Jan Ardena:
For completeness, I will reply to your earlier post, but if you're replying to me please address my posts above before this one.
Tell me
why you think it is not logically possible that there is no God.
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.
The threshold of what they need to know is very low, though, isn't it? Obviously, they need to have been told, or have read about, the idea of gods/God. Once they are familiar with the concept of an all-powerful creator of the universe and so on and so forth, then they are free to believe in God, or not. Right?
What do you mean by a "solid" reason? Can you give an example of a solid reason to believe in God?
Also, compare: do you think a person would need a solid reason to believe that France is the capital of Spain? Or just a reason?
Do they need to be able to articulate their reason?
It's strange that up to now you have been saying that theism and atheism are just positions people find themselves in - almost like they are pre-determined - but now all of a sudden you're demanding that people give reasons for their theism or atheism.
Is theism something that just happens when you're aware and accept God, or do you now think that you need a reason? Or is the awareness/acceptance reason enough for you?
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.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
If I bring something into existence - like baking a cake, say - couldn't I reasonably believe there is a cake?
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.
Again, it's not clear what you're saying. Are you just saying people can learn about themselves by investigating their own reasons for believing in it, or are you saying something else?
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.
This is the exact opposite of what I have written on numerous occasions earlier in this thread. Of the two of us, you are the dogmatic one. You are locked into your belief to such an extent that you can't even see the
logical possibility that you might be wrong.
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?
I recognised at my first introduction to it that
Peter Pan is a fictional story, and I'm fairly sure it was introduced in that context. Nobody ever said to be that
Peter Pan is a true story about a boy who can fly, for instance.
In contrast, it took me a lot longer to find out that books like the bible and the Qur'an are, in part, also fictional stories. The difference, in part, is that people will generally readily admit that
Peter Pan is fiction, whereas they will insist that the bible is the Word of God, that it's a true historical record, and so on. A lot of people just take that for granted.
If the answer is yes, why did you believe?
Does it matter? What would be a good reason for believing, as opposed to a bad one, according to you?
Jan Ardena said:
James R said:
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.
Another one-word response from you.
Could Wendy not be mistaken in her belief? Could she not have a false belief?
Suppose you came across Wendy and she told you of her belief in Peter Pan. What would you tell her? "Peter Pan is real, because you believe in him"? Or would you say "You can't really believe in Peter Pan, because Peter is not real." Or what?
If Wendy believes that the shadow belongs to Peter Pan, she will have a reason why.
Sure. Does the fact that Wendy can give a reason for her belief make Peter Pan real, then?
So at some point Wendy will come to to understand the Peter Pan is a fictitious character.
How can you be sure of that? Maybe Wendy is a dyed-in-the-wool Peter Panist, who believes that Peter just Is.
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!
I don't know how you can claim that they (I) had no belief. If you had asked me when I was younger whether I believed in God, I would have told you "Yes". And you would have said ... what? "Oh, no, you don't really believe in God, little boy. You just think you do. Really, you're just believing what you read in the bible and what people told you. That's not a real belief in God. My belief in God is what is the Real Deal!" But if I had asked you how your belief in God was any different, you'd have had no answer to give.
One just doesn't believe something, and belief isn't fixed.
There's always a "reason" for a belief, even if that reason is a mistake, or a misjudgment, or misinformation, a personal predisposition, or whatever. And people can and do change their minds. We agree.
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.
I agree. Knowledge is justified true belief. You can start with the belief if you like, but justification and truth can't just be about you. Those things are about what's actually out there in the world outside your head. The rational person tries to make sure that the stuff inside his head matches the stuff outside, and if it turns out that it doesn't then he changes his mind.
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.
You mean awareness of God? What makes you think all living things are aware of God? How would you test that? What would it mean for a tree to be aware or not aware of God - or anything else, for that matter?
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.
It's simple: theism and atheism are about what people believe. Namely, theists have a belief that God Is/exists, and atheists do not have that belief.
If you're interested in exploring the
reasons why there are those differences in belief, well, so am I. But up to now you haven't shown much interest in reasons. You've been claiming theism is an Original Position in which you find yourself. Remember?
Ok.
This falls under the umbrella of God Is, and without God.
That remains to be seen. At present, you don't recognise that it is logically possible to believe in God when there is no God. I am wondering: if we can get you to the point where you recognise that this is logically possible, would this fall into your "God Is" or "without God" category? But, first things first.