Deities do or do not exist?

[mike47]

We still have the issue of being created and not created by ourselves .

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't follow your reasoning. God being omnipotent, omniscient, and all that stuff, I'm sure he could convince me.

By the way, I could just have said that I do not believe that a god exists. Saying I am an atheist AND I do not believe god exists is saying the same thing twice.

1)- You claimed you don't have a belief. Right?
2)- But you would alter that position were there sufficient evidence. Right?
3)- You do not know what the evidence is that would convince you. Right?
4)- So you must have a belief in something, that is intangible.

I think either you believe deities exist, or they don't exist, and
the clause "waiting for evidence" is devicive.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, but believing that the person is there and not believing the person is wearing a hat seems kind of arbitrary.
If you are gullible enough to believe that there even is a person standing behind the wall without being presented with any evidence why would you not believe that the person is wearing a hat ? It isn't consistent.

I think you are overanalysing the example. Assume that you know there is a person behind the wall and you know they are wearing a hat:

Do you believe he wears a white hat?
If not, by SAMs logic you must believe he wears a black hat (those being the 2 options of hat-colour).

But SAM misses the possibility of saying "There is not enough information to base any form of belief. I therefore believe neither - and have no belief in such matters." (or words to that effect).

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats the agnostic position. But then you won't find an agnostic arguing against any hat colour or the possibility that there was no man.

 

[(Q)]

Do atheists believe that deities may exist?

Atheists will believe anything exists if you can provide the evidence.

Please vote according to your own personal beliefs

I have no personal beliefs in deities.

For all those who vote that deities may exist, please clarify which deity you believe may exist and why.

And deity where evidence has been provided would be one to believe in it's existence. To date, no evidence for any deity has been provided.

 

[Enmos]

I think you are overanalysing the example. Assume that you know there is a person behind the wall and you know they are wearing a hat:

Do you believe he wears a white hat?
If not, by SAMs logic you must believe he wears a black hat (those being the 2 options of hat-colour).

But SAM misses the possibility of saying "There is not enough information to base any form of belief. I therefore believe neither - and have no belief in such matters." (or words to that effect).

Perhaps I am, but how about this:

 

[Enmos]

1)- You claimed you don't have a belief. Right?
2)- But you would alter that position were there sufficient evidence. Right?
3)- You do not know what the evidence is that would convince you. Right?
4)- So you must have a belief in something, that is intangible.

I think either you believe deities exist, or they don't exist, and
the clause "waiting for evidence" is devicive.

jan.

No

How do you conclude that I believe in something if I don't know what evidence will convince me (not that I'm saying that I don't know what evidence will convince me) ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No

How do you conclude that I believe in something if I don't know what evidence will convince me (not that I'm saying that I don't know what evidence will convince me) ?

Because you are prepared to change your status, should sufficient evidence comes to light. That means you 'believe' in some process that can reveal 'God' to you.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Does shifting the negative from subordinate clause to main clause change its meaning?

Yes. And you illustrate that with your choice of example, which also (if you endorse it, as you appear to) pinpoints one of your blind spots in this argument.

Let's take a closer look:

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."

This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar.

The insult is of course typical. The more interesting observation is the slide in the wording - already we are using "God", rather than unspecified possibilities of "deities", and that has a direct bearing on the change in meaning brought about by "raising".
- - - -

The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:

A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.

B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.

The slide is complete. We now have "the mail" - which assumes the existence of mail, an entitiy which all agree has the ability to arrive. Likewise with "we" and "the bus", which exists and can be missed. In other words, as examples in this context these beg the question. They miss the point.

In the context in which the existence of mail, or its delivery, is in doubt, not believing it has arrived is not necessarily the same thing as believing it has not arrived. If there is no bus to miss, not believing we have missed it carries a different meaning than believing we have not missed it. The latter more likely keeps one waiting at a bus stop with no bus coming, for one thing.

btw: That narrative structure is a standard trick of storytelling, hypnosis, and propaganda. The key assumption placed in the context of the debate or story is hidden from the mind's examination, and suspension of disbelief thereby created - you forget that Sheherazade is herself a fictional character.

 

[Enmos]

Because you are prepared to change your status, should sufficient evidence comes to light. That means you 'believe' in some process that can reveal 'God' to you.

jan.

No, I actually don't. I'd have to believe that god exists first. But IF god exists it is a fact that he can convince me.

 

[scifes]

:roflmao:
:roflmao:
:roflmao:

 

[wynn]

Because you are prepared to change your status, should sufficient evidence comes to light. That means you 'believe' in some process that can reveal 'God' to you.

Excellent point, thank you.

It is only the strong agnostics who cannot change since they hold that the truth (about God) cannot be known.

All the others who focus on evidence (including atheists) have some potential to change.

In this sense, it is the position of the strong agnostics that is the most pernicious one.

 

[wynn]

But IF god exists it is a fact that he can convince me.

How do you know that this is a fact?

It's not like you have any evidence for the claim that "If God exists it is a fact that he can convince me."

 

[Enmos]

How do you know that this is a fact?

It's not like you have any evidence for the claim that "If God exists it is a fact that he can convince me."

Well, isn't he supposed to be all-powerful and shit..?

 

[wynn]

Well, isn't he supposed to be all-powerful and shit..?

Obviously then, this means you 'believe' in some process that can reveal 'God' to you. (In this case, God's presence and qualities are this process.)
QED.

 

[Norsefire]

Do atheists believe that deities may exist?

Please vote according to your own personal beliefs

For all those who vote that deities may exist, please clarify which deity you believe may exist and why.

What is the difference between the second and third options?

I am an agnostic atheist, anyway.

 

[Enmos]

Obviously then, this means you 'believe' in some process that can reveal 'God' to you. (In this case, God's presence and qualities are this process.)
QED.

Are you missing the fact that I don't believe in god ?

 

[Norsefire]

Are you missing the fact that I don't believe in god ?

Are there religious people in Holland?

 

[Enmos]

Are there religious people in Holland?

Yes, why ?

 

[wynn]

Are you missing the fact that I don't believe in god ?

You said:

But IF god exists it is a fact that he can convince me.

How do you know this above is a fact?

You say you don't believe in God.

But you believe it is a fact that God could convince you.

Even if you phrase something in the conditional form ("But IF god exists it is a fact that he can convince me.") it still reveals your actual beliefs.