In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

Part 2 of 3

I am aware of the existence of many different concepts of God (gods, whatever), held by many different people of many different religious persuasions. If a theist asserts that his or her particular description of God is the "right" one, then I think it is reasonable to ask that the theist provide appropriate evidence or persuasive argument to establish his or her claim.

I agree. I am very suspect when a so-called theist assert that the God he believes in is the one true God.

And I do confront their assertion, in the same manner, I confront atheist assertions.

At the most basic level, different religions posit different numbers of gods, for one thing. The nature and attitudes of the gods of different religions vary. The supposed "word of God" differs from scripture to scripture (and even from chapter to chapter in the same scripture).

Gods (gods) are not God, and they have never been mistaken as such in polytheistic cultures. Gods are created beings with particular universal roles. They are very powerful and knowledgeable compared to human beings. Humans sought boons from these gods through worship.

Bg, Chapter 4, Verse 12

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods [gods]. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world.

Alternatively, I'm open to the possibility that your God, being an independent mind (I assume), could choose to reveal himself to me unambigously in his own way at some point in time. But I've seen no sign of that happening so far.

God does reveal Himself, hence people accept He is real.

Please don't take this as an insult. ''The fool says in his heart, there is no God''

This may sound like an insult to atheists, but it is not. It means that before one even begins his inquiry, he accepts that God does not exist. In that sense he has fooled himself. Not that he is a fool in the way we use the term today. Als it has nothing to do with the intellect.

I thought I'd already explained. Tell me what you mean by "without God".

When someone is without God, at the moment God not exist.

I doubt that God exists. I don't believe "in" God in the way you use that term. I see no reason to have trust or confidence in a God that probably does not exist in reality.


If these things make me "without God", then ok, I'm without God. But maybe you have something else in mind.

God either exists or not. All the other stuff is basically intellectual waffle.

For you, God does not exist, hence you are without God, therefore atheist.

My advice (for my benefit as well) is to see your position exactly for what it is. It helps.

What this argument tends to come back to with many theists - yourself included, I think - is that you like to assert that atheists such as myself "believe that God does not exist". I do not "believe that God does not exist", because the truth is that I don't believe that we can know whether God exists or not, for sure. I doubt that God exists. I'm fairly confident that God, as described by the various religious traditions, does not exist. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I'm not focusing on belief.

We accept God does or doesn't exist, then we develop our beliefs as we go through life.

I'm talking about what is actual. Either God exists or God doesn't exist. We have to make that choice.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Part 3 of 3


So if I ask you the question Does God exist or not, your answer is no, and mine is yes.

The truth that we can't know whether or not God exists for sure is your truth, based on your own conclusion, based on what constitutes God as described.

It is not my truth. The problem is you can't accept that.
I accept it. why can't you?

In what way are you open to be convinced that something that does not exist. exists?

If that is the case, if theists are wrong and God turns out not to exist, then theists also lack belief in God, as a matter of fact. All they have, instead, is belief in their concept of God.

It is pointless talking about if theists are wrong in this case. I accept that your position is correct. Please accept my position is correct, otherwise you're simply holding up the discussion.

God exits, I accept and believe in God, you don't.

That is what is on the table.

Regardless of whetehr there is a God to believe in, the typical atheists lacks belief "in" God because they see no basis for trusting or placing confidence in something which seems to have no effect in the real world.

So now we've shifted the emphasis to God's usefulness should He exist.

This is more a case of what you believe about God. A different thread I think.

See, I would say that I lack belief in unicorns because there's insufficient evidence that they exist. I don't feel compelled to commit to a black-or-white view of the world in which I assume I already know everything.

As far as I know they don't actually exist for me. That is a fact. It doesn't mean I believe they don't exist, so I go about defending that belief, trying to convince believers that they are wrong, deluded, or stupid for not seeing things as I see them.

If God doesn't exist, you are without God, same as me. If God doesn't exist, there's nothing to believe in, other than your concocted concept of God. But that would be a kind of self-delusion.

God does exist, but currently, not to you.
Are you prepared to accept that?

I'm getting on with life just fine without belief in God.

No, you're not. You are reliant on God.
You are existing here and now because God allows it.
You just don't recognize it.
Do you think anything I just said is possible?
I think it is possible because that is what we see.
Is it possible that God does not exist, and the theist is unaware. Yes if you're an atheist.

