God is defined, not described.

[Jan Ardena]

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

No.

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 believe that if someone believes in God, they have to know something about what, and why they believe.
They must be able to give a solid reason why it is they believe as opposed to not believe.
Believing in something cannot mean you bring the thing into existence. That would mean one could not actually believe in that thing, despite asserting they do.
If one inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, or understanding, actually believe in something, then one can learn of this, as one learns more about what it is they believe.
I think you are confused about what belief is. You seem to think of as some kind of dogmatism. Where the person, once they believe, is locked into it.

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.

Was there ever a point where you believed Peter Pan could fly?
Was there ever a time when you believed the descriptions and stories about God?
If the answer is yes, why did you believe?

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?

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.

If Wendy believes that the shadow belongs to Peter Pan, she will have a reason why.
So at some point Wendy will come to to understand the Peter Pan is a fictitious character.

Atheists who claim to have been theist at some point, are in the same position as Wendy.
They read the descriptions and stories about God, they accepted what was told to them. They had no belief, or connection to God, but accepted what they were told by certain authorities. They thought they believed in God, because they did what asked of them, and they studied the Bible. But after a while, with the rise of scientific advancement, and the new atheist uprising, they began to realise that there is no God. That it's all indoctrination, blah blah blah!
The reality is, they were without God, just like the biblical Cain was without God, despite his elaborate offers. They were always atheist, and they came to that understanding, the way Wendy will come to that understanding.

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.

One just doesn't believe something, and belief isn't fixed. One can, and does modify one's belief with the introduction of new information, knowledge, and experience. The natural aim of belief is to come to the point of knowledge. We have to first be true to ourselves before we can make such progress.
Without awareness, we are dead. I believe that all living things have some sort of awareness, which is suitable to the limitations of their bodies. I don't think life lies. There is no reason for me to think you are making up the idea that you are atheist. Similarly I don't believe there is any reason to think someone makes up the idea that they are theist. So this is why I'm interested in why there are theists and atheists.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Ok.

This falls under the umbrella of God Is, and without God.

Awareness of what? Stories about the thing? The description of the thing? The thing itself?

All of the above.

Your ongoing problem with distinguishing objective reality from subjective belief is noted, and already dealt with.

I don't accept your "dealt with" as actual.
You'll have to do better.

Why should we accept that God Is? You provide no reason to do so.

You can't. Not while you're atheist.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

No. 2 is not logically possible IMO.
2. There is no God, but I believe in God.

You are wrong about that, of course - it is obviously logically possible, even if you are correct and it never happens.

So at some point Wendy will come to to understand the Peter Pan is a fictitious character.

You anticipate that unlikely possible event with such confidence.
Adult Christian fundies seldom come to understand.

The natural aim of belief is to come to the point of knowledge.

Not your belief.

I believe that if someone believes in God, they have to know something about what, and why they believe.

You don't. Few believers do, in my experience.

Where the person, once they believe, is locked into it.

In theory not necessarily, in practice quite often.

 

[Sarkus]

If one inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, or understanding, actually believe in something, then one can learn of this, as one learns more about what it is they believe.

So you mean you do accept that someone can believe in something that is false? That one could, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, actually believe that Paris is the capital of Spain?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you mean you do accept that someone can believe in something that is false? That one could, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, actually believe that Paris is the capital of Spain?

No. Because it isn't false.

There is no Peter Pan, but I believe.
The problem is, there is Peter Pan. Wendy, in due course of time, will realized that Peter Pan does not exist in the way pots and pans exist, thereby modifying her belief

She couldn't believe in Peter Pan, if there was no Peter Pan, because there would be nothing to believe in.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You anticipate that unlikely possible event with such confidence.
Adult Christian fundies seldom come to understand.

Anti-theists can rarely see beyond their prejudice. You are one such Anti-theists.
Everything you said is obviously umbrella'd by this unfortunate condition.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anti-theists can rarely see beyond their prejudice. You are one such Anti-theists.
Everything you said is obviously umbrella'd by this unfortunate condition.

I think you recognize how appropriately ironic this is.
This is pretty much exactly what people have been witnessing from you, substituting 'theism' with 'anti-theism'.

