fast

Wow! That's a lot to digest. For the most part, I have not partaken in many discussions regarding God--A few, but many to any depth. I certainly can learn a lot in this, given time.

I'd like to argue, not so much because I necessarily disagree, but rather so that I can (myself) articulate my view--hopefully I can iron out some of my own ill- and preconceived notions.

I always get in trouble with implicit claims. There always seems to be ways to suggest that mistakes are to be made when declaring implicity.

I would agree that the claim, "God exists" was not stated explicitly. I also believe that most believers would make the claim, "I believe there is a God"(which is simply a claim about their own belief), and in addition, I expect that believers would also tend to make the claim, "God exists". I would say that these are two independent claims, where often time’s people would hold the latter while stating the former.

I mentioned that mistakes could be made. Discussing how the term "know" is to applied can be very treacherous grounds to cover, so I won't derail the topic in those regards, but I would like to say that if we "knew" God exists, then I'd say that there would not be much room for faith.

Thus, to say, "I believe in God" necessarily means that one does not know , "God exists".

As worded, I agree. However, I'm not so sure the inference is valid. Speaking of which, and to be brutally honest, I'm not comfortable about how the term "inference" is to be properly used anyway, but I'll try to make my case nevertheless.

One reason people may choose not to make the claim, "God exists" is because they know that they cannot substantiate the claim. This would not necessarily mean that they therefore do not believe that God exists. So, when you say that it "essentially" boils down to "[...] I know it doesn't exist" doesn't quite feel right to me. It's more like I said earlier. To add, I would say that it essentially boils down to, "I believe yet do not know." Again, the use of the term "know" could get sticky, but I won't go down that road unless necessary.

If I say, "I believe in the existence of X", and if I say "X doesn't exist", then yes, "Houston, we have a problem", but this isn't what appears to be happening. It seems to be a case where "one believes in X", and "one hasn’t disproved X". Even if the claim is made, "God exists", it is still another claim not binding on any of the others. I feel that we must treat each claim (incoherent as they may or may not be) as separate claims devoid of declared implicity.

If he makes the claim and subsequently fails to substantiate it, then that's the end of the story as far as THAT claim goes. I'm hesitant to infer "knowledge that God exists" from "I believe in God."

I'm treating each declarative proposition as separate assertions. Holding the view that "God does not exist" because one fails to make claim doesn't seem to fit quite right for me. He has clearly absolved himself of any duty to substantiate a claim by not claiming it. He has merely brought rise to the notion that the proposition "God exists" has not been disproved. This actually makes sense to me. The claim "God exists" hasn't been substantiated -- let alone disproved. Failure to substantiate existence should not equate to proof of nonexistence. It certainly gives rise to added reason as to why we ought not believe "God exists", but that's an entirely different issue, just like the claim "I believe in God" is a different issue and claim than "God exists".

I feel compelled to further disagree. I'm not closed minded--it's just that I need to see it more clearly. I'm saying that even if he did make the claim, it is still another claim that is different and distinct from the claim that "no one has dispoven God's existence". Also, I'm saying that he didn't make the claim.

If you claim there is an apple on the table, and if he claims there is an invisible orange on the table, then you can substantiate your claim, and he cannot substantiate his claim.

If you claim there is no invisible orange on the table, and if he claims that you have not proven your case, then he's correct for it cannot be done--or at least, it hasn't been done. Atheists are in a no win situation when it comes to disproving theists claims of existence. That's why we show that their claims have not been substantiated. We cannot disprove a negative--unless it's a special circumstance within a closed system (or if the claim is heavily qualified).

You made me take a strong second look on that one. Claiming non-existence, however, does not infer that a positive claim of existence was made; moreover, it wouldn't matter if one did.

1) A claims X exists
2) B claims X does not exist

3) A fails to make case
4) B demonstrates 3

Conclusion: A's claim has not been substantiated via B's demonstration

All we can infer is that A is making unsupported claims. At no time has the non-existence of X been demonstrated. The only thing being demonstrated is that A's claim isn't substantiated. We cannot prove God does not exist. We can prove that claims regarding God’s existence go unsubstantiated.

