The default position...

[Curious George]

I'm saying that "not believing God exists" necessarily includes those that "believe God does not exist". Thus, believing God exists cannot happen simultaneously with either.

Not true. Now you are begging the question. That someone can believe God does not exist believe this might be wrong, would be an exception. This person might also believe God exists. Therefore we can not say that they definitely do not believe in God.

If you have a proof to show that believing that god does not exists entails not believing in God, without begging the question, I am all ears.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol, really?

That they accept it is heads and that they accept it is tails and that they accept that one of these is wrong= they do not accept it is tails and they do not accept that it is heads?

Please show how those are equal.

You are misusing the term "accept". And, for this reason, you are merely describing acceptance of possibility.

 

[Curious George]

I'm saying that "not believing God exists" necessarily includes those that "believe God does not exist". Thus, believing God exists cannot happen simultaneously with either.

The correct form of this is that not believing in God includes SOME of those that believe God does not exist.

For your argument to work all believers of not God must be non believers of God.

 

[Curious George]

Because "accepting something will happen" necessarily means that you are necessarily "not accepting that any alternative will happen". That is what the term "accept" implies. If you said "could" it would be different.

This is what you need to prove. I do not think it is possible without begging the question.

 

[Shad]

Please provide an example.

This the below post you claim atheism is the absence of theism yet your citation contracts this. It modifies atheism into a different category completely separate from a rejection based atheism. Absence does not mean rejection. Having a dual definition changes atheism from an ontological claim about reality to a strict psychological statement which makes no claim about reality. It is only making a knowledge statement of the person's belief. Keep in mind theism is an ontological claim that is believed to be true. The generalization happens when you include psychological statements under the same terms as ontological statements. One address the claim, one on talks about a belief. These are not the same.

The default position... | Page 56 | ReligiousForums.com

I see a few other issues with what the default view could be. For a start take a look at beliefs. Not just beliefs about god but innate knowledge and concepts. Better known at rationalism. Beliefs are formed before language is taught to children thus the ability to communicate their ideas to those that use formal language. However as parents we force our children to learn our languages rather than learn the language of the child. Language is just a vocalization of thoughts and emotions. Infants can express vocalizations of pain, happiness, hunger, at objects, at people, at events, etc. How can we rule out that a vocalization from a baby, which we dismiss as gibberish, is not a word for belief in God. How do we identify the word to the thought?

I would argue that we do not know. All we have are pure speculation, failed deductive arguments and flawed proofs by logic. I will post some rough inductive arguments for and against. I will also argue that the idea of a default position is only possible by the rationalist approach. If anyone is an empiricist ignore the rationalist view as you already reject it. I will make these posts tonight or tomorrow when I have my power adapter for the notebook.

 

[leibowde84]

This is what you need to prove. I do not think it is possible without begging the question.

the word "accept" in this context means to take something as being true or in accordance with reality. When one takes the existence of God as being in accordance with reality, by definition, that person is taking the nonexistence of God as not being in accordance with reality. Why? Because an entity in reality cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If you think that an entity can exist and not exist in reality simultaneously, then the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

 

[leibowde84]

This the below post you claim atheism is the absence of theism yet your citation contracts this. It modifies atheism into a different category completely separate from a rejection based atheism. Absence does not mean rejection. Having a dual definition changes atheism from an ontological claim about reality to a strict psychological statement which makes no claim about reality. It is only making a knowledge statement of the person's belief. Keep in mind theism is an ontological claim that is believed to be true. The generalization happens when you include psychological statements under the same terms as ontological statements. One address the claim, one on talks about a belief. These are not the same.

The default position... | Page 56 | ReligiousForums.com

I see a few other issues with what the default view could be. For a start take a look at beliefs. Not just beliefs about god but innate knowledge and concepts. Better known at rationalism. Beliefs are formed before language is taught to children thus the ability to communicate their ideas to those that use formal language. However as parents we force our children to learn our languages rather than learn the language of the child. Language is just a vocalization of thoughts and emotions. Infants can express vocalizations of pain, happiness, hunger, at objects, at people, at events, etc. How can we rule out that a vocalization from a baby, which we dismiss as gibberish, is not a word for belief in God. How do we identify the word to the thought?

I would argue that we do not know. All we have are pure speculation, failed deductive arguments and flawed proofs by logic. I will post some rough inductive arguments for and against. I will also argue that the idea of a default position is only possible by the rationalist approach. If anyone is an empiricist ignore the rationalist view as you already reject it. I will make these posts tonight or tomorrow when I have my power adapter for the notebook.

