"Lack of belief"

[Willamena]

No you couldn't, not if you knew the English language. The prefix a- just means "not, without"...

As well as "on, "in," "into," and "toward."

Else we couldn't have something afoot in Scotland Yard.

 

[Ouroboros]

As well as "on, "in," "into," and "toward."

Else we couldn't have something afoot in Scotland Yard.

My personal favorite is the automated voice saying, "The door is ajar."

To which I, obviously, respond, "no, the door is not a jar, it's a door!"

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly, as an a-naturalist for example, I simply lack belief in naturalism, I lack belief in evolution, or life itself, or any natural origin of the universe

An anaturalist is simply a person who's not a naturalist. That's it.

 

[ArtieE]

Disbelief is a belief, the belief that something is not true.

No it isn't. It's the absence of belief that something is true. It's saying "I don't believe you." Not "I believe the opposite of you."

You are discussing the truth of the statement "God exists". You are saying you "lack belief" that this statement is true. Really you hold the belief that this statement is false/unproven/unknowable/etc.

No I don't. I lack belief that this statement is true. I also lack belief that this statement is false. I lack any beliefs about this statement since I don't have evidence enough to justify any beliefs regarding the statement.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

An anaturalist is simply a person who's not a naturalist. That's it.

By that rationale; if I flip a coin and tell you it didn't come up heads, I'm making no positive assertion about it being tails? semantically debatable-

but we both know what we believe, whether we label it as disbelief of the alternative or not, it does nothing to alter what we do believe...


So how do you think the universe fluked itself into existence for no particular reason?

 

[McBell]

Correct. Your problem is you don't bother to read people's posts properly and then confuse your lack of comprehension for their logical errors.

Perhaps you could have saved yourself a lot hair pulling had you given a direct answer to the direct question I asked several pages ago?
Based upon your reply, which did not answer the direct question, it seemed to me you were in fact foisting the false dichotomy I flat out asked about.

What I said was "It is impossible to lack/have an absence of belief in a concept that you can understand". You can agree/disagree or anything in between if you like, but there is no dichotomy.

I do disagree.
However I agree that that is not a dichotomy.

The article I referred to explained why you can't 'lack belief' - comprehension entails forming a belief "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception":

And I explained why I disagree.

"Is there a difference between believing and merely understanding an idea?Descartes thought so. He considered the acceptance and rejection of an idea to be alternative outcomes of an effortful assessment process that occurs subsequent to the automatic comprehension of that idea. This article examined Spinoza's alternative suggestion that (a)the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance.

Spinoza argued that comprehending an idea did entail accepting that idea, however briefly. "Will and intellect are one and the same thing," he wrote, and thus, "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception" (1677/1982, pp. 97 and 99). Although Descartes's assumptions about the symmetry of acceptance and rejection and the disunity of comprehension and belief have silently dominated scientific thinking about these issues, psychological evidence suggests that Spinoza's hypotheses may have been closer to the truth. Findings from a multitude of research literatures converge on a single point: People are credulous creatures who find it very easy to believe and very difficult to doubt. In fact, believing is so easy, and perhaps so inevitable, that it may be more like involuntary comprehension than it is like rational assessment."

How Mental Systems Believe, Daniel T. Gilbert (February 1991 • American Psychologist)


Any thoughts on this?

I understand quite a few god concepts.
I still lack a belief that gods exist.
I also lack the belief that god does not/can not exist.

Then again, I have no problem admitting I do not know either way.

 

[ArtieE]

So how do you think the universe fluked itself into existence for no particular reason?

No idea. How did your god fluke himself into existence for no particular reason? Or has he always existed for no particular reason?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No idea. How did your god fluke himself into existence for no particular reason? Or has he always existed for no particular reason?

same apparent paradox, so it's a wash, and a moot point, because here we are! obviously there is a solution one way or the other

what's not the same is the capacity for creative intelligence v blind chance to create the world we see around us.

Why do you believe in a blind cause rather than a creative one?

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps you could have saved yourself a lot hair pulling had you given a direct answer to the direct question I asked several pages ago?

If you spent half the time reading what people *actually* post that you do writing snide remarks about what you mistakenly believe they have posted then everyone could save themselves a lot of bother.

Is your "argument" the false dichotomy that one lacking belief either rejects or does not understand?

My argument is about the impossibility of lacking belief in the existence of god if you understand the statement "god exists"

Never mind...

 

[ArtieE]

Why do you believe in a blind cause rather than a creative one?

I don't. I have no beliefs regarding the origins of the universe. Why should I?

God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?"

What would you answer?

 

[atanu]

Alas, atheism is in fact a negative claim, ....

For mind there cannot be a negative or a positive marker. And mind is never a vacuum. There is simply a notion "I lack belief in God". Now, compare this with "I lack belief in Love". Does it it not indicate that the person knows what love is, before he can assert a lack of that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You believe it was natural, spontaneous, versus designed, intentional. Which is fine, I'm just curious why, and why not stand behind and defend your belief on it's own merits?