Now, back to your quote. I did not claim that it was claimed. I am treating any claim (whether positive or negative) as a single unit. If I claim "X does not exist", I am not therefore claiming, "X does exist". We cannot infer that someone (named or otherwise) claimed existence by my claim of non-existence.

Our worldly states of affairs are as they are, and no claims, absurd or otherwise, can change that. When we seek to forge forward in our understanding of the world, we can (and in this instance) either begin with an assertion of existence or with an assertion of nonexistence. It depends not on prior claims, but rather on the claimant his/her self as to what claims they are putting forward.

No theist can affirm and substantiate their stance (that God exists) successfully, and no atheist can substantiate their new stance (that God does not exist) successfully. The reason we atheists do not believe in God is not because we have proven the nonexistence of God. The reason we atheists do not believe in God is because we recognize that theists have failed to make their case. Consequently, for those of us that recognize and accept that, we fail to believe as theists do because theists have failed to support their wild assertions that there is a God. Hence, we lack belief for there is no acceptable reason to believe as they do.

By claiming that we have proven non-existence puts us in the same boat as theists--making assertions that cannot be substantiated. Non-existence is not the default position and neither is existence. The default position is our worldly state of affairs, whether we realize what they are or not. In terms of an argument, I'd like to think that if premises or assertions of an existence of God cannot be supported, then the best that we can muster is the pointing out of that fact--that theists have failed--and thus we lack belief.

To prove a position of non-existence of an undetectable entity is impossible. It cannot be done. Theists will go to great lengths to support their case, and I hope we can remain focused that it's not our place to disprove the unmprovable but rather prove that it remains unproven.

I hold that a theist is one that believes in God. If a theist would make claim that "he/she believes in God", I would believe them--I think it's true that theists believe in God.

I would say that belief and faith is what theism is all about--belief. If a theist takes it one step further and makes claim that there is a God, then I believe they are mistaken. It's their claim, and it's incumbent upon them to substantiate their claims. There is no reason to accept their claims if no one can substantiate their claims.

Most theists do make the claim that God exists. That claim if held to be true can impede our progress in humanity. That's why it's the moral thing to do to demonstrate that their claims have not been proven.

I reiterate again that seebs, in his comment, did not assert that there is a God, and again, even if he had done it, it would still have been a different (a second) assertion. The assertion that he did make which was essentially "atheists have failed to disprove God's existence" was a correct statement.

We atheists can demonstrate a lot of things. We can demonstrate that theists’ claims are unsubstantiated. We can demonstrate a failure to demonstrate attribution. We can demonstrate a failure to identify God. We can show where they went wrong, but we cannot prove they are wrong. When theists realize that their childhood indoctrination is the cause of their belief, then we will have made a lot of progress. But, we must remain intellectually honest and remain focused on the real issue.

The issue is not to disprove that which is unprovable. The issue is to prove that the theist hasn't proven their claims and assertions.

I agree, but let me be clear about what I agree to. The atheist has won the debate when the theist fails to make the case, but that opposing side (the atheists side) is not that there is no God. The atheists’ side is that theists are failing to make their case.

I get the feeling that the battle here is unclear. It's not a case of "he exists"... "No he doesn't". It's a case of "I can prove he exists"... "No you can't".

In terms of what seebs said, the situation is as muttled as just demonstrated. If I were to respond to seebs statement which I’ll paraphrase as "Atheist have failed to prove non existence", then I would say "it's not our job; it's NOT our job to prove what some atheists assert. It’s NOT our job to prove God’s non-existence. It is however our duty (our moral duty) to our fellow inhabitants to show that THEISTS have unsuccessfully demonstrated God's existence".

To simplify, there are two types of atheists. There are the one's that lack belief in God (by definition) that goes on to make claims of non-existence, and there are the one’s that lack belief in God (by definition) that do not go on to make claims of non-existence. That's the whole point. We lack belief not because we've proven the negative. We lack belief because theists have failed. It's not up to us to disprove...it's not our fight. Our fight is to not allow children and adults of our beloved world become consumed by outrageous assertions that will be acted upon. There is too much money in religion, there is too much heartache in religion, and there is too much death spawned from religious ties.