Nope. My claim is that belief that God does not exist is included in the category of lack of belief in God's existence. Atheism is inclusive of these.

 

[Curious George]

You are misusing the term "accept". And, for this reason, you are merely describing acceptance of possibility.

Hmm, yes I am describing the acceptance of a possibility.

But I do not think this is a misuse of the term. I am using the term as it is used in classical logic. I am simply combining the acceptance or rejection of two propositions to describe a position.

I understand that in logic we would say
If God exists, then God cannot not exist.

But this is secondary.

First we say assume God exists.
If God exists, then God cannot not exist (by non contradiction)

Likewise we say

Assume God does not exist,
if God does not exist, then God cannot exist (by non contradiction).

However if I say
assume God exists
Assume God does not exist
If God exists God cannot not exist (non contradiction)and
if God does not exist Then God cannot exist ( non contradiction).

So, one of these assumptions is wrong.

I have broken no law.

We can assume both, classical logic only leads to the conclusion that one is wrong. Therefore nothing in classical logic is contradicted by the belief in both.

However, your position becomes even more precarious when we acknowledge that other systems of logic exist.

And people can in those systems believe contradictory things. What is more, many physicists believe that two states that are mutually exclusive can exist at once. This is because some believe that multiple states coexist prior to observation.

Now, that people do in fact believe in mutually exclusive states illustrates your notions of impossibility are wrong.

But, what is more, that people can believe wrongly proves your position is wrong.

And finally, that one can rightly believe that one of their beliefs is wrong, provides an example of how this concept is not at odds with believing mutually exclusive propositions is not at odds with classical logic.

 

[leibowde84]

Hmm, yes I am describing the acceptance of a possibility.

But I do not think this is a misuse of the term. I am using the term as it is used in classical logic. I am simply combining the acceptance or rejection of two propositions to describe a position.

I understand that in logic we would say
If God exists, then God cannot not exist.

But this is secondary.

First we say assume God exists.
If God exists, then God cannot not exist (by non contradiction)

Likewise we say

Assume God does not exist,
if God does not exist, then God cannot exist (by non contradiction).

However if I say
assume God exists
Assume God does not exist
If God exists God cannot not exist (non contradiction)and
if God does not exist Then God cannot exist ( non contradiction).

So, one of these assumptions is wrong.

I have broken no law.

We can assume both, classical logic only leads to the conclusion that one is wrong. Therefore nothing in classical logic is contradicted by the belief in both.

However, your position becomes even more precarious when we acknowledge that other systems of logic exist.

And people can in those systems believe contradictory things. What is more, many physicists believe that two states that are mutually exclusive can exist at once. This is because some believe that multiple states coexist prior to observation.

Now, that people do in fact believe in mutually exclusive states illustrates your notions of impossibility are wrong.

But, what is more, that people can believe wrongly proves your position is wrong.

And finally, that one can rightly believe that one of their beliefs is wrong, provides an example of how this concept is not at odds with believing mutually exclusive propositions is not at odds with classical logic.

Are you equating the "acceptance of a possibility" with "belief in that possibility actually being the outcome"? Because, that is surely inaccurate.

 

[leibowde84]

To

This is what you need to prove. I do not think it is possible without begging the question.

To "accept" something as being true, and to "accept" something as being possible have very different meanings. If you mean "accept the possibility of" I would agree with you. But, that has nothing to do with belief.

 

[Curious George]

the word "accept" in this context means to take something as being true or in accordance with reality. When one takes the existence of God as being in accordance with reality, by definition, that person is taking the nonexistence of God as not being in accordance with reality. Why? Because an entity in reality cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If you think that an entity can exist and not exist in reality simultaneously, then the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

Yes, I have used accept in that fashion.

No, that person is not. The logic we are discussing here employs if then. The acceptance or rejection does not entail anything by itself. That is to say if one accepts or does not accept, does not entail the reverse. The truth of the proposition entails something, not the acceptance of the truth of the proposition.

While I would love to take on the argument that two mutually exclusive states can exist and carry that burden of proof, I need not.

We are not arguing over whether two m.e. states can exist. We are arguing over whether someone can believe two mutually exclusive propositions. I think I have shown this is not only a possibility but actually happens.

So your assertion that it is impossible to believe such is wrong. However, please feel free to explain why it is not.

This of course brings us back to my original question if someone believes god exists and believes god does not exist, would they be an atheist or a theist?

