If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

[viole]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

Yes. It can be proven logically.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. It can be proven logically.

Ciao

- viole

How so? It seems perfectly logical for one to not hold any beliefs about god(s).

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. It can be proven logically.

Ciao

- viole

For example, I don't hold any belief about whether the multiverse theory is accurate or whether there is intelligent alien life is elsewhere in the universe. Sure, I might see them as being likely or unlikely, but I don't hold beliefs either way.

 

[viole]

How so? It seems perfectly logical for one to not hold any beliefs about god(s).

That is not what I said. I was addressing the OP.

What I said is that if you disbelieve the existence of any god, then you must believe that there are no gods.

In other words, I am claiming that weak atheism = strong atheism.
Ergo that there is only theism, atheism and agnosticism. Without further qualifiers.

Under the only assumption that any meaningful statement is always either believed or not believed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

For example, I don't hold any belief about whether the multiverse theory is accurate or whether there is intelligent alien life is elsewhere in the universe. Sure, I might see them as being likely or unlikely, but I don't hold beliefs either way.

Ok, in this case you do not satisfy my premise. That all meaningful statements are either believed or disbelieved. And you are fine.

However, does the following make sense to you:

1) I disbelieve the existence of any god <--- pinned weak atheism premise
2) I do not hold neither belief nor unbelief that there are no gods

?

I ask because the alternatives are either coherent or contradictory. Namely:

(Coherent)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) i believe there are no gods

(Contradictory)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) I disbelieve that there are no gods

The latter entailing the disbelief in a tautology. Something that is necessarily true. Namely that there is at least one god or no god.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Ok, in this case you do not satisfy my premise. That all meaningful statements are either believed or disbelieved. And you are fine.

However, does the following make sense to you:

1) I disbelieve the existence of any god <--- pinned weak atheism premise
2) I do not hold neither belief nor unbelief that there are no gods

?

I ask because the alternatives are either coherent or contradictory. Namely:

(Coherent)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) i believe there are no gods

(Contradictory)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) I disbelieve that there are no gods

The latter entailing the disbelief in a tautology. Something that is necessarily true. Namely that there is at least one god or no god.

Ciao

- viole

Why are you talking about belief and disbelief and the OP and the rest of us are talking about belief and absence of belief?

X = I don't believe gods exist (I have an absence of belief that gods exist)
Y = I don't believe gods don't exist (I have an absence of belief that gods don't exist)

You can say both X and Y at the same time if you simply haven't decided what to believe.

 

[viole]

Why are you talking about belief and disbelief and the OP and the rest of us are talking about belief and absence of belief?

X = I don't believe gods exist (I have an absence of belief that gods exist)
Y = I don't believe gods don't exist (I have an absence of belief that gods don't exist)

You can say both X and Y at the same time if you simply haven't decided what to believe.

If you say that you have absence of belief that gods exists AND that you have absence of belief that gods don't exists, then that entails (de Morgan laws of logic).....

that you lack belief that it is the case that gods either exists or gods do not exist.

But since it is always the case that either gods exist or do not exist, How can you lack belief in something that is necessarily true?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

If you say that you have absence of belief that gods exists AND that you have absence of belief that gods don't exists, then that entails (de Morgan laws of logic).....

that you lack belief that it is the case that gods either exists or gods do not exist.

But since it is always the case that either gods exist or do not exist, How can you lack belief in something that is necessariliy true?

Ciao

- viole

Makes no sense. Whether gods exist or not I can perfectly well say I have an absence of belief that they do exist and an absence of belief that they don't exist simply because I haven't seen conclusive evidence for either.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what I said. I was addressing the OP.

What I said is that if you disbelieve the existence of any god, then you must believe that there are no gods.

In other words, I am claiming that weak atheism = strong atheism.
Ergo that there is only theism, atheism and agnosticism. Without further qualifiers.

Under the only assumption that any meaningful statement is always either believed or not believed.

Ciao

- viole

But, the OP doesn't use the word "disbelief" it says "absence of belief" or lacking belief. Atheism includes those who merely lack belief.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, in this case you do not satisfy my premise. That all meaningful statements are either believed or disbelieved. And you are fine.

However, does the following make sense to you:

1) I disbelieve the existence of any god <--- pinned weak atheism premise
2) I do not hold neither belief nor unbelief that there are no gods

?

I ask because the alternatives are either coherent or contradictory. Namely:

(Coherent)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) i believe there are no gods

(Contradictory)
1) I disbelieve the existence of any god
2) I disbelieve that there are no gods

The latter entailing the disbelief in a tautology. Something that is necessarily true. Namely that there is at least one god or no god.