Same for me as far as God goes. So, we're on the same page on this now, are we?

We would be if God didn't exist.

Your point was that we don't create concepts out of whole cloth - we draw on prior ideas and other concepts to create new ones. My point is that the concept of God is no different from the concept of unicorns in that respect.


So, again, we're on the same page on this one, are we not?

And the concept of God is different from God.
So as far as concepts go, we are on the same page.

But when I talk of the actuality of God. We are not on the same page.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What do you think of agnostics?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do you think of agnostics?

An agnostic is a person who either has no knowledge of God, or believes that people cannot possess knowledge of God. An agnostic can either be atheist or theist, so the original meanings still apply.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

An agnostic is a person who either has no knowledge of God, or believes that people cannot possess knowledge of God. An agnostic can either be atheist or theist, so the original meanings still apply.

jan.

So, you have knowledge of God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, you have knowledge of God?

Yes. God is.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes. God is.

jan.

I'm convinced.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm convinced.

How?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

How?

jan.

That was sarcasm.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That was sarcasm.

I know.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

As far as I know they don't actually exist for me. That is a fact. It doesn't mean I believe they don't exist, so I go about defending that belief, trying to convince believers that they are wrong, deluded, or stupid for not seeing things as I see them.

Nobody is trying to get your fired from your job, or trashing your kid's education, or persecuting your friends and family, because of their belief in unicorns.

If they were, such beliefs might be more of a concern to you - no?

 

[DaveC426913]

The truth that we can't know whether or not God exists for sure is your truth, based on your own conclusion, based on what constitutes God as described.

It is not my truth. The problem is you can't accept that.

We absolutely do accept it.

The only point of contention left is that you can't admit that it is an act of faith.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

No. Just God Is.

That's your opinion.

That is my point. There is no God as far as you're concerned. Hence you are "without God", the original meaning of "atheist".

You keep insisting on painting my view as some kind of absolute, when I have clearly explained how it is not. My view, more correctly expressed, is there is probably no God. As I said, if that makes me "without God" in your eyes, then so be it. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about your label is that it seeks to sneak in your assumption that God exists via a side door. The fact is, if God doesn't exist then you are "without God" too, regardless of your stated beliefs.

Wishing doesn't make it so, Jan. There really isn't one set of facts for you and a different one for me. When it comes down to it, God either exists or he doesn't, regardless of what either of us believe about the matter. More on this below.

No. Just like no one could show God to Anthony Flew.

Anthony Flew seems like a bit of a poster boy for you, since you regularly bring him up in the conversation. His conversion to a deism at a late age is controversial, to say the least. Moreover, if we take him at face value then he was convinced by the very kind of "evidence" that you say we can't draw on to prove God's existence. Also, Flew rejected things like the notion of an interventionist God.

I suppose you present Flew because he was a prominent atheist who "saw the light". I would venture that far more prominent theists have "converted" in the opposite direction, to atheism from theism. I don't really see why you consider Flew's conversion as so significant.

But there is no way you can know.

I already said that. Equally, there's no way you can know.

And here I brace myself for more claims from you that you have a magical (God given?) ability to just know things, in the same way that you claim you just know you're not a brain in a vat - remember that discussion?

Everything you say is limited to the perspective of being without God.

No, because I can refer to the perspectives of those who claim to be "with" God in order to understand their position. Such is the wonder of language - it allows people to communicate with one another.

To get around this, you develop a concept of God (strawGod) which has to not exist. You engage theists in discussion, limiting the subject matter to this strawGod, thereby endlessly going back and forth about the actual existence of this strawGod., as though you are discussing God

In most discussions I have with theists, I try to discuss their concept of God, not one that I invent. After all, they're the ones with a fixed conception of God, not me.

It doesn't surprise me that most theists see the Gods of other religions, or the Gods as described in general terms, as strawGods, as you put it. You risk shaking your faith in your own beliefs if you ever really open yourself up to examining other views in an honest way.

But I am talking about God, and you currently cannot perceive God.

If there's no God to perceive, then you can't perceive God either. Not really. You might well imagine that you can and do, of course.

There is a difference, as you correctly pointed out, between God and the concept of God.

There would be if God existed in reality, as opposed to being merely a concept/fantasy.