 

[Curious George]

To

To "accept" something as being true, and to "accept" something as being possible have very different meanings. If you mean "accept the possibility of" I would agree with you. But, that has nothing to do with belief.

No, I mean accept as true. This however describes the acceptance of the possibility. Or are you saying that someone who believes that God exists is 99.9999% and believes that God not existing is a slim to non existent likelihood is still an atheist because they do not "believe to the absolute exclusion" of the alternative?

 

[Curious George]

Are you equating the "acceptance of a possibility" with "belief in that possibility actually being the outcome"? Because, that is surely inaccurate.

No. Belief means to accept as true. This is how I am using it. We support our belief with probability. That an event is likely fosters belief.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I have used accept in that fashion.

No, that person is not. The logic we are discussing here employs if then. The acceptance or rejection does not entail anything by itself. That is to say if one accepts or does not accept, does not entail the reverse. The truth of the proposition entails something, not the acceptance of the truth of the proposition.

While I would love to take on the argument that two mutually exclusive states can exist and carry that burden of proof, I need not.

We are not arguing over whether two m.e. states can exist. We are arguing over whether someone can believe two mutually exclusive propositions. I think I have shown this is not only a possibility but actually happens.

So your assertion that it is impossible to believe such is wrong. However, please feel free to explain why it is not.

This of course brings us back to my original question if someone believes god exists and believes god does not exist, would they be an atheist or a theist?

You are changing the question. Are you asking about "belief" or "acceptance of possibilities"? Very different things. It is the difference between accepting that something is the truth and accepting something might be the truth.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I mean accept as true. This however describes the acceptance of the possibility. Or are you saying that someone who believes that God exists is 99.9999% and believes that God not existing is a slim to non existent likelihood is still an atheist because they do not "believe to the absolute exclusion" of the alternative?

The point of belief is accepting that something is true despite the fact that you don't have sufficient evidence and could be wrong. And, in answer to your question, no. I don't think that percentages can be assigned, as it is a subjective belief based on many assumptions that may or may not be conscious. But, if we had to, I would say if you feel that you believe in the existence of God, then you do. If that belief is not present at all, then you are atheist. Remember, even by my definition, "lack" means "without" or "absence of". So I would argue, even a little belief is enough for theism.

 

[lstan135]

Haha. A coin always have 2 sides but they both have the same value no matter which side you turn it to. Next time when you tell your children something they don't like to hear, they may also that you sounded like your mother too. What's go around comes around too, my friends.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually you are offering a definition of atheism by calling babies atheist. Babies are not rejecting theism as per the definition supplied by me. You are using the definition of "lack/absences" of faith which is a horrible definition. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid counter not a fallacy, look it up... So now you must also agree with rocks are atheists as well. If you disagree with rocks and cats being atheists then you have disagreed with your own views making it moot. You want a dialogue in which only people agree with an absurd definition, a definition it's own creator called agnosticism, read Flew's book. You then cry foul when anyone changes such a definition. You want yes men more than a dialogue.

An issue with this new definition is that it changes atheism from an ontological claim to an epistemological claim and the psychology, mental state, of those that are atheists. However atheism like theism is a epistemological affirmations about what we perceive as ontological reality. For example if I do not believe God exists that is a statement about reality. If I believe water is blue that is a statement about reality. If I believe corn is yellow that is a statement about reality.

I didn't offer a definition, no idea what you are smoking there. Misrepresenting me is not much of an argument. Atheism is the rejection of a specific belief - theism. Your personal attack and misrepresentation does indicate the fragility of your position however.

 

[lstan135]

Ah, a Calvinist!


Is this really true, since faith comes only to those pre-selected by god?


Or you're faking your faith to fit in with the cool kids that god liked better.

Haha, you can't fake faith. Either you have it or you don't.

 

[leibowde84]

Haha. A coin always have 2 sides but they both have the same value no matter which side you turn it to. Next time when you tell your children something they don't like to hear, they may also that you sounded like your mother too. What's go around comes around too, my friends.

Can you rephrase this for us? This makes no sense as is. Not sure what you are getting at.

 

[leibowde84]

Haha. A coin always have 2 sides but they both have the same value no matter which side you turn it to. Next time when you tell your children something they don't like to hear, they may also that you sounded like your mother too. What's go around comes around too, my friends.

By the way, proving a coin has two sides says absolutely nothing about this discussion, as it says absolutely nothing about belief in God.