Ciao

- viole

Weak atheism is not disbelief, as you define it. It merely means lacking belief in the existence of God. One can certainly lack belief in both the existence of gods and the belief that gods do not exist. That is what weak atheism is.

 

[viole]

Makes no sense. Whether gods exist or not I can perfectly well say I have an absence of belief that they do exist and an absence of belief that they don't exist simply because I haven't seen conclusive evidence for either.

Then you have absence of belief in something that is necessarily true. Namely that either gods exist or they do not.

This follows from the basic laws of logic. Just by consistent, mechanical and cold application thereof. Not my rules, nor interpretation.

But if you insist to lack belief in things that are tautologically true, then it is your choice, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Then you have absence of belief in something that is necessarily true. Namely that either gods exist or they do not.

So what? Whether gods actually exist or not has nothing to do with me not feeling there's not enough evidence for me to believe they do exist or they don't exist even if one of them must be true.

 

[viole]

So what? Whether gods actually exist or not has nothing to do with me not feeling there's not enough evidence for me to believe they do exist or they don't exist even if one of them must be true.

Just a minute ... just a minute...

I have been running some alternative computational scenarios, and I think I picked a fault in my original derivation.

Keep on hold. I will be back.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Just a minute ... just a minute...

I have been running some alternative computational scenarios, and I think I picked a fault in my original derivation.

Keep on hold. I will be back.

Ciao

- viole

Then see you all again tomorrow afternoon or evening. Dreamtime now. Must get up in eight hours for work.

 

[1137]

Yep! If you don't think gods exist it's identical to believing there are no gods.

 

[1137]

If you diisregard any deitiy, you have to disregard all deities equally.

Why?

There is the same amount of evidence for any deity claim. None

I disagree, evidence is given all the time, it's just rejected for not fitting with the preconceived ideology of physicalism.

Your implying there is a mind out there with evidence.

Why hasn't this mind come forward with evidence?

And why don't those evolutionists never provide evidence for evolution, or those scientists never provide evidence for the earth being round?

 

[Cobol]

Why?



I disagree, evidence is given all the time, it's just rejected for not fitting with the preconceived ideology of physicalism.



And why don't those evolutionists never provide evidence for evolution, or those scientists never provide evidence for the earth being round?

I wasn't going to respond to this post because it's so ridiculous.

I've already answered the why question in this thread.

I would very much like to hear what you call evidence.

With the mountains of evidence in support of evolution, all I can say to you is please read. Start by reading these forums. You could learn something.

With all the evidence for the earth being round, i find your question laughable.

Good luck to you

 

[1137]

I wasn't going to respond to this post because it's so ridiculous.

I've already answered the why question in this thread.

I would very much like to hear what you call evidence.

With the mountains of evidence for evolution, all I can say to you is please read. Start by reading these forums. You could learn something.

With all the evidence for the earth being round, i find your question laughable.

Good luck to you

Haha sorry, I have too much faith and thought you would see the sarcasm. Obviously there is evidence for evolution and the world being round, it's only fundamentalist and fideistic groups that deny it. No matter what evidence you show them, the will never see beyond their own belief. This is basically how modern physicalism and anti-theism are. Just like creationist brushing off evidence of evolution, physicalists like yourself brush off any evidence or argument on gods because it does not match your presumed belief in physicalism.

As for evidence, I'll give two example. One is the first cause argument, which uses our scientific knowledge of cause and effect to infer that something cannot come from nothing. Likewise with the platonic arguments, they're based on how we understand knowledge and concepts, and be illustrated in clearly scientific ways.

 

[Cobol]

Haha sorry, I have too much faith and thought you would see the sarcasm. Obviously there is evidence for evolution and the world being round, it's only fundamentalist and fideistic groups that deny it. No matter what evidence you show them, the will never see beyond their own belief. This is basically how modern physicalism and anti-theism are. Just like creationist brushing off evidence of evolution, physicalists like yourself brush off any evidence or argument on gods because it does not match your presumed belief in physicalism.

As for evidence, I'll give two example. One is the first cause argument, which uses our scientific knowledge of cause and effect to infer that something cannot come from nothing. Likewise with the platonic arguments, they're based on how we understand knowledge and concepts, and be illustrated in clearly scientific ways.

This is the wrong thread for that easilly refutable argument. You can't just insert god for a cause.

Let's try and stick to the OP.

We're done here. Go look up how virtual particles are created from nothing.

 

[1137]

This is the wrong thread for that easilly refutable argument. You can't just insert god for a cause.

Let's try and stick to the OP.

We're done here. Go look up how virtual particles are created from nothing.

Physicalists make more claims they don't defend than any other group I've ever seen.