I understand perfectly. You are without God, therefore you God does not exist for you. He exists as a concept. This is how God exists for everyone regardless of whether they believe He actually exists or not. It is from concepts of God that we can come to realise God. But it is not a simple process. From a theist perspective this is the mercy of God.

See how you tried to sneak in the idea of "existence for you" there? Maybe you do that without even realising it.

There is no "existence for you" vs "existence for me", really. Either something exists or it doesn't. We can each have true or false beliefs about the existence of something, but its existence or non-existence is independent of those beliefs.

Suppose I say "There's a DisneyWorld in Nigeria" and I honestly believe that is true. Does that mean that there really is a DisneyWorld in Nigeria? Would you say that "Nigerian DisneyWorld exists for you (but not for me)"? Or would you say "You're speaking nonsense! There's no DisneyWorld in Nigeria"?

Either God exists, or he doesn't. It's wrongheaded to say he exists for you (Jan) and not for me (James). Either God exists and I'm mistaken in thinking that he does not, or he does not exist and you're mistaking in thinking that he does.

That is not how you get to realise God. Sufficient arguments, and or evidences, can allow you to comprehend the attributes of God, but to come to the conclusion that God is, you don't need them.There is something in you that does not accept God, regardless of arguments or evidences, and that's why you don't perceive God. Whatever that things is, and I suspect Anthony Flew had the same, or very similar thing, it will always prevent you, until you confront it.

Essentially, you're telling me that if I just try hard to believe in God then I'll conclude that God is. I accept that. I could probably convince myself that God exists if I really tried. But would that make any difference to whether God actually exists, in reality? I don't think so. Wishing doesn't make it so.

Coming at things from a different angle: why do you think your God is so perverse as to create beings such as myself who have something in them that just will not accept God and which therefore prevent us from perceiving God? Is it the whole free-will thing again? Or does God delight in blinding atheists to his existence? Is it a game for this God of yours?

Why is this God of yours enigmatic, rather than unambiguous? Why does this God act as if he doesn't exist, to all intents and purposes?

Do you have answers for these questions from your religious perspective? I'm assuming you do, because the problem is a rather obvious one that religions have to confront all the time. Nevertheless, I'm interested to hear your take on the problem.

 

[James R]

(part 2)

I agree. I am very suspect when a so-called theist assert that the God he believes in is the one true God.

And I do confront their assertion, in the same manner, I confront atheist assertions.

Your own position, as far as I can make it out, is that all gods are really the same God.

In saying that, you have to toss out the fundamental beliefs of just about every major world religion, but that doesn't seem to bother you. You just pick and choose the parts you want to keep from each one, presumably, and ignore the rest.

God does reveal Himself, hence people accept He is real.

How does God reveal himself?

Please don't take this as an insult. ''The fool says in his heart, there is no God''

That's a trite insult that's commonly directed at atheists, regardless of what you say about it.

It means that before one even begins his inquiry, he accepts that God does not exist. In that sense he has fooled himself. Not that he is a fool in the way we use the term today. Als it has nothing to do with the intellect.

I completely agree with your point that nobody should start with a conclusion if he wants to conduct an honest inquiry into something.

When someone is without God, at the moment God not exist.

You're back to "existence for me" vs "existence for you" again.

I assume you don't really mean that wishing makes it so when you say this kind of thing. If you don't really mean it, then you ought to be more careful with how you express the idea.

The problem, of course, is that the idea that you're expressing here boils down to "When you don't believe in God, you don't accept God as real." and "When you believe in God, you accept that God is real." These statements are just obvious tautologies. So, your original statement is another example of a "deepity" - on one level something obviously and trivially true, and at the same time an idea that would be of earthshattering consequence if it were actually true ("wishing makes it so" - think The Secret, for example).

God either exists or not. All the other stuff is basically intellectual waffle.

This almost sounds like you agree with me that there is no "existence for you", as opposed to "existence for me". But you flip-flop back and forth on this point regularly, as in your very next sentence:

For you, God does not exist, hence you are without God, therefore atheist.

There's that idea that God can exist for you but not for me - i.e. God both exists and does not exist at the same time. By now you must surely see the problem.

My advice (for my benefit as well) is to see your position exactly for what it is. It helps.

