he worded it was clear.