By the way; it is an ad hom. And thus, invalid as an argument.
What you are doing is tantamount to refusing to answer any questions put to you, and attempting to defend it by claiming the questioner is not a valid source of questions.

Everyone else see this. I am certain you do too.

 

[Sarkus]

No. Because it isn't false.

You think Paris being the capital of Spain isn't false??? I'm asking simply whether you think people can believe something that is actually false. Do you think that?

 

[river]

You think Paris being the capital of Spain isn't false??? I'm asking simply whether you think people can believe something that is actually false. Do you think that?

Of course , it happens everyday .

Your point ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course , it happens everyday .

Your point ?

Everyone agrees. except Jan.

Sarkus is using small words so Jan can understand the concept that it is certainly possible for people to believe in things that are not true.

If Jan were to admit that, he would have to* admit that his belief in God is (at least, in principle) possibly a belief in something that is not true.

*Unfortunately, Jan will either deflect, by posing a new question, or manipulate the statement to read as if it applies to others but weasel out of acknowledging that it applies to himself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You think Paris being the capital of Spain isn't false??? I'm asking simply whether you think people can believe something that is actually false. Do you think that?

It's not false, it is a mistake.
It would be false, if after obtaining the correct information, one still maintained the false information as true.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By the way; it is an ad hom. And thus, invalid as an argument.

What's an ad hom?
And where is the invalid argument?

What you are doing is tantamount to refusing to answer any questions put to you, and attempting to defend it by claiming the questioner is not a valid source of questions.

Which questions have I refused to answer?

Jan.

 

[river]

What's an ad hom?
And where is the invalid argument?



Which questions have I refused to answer?

Jan.

Jan

Are you trying to convert people . To your god ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan

Are you trying to convert people . To your god ?

No.

Jan.

 

[river]

No.

Jan.

Then why go on here ?

 

[Sarkus]

If Jan were to admit that, he would have to* admit that his belief in God is (at least, in principle) possibly a belief in something that is not true.

*Unfortunately, Jan will either deflect, by posing a new question, or manipulate the statement to read as if it applies to others but weasel out of acknowledging that it applies to himself.

Indeed, so let's see what Jan does...

It's not false, it is a mistake.
It would be false, if after obtaining the correct information, one still maintained the false information as true.

Jan, if something is false then it does not correspond with reality. This is irrespective of validity of justification. A belief is false simply if it does not correspond to reality. A subset of such a false belief would be one that is nonetheless justified but from incorrect or incomplete information.
i.e. a mistaken belief is still false if what is believed does not correspond with fact.

What you are doing is equivocating "false" with "delusional" (the holding of a view despite knowing it to be contradicted by fact). Please don't.



Now, let me ask you again: if someone, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, believed Paris to be the capital of Spain, would this be a false belief?

Hint: does the belief correspond with fact or not? If not then...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now, let me ask you again: if someone, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, believed Paris to be the capital of Spain, would this be a false belief?

I've already explained Sarkus.
If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital.
That belief would be false. But I doubt people go to the point of having to belief something like that.

I think you think belief is something one instantly does.

I don't believe that Paris is the capital of France. I know it. If the capital city should change, and I still cling Paris as the capital. You may find I have a reason for this belief. But it wouldn't be false.

If there are capital cities of countries, I get wrong in a pub quiz, it doesn't mean I hold a false belief mate. It simply means I am not aware of the correct answer.

Jan, if something is false then it does not correspond with reality.

Both Paris, and Spain correspond to reality. The fact we get things mixed up, or have no been privy to the correct information, does not mean hold a false belief.

A subset of such a false belief would be one that is nonetheless justified but from incorrect or incomplete information.
i.e. a mistaken belief is still false if what is believed does not correspond with fact.

You're talking nonsense Sarkus.
All this nonsense because you want to justify your denial and rejection of God.

What you are doing is equivocating "false" with "delusional" (the holding of a view despite knowing it to be contradicted by fact). Please don't.