You are telling me that my wishing that God does not exist makes God not exist for me.

Problem 1: wishing doesn't make it so.
Problem 2: God can't both exist (for you) and not exist (for me) at the same time. Either God exists or he doesn't - the rest, as you say, is basically waffle.

I'm not focusing on belief.

We accept God does or doesn't exist, then we develop our beliefs as we go through life.

I'm talking about what is actual. Either God exists or God doesn't exist. We have to make that choice.

You don't get to choose whether God exists or not. Wishing doesn't make it so.

If God exists (independent of what we think), then we can accept God or not. On the other hand, if God does not exist (independent of what we think), then it is impossible to "accept" God in any meaningful way. We could worship a concept, but that's not the same thing, is it?

 

[James R]

(part 3)

So if I ask you the question Does God exist or not, your answer is no, and mine is yes.

My answer is probably no, but we will probably never know for sure.

Part of your problem is that you've convinced yourself that you know that God exists. I'd say the best thing you can do to make some progress from here is to honesty ask yourself how you know that. If you think you already have a sufficient answer to that question, perhaps you could share it with me, if it's not too personal. On the other hand, if you don't have a sufficient answer, then I'd suggest you try to come up with one for yourself.

The truth that we can't know whether or not God exists for sure is your truth, based on your own conclusion, based on what constitutes God as described.

It is not my truth. The problem is you can't accept that.
I accept it. why can't you?

In what way are you open to be convinced that something that does not exist. exists?

There's that relativism again. We've already seen "exists for you" vs "exists for me". And now we have "truth for you" vs "truth for me".

The fact is: the Truth is Out There. It's not inside you or me.

Either we can know for sure whether God exists, or we can't. One of those things is true, regardless of what we belief about it. Wishing doesn't make it so.

You say I "can't accept" that you know for sure that God exists etc. And you're right: I don't accept that you know for sure that God exists. I don't accept that anyone knows for sure that God exists. Or that anybody knows for sure that God doesn't exist, for that matter. After all, how could anyone ever know either of those things for sure?

On the other hand, I have no trouble at all in accepting that you believe that God exists, that you believe that you know for sure that God exists, and so on. I just don't think that you hold your beliefs on any reasonable grounds.

But maybe this doesn't bother you. It might well be that you honestly think that you can "just know" stuff intuitively, or in a magical God-given manner, such that the knowledge you think you have is not based on evidence or reason. In that case, I wonder whether you'd be happy to admit that your belief in God is, fundamentally, unreasonable (?)

God exits, I accept and believe in God, you don't.

That is what is on the table.

But Step 1 is an unjustified assumption of yours. I don't have an issue with step 3 (your belief), other than that is is likely mistaken. As for step 2 (acceptance), that is only real (and not a fantasy) if you can establish step 1 in some objective way.

Of course, this all assumes, one again, that your aim in conducting this discourse with me is to convince me of something. But maybe that's not your aim at all. Maybe you just want to preach the "good news" about your own belief, regardless of whether anybody else buys into what you are selling.

So now we've shifted the emphasis to God's usefulness should He exist.

This is more a case of what you believe about God. A different thread I think.

Ok. Happy to have that discussion elsewhere/elsewhen, if you prefer.

As far as I know [unicorns] don't actually exist for me. That is a fact. It doesn't mean I believe they don't exist, so I go about defending that belief, trying to convince believers that they are wrong, deluded, or stupid for not seeing things as I see them.

Again we see existence for me vs existence for you. Either unicorns exist or they don't. Can't we get past the issue of who believes what, so we can discuss the reality of what does or does not exist?

Your second point here is interesting, though.

Suppose you meet, on the street tomorrow, or on the internet perhaps, somebody who is a self-described believer in real-live unicorns. Unicorns live in deepest darkest Africa, they tell you. All those books and artworks depicting unicorns are based ultimately on reality that unicorns exist in the world, and indeed provide important evidence for that existence, they tell you.

When you try to tell this person that you are aware of no good evidence for unicorns, they tell you that you are closed-minded. If only you would open yourself up to the possibility of unicorns in Africa, you would also believe that they are real.

But, you say, if there are unicorns, why don't we see photos of them? Why aren't there any in zoos? We don't people see them on safari? Why isn't their DNA on file?