God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?"
What would you answer?

love

 

[ArtieE]

You believe it was natural, spontaneous, versus designed, intentional.

No I don't. I have no beliefs either way.

Which is fine, I'm just curious why, and why not stand behind and defend your belief on it's own merits?

Because I have no beliefs about why the universe exists simply because none of the theories I've read have made me say "yes, I believe this theory".

love

"God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?" Can you provide a better answer than "love"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No I don't. I have no beliefs either way.Because I have no beliefs about why the universe exists simply because none of the theories I've read have made me say "yes, I believe this theory"."God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?" Can you provide a better answer than "love"?

which do you think is more likely?

God, or a random number generator for universes producing an infinite number of different universes?

"God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?" Can you provide a better answer than "love"?

No, I can't provide a better reason for anyone doing anything, can you?

 

[McBell]

God, or a random number generator for universes producing an infinite number of different universes?

Neither.

How much of the math have you done?
or are you merely making an argument from incredulity?

I can't provide a better reason for anyone doing anything, can you?

Hate
jealously
revenge
empathy
apathy
...

 

[ArtieE]

which do you think is more likely?

God, or a random number generator for universes producing an infinite number of different universes?

Person: Why does the universe exist?
Me: It was created by God.
Person: And why does God exist?
Me: No idea.

That's not a conversation I would get myself into because I would look pretty stupid wouldn't I.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Person: Why does the universe exist?
Me: It was created by God.
Person: And why does God exist?
Me: No idea.

That's not a conversation I would get myself into because I would look pretty stupid wouldn't I.

why does the universe exist?
there is no why, It was created by a natural unguided process
how did that come to exist?
no idea.

'Why' is the key, the solution to the paradox here. It represents purpose, motive, desire. Concepts that can only exist within the phenomena of creative intelligence, and have a unique capacity to genuinely create rather than simply unfold predetermined actions.

To say that the universe came to be through entirely natural processes, is to say that the laws of nature may ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

That paradox is entirely unique to atheist beliefs. An infinite regression of unguided cause and effect, like the stacked turtles carrying the earth, you always need another to explain the last.

Only creative intelligence can solve this paradox, because it is not constrained by pre-determined actions.

 

[ArtieE]

'Why' is the key, the solution to the paradox here. It represents purpose, motive, desire. Concepts that can only exist within the phenomena of creative intelligence, and have a unique capacity to genuinely create rather than simply unfold predetermined actions.

And why does this creative intelligence exist? Another creative intelligence created it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And why does this creative intelligence exist? Another creative intelligence created it?

That's certainly one possibility

But we have to distinguish between two very distinct paradoxes.

The 'first cause' paradox applies equally to any explanation 'where did THAT come from'- right? and again this is not only a wash here, but a moot point, we KNOW there is a solution, because here we are.

atheism introduces an additional unique paradox, which remains unproven, where natural processes can, must ultimately fully account for themselves without any creative process. Theism places no such restriction, it allows both natural and creative processes to coexist- without any particular reason to forbid either from playing a role.

We know that who/whatever created the universe necessarily transcends time as we understand it, being specific to that creation yes?, i.e. from a perspective 'outside' our universe, it's existence is instantaneous, the creator (natural or intelligent) is not bound by the laws of it's own creation.

Where we allow both, and do not restrict our options, we have a hypothetical solution, where creative intelligence provides the explanation for all the specific functional mechanisms that allow us to be having this conversation, without reliance on infinite probability machines-- creating every possible reality (except God)

 

[Shad]

That's certainly one possibility

But we have to distinguish between two very distinct paradoxes.

The 'first cause' paradox applies equally to any explanation 'where did THAT come from'- right? and again this is not only a wash here, but a moot point, we KNOW there is a solution, because here we are.

atheism introduces an additional unique paradox, which remains unproven, where natural processes can, must ultimately fully account for themselves without any creative process. Theism places no such restriction, it allows both natural and creative processes to coexist- without any particular reason to forbid either from playing a role.

We know that who/whatever created the universe necessarily transcends time as we understand it, being specific to that creation yes?, i.e. from a perspective 'outside' our universe, it's existence is instantaneous, the creator (natural or intelligent) is not bound by the laws of it's own creation.

Where we allow both, and do not restrict our options, we have a hypothetical solution, where creative intelligence provides the explanation for all the specific functional mechanisms that allow us to be having this conversation, without reliance on infinite probability machines-- creating every possible reality (except God)

No theism invokes special pleading and a non answer. Saying God did it is not an explanation. There are no mechanics explained, no methods, just God can do it cause I have defined God as being able to. It is putting forward a definition as an answer.

Again you are talking about before time which is pure nonsense.