Based on what you've written thus far, I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand what I am saying.
Either that, or you're doing a great impression of a person who doesn't.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital.
That belief would be false. But I doubt people go to the point of having to belief something like that.

So this would be a false belief, even if it is inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension? This is contrary to what you said previously:
Me, post #564: "So you mean you do accept that someone can believe in something that is false? That one could, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, actually believe that Paris is the capital of Spain?"
Your response, post '565: "No. Because it isn't false."
As ever, Jan, your lack of consistency from one post to another, your willingness to contradict yourself, is detrimental to the health of this thread.

I think you think belief is something one instantly does.

You think incorrectly. It is a false thought on your part.

I don't believe that Paris is the capital of France. I know it.

Knowledge is generally accepted as a Justified True Belief... so knowledge is still a belief - one that is not only justified but also corresponds with reality/fact.
So if you claim to know something then you are claiming not only that you believe it, but you claim that your belief is both justified and true. (There are of course criticisms of the simple JTB approach (Gettier et al) but it is the main starting point within philosophy.)

If the capital city should change, and I still cling Paris as the capital. You may find I have a reason for this belief. But it wouldn't be false.

Yes, it would be false. If the belief does not correspond to fact/reality then it is a false belief.
As you say in the second and third sentence of your post above: "If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital.
That belief would be false."

Why do you struggle so much with the internal consistency of your arguments, even within the same post?
How is anyone to know wtf you mean when you given such contradictory positions?

If there are capital cities of countries, I get wrong in a pub quiz, it doesn't mean I hold a false belief mate. It simply means I am not aware of the correct answer.

And thus your belief is false. This differs from "I don't know" where you don't profess a belief that it is Paris. But even if you guess and get it wrong, that would be a false guess.
False = does not correspond to fact. It really is that simple, and your subsequent semantic bullcrap is simply more trollish behaviour. Give it a rest already!

Both Paris, and Spain correspond to reality. The fact we get things mixed up, or have no been privy to the correct information, does not mean hold a false belief.

Again, if you believe Paris is the capital of Spain, this is a false belief. Your belief does not correspond to fact. It is false. It is that simple.

You're talking nonsense Sarkus.
All this nonsense because you want to justify your denial and rejection of God.

Actually, Jan, what you consider to be "nonsense" is relatively simple to understand, and it is true. That you think it nonsense is unfortunately a sad indictment of your willingness to troll this thread. You have made a mistake, Jan, and you simply can't bring yourself to admit it. So instead you try to play every semantic game you can. That you believe you are correct is also a false belief on your part.

Based on what you've written thus far, I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand what I am saying.
Either that, or you're doing a great impression of a person who doesn't.

So rather than actually present an argument or an explanation to clarify what you see as a misunderstood position, you resort to insults. Telling, isn't it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So this would be a false belief, even if it is inadvertently, due to false

Actually it wouldn't, because in order to believe, they have to have a reason. If they have a reason, it is not a false belief.

You think incorrectly. It is a false thought on your part

I don't think so.

Knowledge is generally accepted as a Justified True Belief...

Knowledge; facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Yes, it would be false.

No it wouldn't be.

If the belief does not correspond to fact/reality then it is a false belief.

We would not know until we get the reasoning behind the belief.

"If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital.
That belief would be false."

Like I said, we would need to know the reason for the belief. It might be the the believer accepts Paris is not the capital, but have reasons why he/she believes what they do.

And thus your belief is false. This differs from "I don't know" where you don't profess a belief that it is Paris.

Huh!
A mistake isn't a false belief.
Why would you think it is?

Again, if you believe Paris is the capital of Spain, this is a false belief.

The belief is real, but it is a mistake.
Not a false belief.

Examples of false beliefs are;

Life owes me something.
The universe is out to get me.
I am stuck in my current life situation.
It’s too late to start anything.

Things of that nature.

Getting the capital of Spain, wrong, is simply a mistake.

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Examples of false beliefs are;

Life owes me something.
The universe is out to get me.
I am stuck in my current life situation.
It’s too late to start anything.

Things of that nature.

Those seem like pretty deep answers.

Didn't I ask about suicide earlier, and being without God?