You're going about it all wrong, they say. You're demanding solid evidence, but you're starting from the conclusion that unicorns don't exist. You'll never see a unicorn if you have that attitude! And even if you did see one, you'd rationalise it away (as a dressed-up horse, perhaps). No, what you need to do is to just let yourself believe that unicorns are real, and see where that belief takes you. In no time at all, you'll find that unicorns are just as real for you as they are for me. And once you're at that stage, you won't even need to go to Africa. You'll see that evidence is beside the point. You'll feel the unicorns. They'll make you happy. They'll enrich your life in special ways that you never imagined.

Why would anybody refuse to believe in unicorns, they ask? You'd have to be a cold-hearted cynic to assume that such beautiful creatures don't exist. Besides, I barely ever think about the existence of unicorns - that's so prosaic - they say. I believe in the unicorns, and it gives me a warm inner glow of security and contentment. Existence is beside the point when you compare it to that.

But, you say, don't you care about what is true? Your truth is not the same as mine, and I reject your truth, they say.
---

What do you do at this point, Jan? Walk away with a shake of your head and say "I'll leave that person to his/her beliefs and just get on with my life", I suppose. The alternative would be to try to convince them that the Truth, whatever it may be, has value, and we should consider trying to find the Truth, whatever it is. But that might be way too much trouble to go to. Why rock the boat? That person is comfortable and happy, even if they are perhaps deluded.

On the other hand, you might choose to press the point, even though the effort will likely be fruitless. Maybe some abstract set of principles is important enough to you to make it worth it to you to take a little time. And even if you don't make any ultimate progress in changing this person's mind, the journey of walking in somebody else's shoes for a while (in thought, at least) might be interesting.

God does exist, but currently, not to you.
Are you prepared to accept that?

No, for reasons I have given many times above. There's no "non-existence for me" vs "existence for you". Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time.

No, you're not. You are reliant on God.
You are existing here and now because God allows it.

This is an unsupported assertion.

You just don't recognize it.

I won't accept it, unless it is appropriately supported.

Do you think anything I just said is possible?

Sure, it's possible. But there's no rational reason to believe it's true. (Or, rather, there's not a solid framework of reasoning that makes it reasonable to believe it's true.)

I think it is possible because that is what we see.

I don't see it. What do you see that convinces you?

Is it possible that God does not exist, and the theist is unaware. Yes if you're an atheist.

Yes, even if you're not an atheist. You just need to be honest with yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We absolutely do accept it.

The only point of contention left is that you can't admit that it is an act of faith.

What is an act of faith?
Let's go into it properly.
How is believing in God an act of faith?

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

When someone is without God, at the moment God not exist.

Good

So all is non believers need to do is organise a 7 + billion people flash mob an convince everyone present to be atheist and bingo god gone

I'm concerned he might not take the hint and come back

Any ideas how to prevent that?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Coming at things from a different angle: why do you think your God is so perverse as to create beings such as myself who have something in them that just will not accept God and which therefore prevent us from perceiving God? Is it the whole free-will thing again? Or does God delight in blinding atheists to his existence? Is it a game for this God of yours?

Why do you think God could be perverse?
Why don't you see yourself as perverse?
You need to sort out you angst with God (maybe that is why you're atheist), and leave me out of it.

Why is this God of yours enigmatic, rather than unambiguous? Why does this God act as if he doesn't exist, to all intents and purposes?

''The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''. Maybe that will answer your questions.

Do you have answers for these questions from your religious perspective?

What religious perspective?
If you don't want me to answer questions with questions, then stop talking about my religion. I've discussed it with no one here, and I'm not going to, as it is totally not necessary.

Nevertheless, I'm interested to hear your take on the problem.

I see no problems at all, regarding God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your own position, as far as I can make it out, is that all gods are really the same God.

No. I've already stated that gods, and God are not the same.

In saying that, you have to toss out the fundamental beliefs of just about every major world religion, but that doesn't seem to bother you. You just pick and choose the parts you want to keep from each one, presumably, and ignore the rest.

If you want to discuss religion, start a thread.

How does God reveal himself?

Through His manifestations, and through basic human intelligence.

I completely agree with your point that nobody should start with a conclusion if he wants to conduct an honest inquiry into something.

The trouble with this is, it is not a conclusion. The fool doth say in his heart...

