Jan Ardena:
What do you mean by logically possible?
I know that you believe in God and you reject the idea that there is no God. If I were to simply ask you whether you think that it is possible that there is no God, you would no doubt reply that such a thing is impossible. You would reply like that because, for you, the idea that there might not be a God is inconceivable.
Since I already understand very clearly what your personal worldview is, I would like to explore your understanding of logic. All indications are that you have a poor grasp of logic, and I want to drill down to find out exactly what the problem is.
By "logically possible", I mean only that the idea is not absurd - that it is not in breach of some basic principle of reasoning, and that it is not in breach of some known and generally agreed truth about the world.
I will ask you again:
Do you think that it is logically possible that there is no God?
Note: I don't want you to import your belief that God Is into your answer. I want you to consider what is and isn't possible in the world, as a matter of logic.
A similiar question might be: is it logically possible that there are no ghosts? (And you can answer that one too, if you find the one about God too difficult.)
If I am to think that I can't believe in God, unless God Is, then that implies some sort of awareness.
Focus, please.
2. There is no God, but I believe in God.
You say this is not logically possible. I take it from what you have written that this is because you think that for somebody to believe in something they need to be aware of it, and therefore it must have existence/Is-ness.
I am aware of the story of
Peter Pan - I am aware of the character Peter Pan - but I do not believe that there is a real boy called Peter Pan who can fly. Similarly, I am aware of various descriptions of God and stories about God, but I do not believe in God.
Now, suppose that, hypothetically, there is somebody (let's call her Wendy) who
does believe that there is a real boy called Peter Pan who can fly. We might say:
2. There is no Peter Pan, but Wendy believes in Peter Pan.
Do you regard this as a logically possible state of affairs, or not?
Wendy, naturally, will be aware of Peter Pan in the same way that I am aware of him - she knows all the stories, she has seen the movies, she knows the usual descriptions of Peter, and so on. Wendy might, in addition, claim to have some kind of awareness of Peter that I don't have. For example, Wendy might believe that she sees Peter's shadow in her bedroom as he flies past the window at night. Wendy is confident that, one night, Peter will come in and take her to Neverland.
Is it logically possible that Peter Pan does not exist, yet Wendy believes in him anyway?
Is this scenario logically any different from a person believing in God when there is no God?
I would like your analysis and comparison of these two situations, please. Notice that you personal belief in or non-belief in Peter Pan is irrelevant to the question I am asking you. I assume I can take it as given that you are sufficiently "aware" of Peter Pan (but please let me know if this is an unwarranted assumption on my part). Similarly, if you think your personal belief in God is relevant to the logical question I am asking you, please explain how and why it is relevant.
The playing field allows two scenarios.
God Is, and without God.
No. The playing field allows 4 scenarios, which I set out for you previously. Focus. Here they are again:
1. God Is, and I believe in God.
2. There is no God, but I believe in God.
3. God Is, but I don't believe in God.
4. There is no God, and I don't believe in God.
We are currently investigating why you think that scenario 2 is a logical impossibility, despite the fact that you think that 4 is logically possible "in some way". We'll need to investigate scenario 4 in more detail, but let's concentrate on 2 for now.
Why should the atheist position be taken any more seriously than the theist one?
Notice in my list of 4 scenarios, the atheist and theist positions are equally represented.
You want to rule out scenario 2, thus weighting the scales towards theism. We need to see if you can justify that bias.
There can be no belief without awareness. Understand.
Awareness of what? Stories about the thing? The description of the thing? The thing itself?
We need to get to the bottom of what you think one needs to be "aware" of, exactly. Consider the Peter Pan scenario; that might help to clarify things.
There is no God for you (atheist).
I accept that.
Your ongoing problem with distinguishing objective reality from subjective belief is noted, and already dealt with.
You should accept that God Is, and I believe in God (theist).
Why should we accept that God Is? You provide no reason to do so.