You're back to "existence for me" vs "existence for you" again.

Yes.

The problem, of course, is that the idea that you're expressing here boils down to "When you don't believe in God, you don't accept God as real." and "When you believe in God, you accept that God is real."

No. This is how you see it, because for you God does not exist.
I see it differently because I believe in God. That's the difference between us.

This almost sounds like you agree with me that there is no "existence for you", as opposed to "existence for me". But you flip-flop back and forth on this point regularly, as in your very next sentence:

God either exists, or not, is all that is on the table. This ''probably'', and ''lack belief'' is waffle.
As far as you have stated, God does not exist, and I believe in God (existence a given). That is the position as defined by ''atheist'' and ''theist''. By default, you have no way of knowing anything other than God does not exist (currently).

You are telling me that my wishing that God does not exist makes God not exist for me.

I would say it is what is in your heart that makes God appear nonexistent to you.

Problem 2: God can't both exist (for you) and not exist (for me) at the same time. Either God exists or he doesn't - the rest, as you say, is basically waffle.

I accept you point of view.

You don't get to choose whether God exists or not. Wishing doesn't make it so.

You're quite right. Just to add; You don't get to choose whether God exists or not. Wishing doesn't make it so.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My answer is probably no, but we will probably never know for sure.

There is no ''probably''. Either exists as you read this sentence, or He doesn't exist.
Does God exist as you read this?

Part of your problem is that you've convinced yourself that you know that God exists.

How do you know that I do not know God exists?

I'd say the best thing you can do to make some progress from here is to honesty ask yourself how you know that.

Because God Is. Can you comprehend that, or do you need to see God to be convinced?

The fact is: the Truth is Out There. It's not inside you or me.

Truth is simply truth.
Truth just Is.

You say I "can't accept" that you know for sure that God exists etc. And you're right: I don't accept that you know for sure that God exists. I don't accept that anyone knows for sure that God exists.

What is so difficult about knowing for sure that God exists?

But maybe this doesn't bother you. It might well be that you honestly think that you can "just know" stuff intuitively, or in a magical God-given manner, such that the knowledge you think you have is not based on evidence or reason. In that case, I wonder whether you'd be happy to admit that your belief in God is, fundamentally, unreasonable (?)

Again, why do you think it is so difficult to know God?
Why don't you simply accept that you are without God, period?

But Step 1 is an unjustified assumption of yours. I don't have an issue with step 3 (your belief), other than that is is likely mistaken. As for step 2 (acceptance), that is only real (and not a fantasy) if you can establish step 1 in some objective way.

This is your perspective.
I've given mine. If you think I'm mistaken, so be it.
If I think you're mistaken, so be it.
I can live with that.

When you try to tell this person that you are aware of no good evidence for unicorns, they tell you that you are closed-minded. If only you would open yourself up to the possibility of unicorns in Africa, you would also believe that they are real.

If someone said that, and I was particularly interested, I would have to suspend any doubts I had about Unicorns. Simples really.

You're going about it all wrong, they say. You're demanding solid evidence, but you're starting from the conclusion that unicorns don't exist.

Because they don't exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm being honest. But if they do exist, I will change my position. I won't stick doggedly to the notion that I'm right, and everyone who believes in Unicorns, are stupid, or deluded.

And even if you did see one, you'd rationalise it away (as a dressed-up horse, perhaps).

You are describing yourself.

No, what you need to do is to just let yourself believe that unicorns are real, and see where that belief takes you. In no time at all, you'll find that unicorns are just as real for you as they are for me.

Oh! I get it. You're trying to say this is what theism is (despite it's actual meaning).
What can I say other than you're an atheist, and you have no choice, as a card-carrying atheist, but to see it this, or a similar way. A good example of being limited to one's designation.

Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time.

It seems you haven't read what I mean by that.
Oh well!

This is an unsupported assertion.

It would appear like that, I agree.

Sure, it's possible. But there's no rational reason to believe it's true. (Or, rather, there's not a solid framework of reasoning that makes it reasonable to believe it's true.)

It is so rational, that it is sublime.
It has to be simple, (hence no solid framework of reasoning necessary) because every human being is essentially part and parcel of God, so every human being, from every walk of life, time, and circumstance, has the innate ability to accept to God.

jan.