I realize that I'm kind of young (but still shouldn't be characterized as a kid ) and perhaps I'm still a little naive, but I just can't quite grasp why "HIS"
(As referenced above) case is to disprove God when the whole point is to do nothing more than oppose the claim that's attempting to be affirmed. Again, and in analogy, it's not the case "the sky is blue"..."no it's not"; Instead, it's the case "the sky is blue"..."you haven't substantiated your claim that the sky is blue". I don't need to put my self in the predicament of having to claim and substantiate myself. All I feel that I should have to do (and can do) is demonstrate how or why the person making the utterance (whether positive or negative) has failed.

Seebs made a cleverly true statement, but that does not mean that the so-called implicit claim (though I still disagree with that) has any credence.

But in the case of seebs comment, he's not burdened with proving the existence of God. Seebs made a comment of his own right, and whether that stems from prior claims is irrelevant. He is the original 'claimor' (in a sense), and as the recipient of that communication, I am a 'claimee' (in a sense). I need not concern myself as to from where his assertion was born. It matters not whether the case of a claim of God's existence is an unsubstantiated assertion or not. What matters is HIS claim. Is his claim true? This is the pressing issue for me. At this juncture, I'm uninfluenced and not inclined to consider for what reason he says it. Is it true or is IT not? Since non-existence hasn't been substantiated (proven), then by consequence of that, I must concede that his assertion is correct. This of course does not affect these generated implicit assumptions in the slightest. I'm focusing on the assertion itself.

By the definition of "know" that I'm borrowing (and again, I know (pun) that this can get murky), he does not know God exists--and he certainly doesn't know he doesn't exist. He believes there's a God. He can't substantiate it. We can't disprove it. There's no argument to be had from this. If he claims there's a God, then we can oppose him by demonstrating that his demonstrations are a failure. We do not need to get into an "is" ... "is not" debate. We need to get into an "is"..."you failed to show is" debate. Once more, he didn't offer an argument at all for a God.

HOW? There either is a God or there is not. If someone claims there to be a God, then I demand proof. I demand that they substantiate their claim if they think people ought to act on it. That claim of God is not grounds for an acceptable premise in an argument with me. Nobody has won a debate whereby the claim "God exists" is found to be true. Why has no one since the dawn of humanity (that I know of) ever successfully proven there to be a God? Gee, to me, it’s a no-brainer.

Wait a minute. Agree? Who needs to agree? Countless arguments have gone around in circles because people don't agree. So what! If someone wants to specify God as part of their claim of existence, let 'em have at it. I don't need to agree with anything. All I need to do is understand what it is they are trying to claim. Either way, they will ultimately fail in securing reason for this claim to be accepted.

Fine. I say whoever wants to make a claim, let 'em. If the claim is true, then it ought to be accepted, and if it's not, then it shouldn't. Whoever makes the assertion needs to explain (themselves) and substantiate the truth of their claim. I don't have to say that no god exists (and if I did, it would be a claim of my own making--though it stems from the fact a claim was made). I only have to pick apart the claim actually made.

I don't see how such a conclusion can be made, nor do I see why I should want to put myself in a position where I was trying to prove a case that is unprovable. As a counter arguer, I'm not out to prove anything except that the case being claimed isn't supported to an acceptable degree. I'm not trying to prove the theist wrong. They do that themselves when they fail to produce support for their claim. I'm trying to prove the theist hasn't successfully argued right.

Theists’ claims are like tiny fires. Left unattended, they spread like a cancerous agent throughout the body.

And my side is not a positive claim, and nor should it place me on the negative. The theist is typically the one that asserts, and it is not my place in opposition to assert the contrapositive. It is my place to demonstrate that the theist has failed. If I assert the contrapositive, then the theist can similarly fault me as well. That's why I'm taking up for seebs in this instance. I am in favor of true claims regardless of whose team one may be on. I may not always get it right, but I do try.

Man, I must have a lot to learn. I hope I haven't come across to badly. I want to understand, and I appreciate the opportunity to have a place to put down my thoughts--as silly as they may seem.

If you argue that 2+2=3, I could take up the position that 2+2=4, but I don't have to. All I have to do is show that your argument that 2+2 does not equal 3. In case of the claim "God's existence being true", I don't have to take up the position "God's existence being false", and nor can I successfully do that, but some people can successfully demonstrate that the argument in favor of God's existence don't hold water. That’s what’s important.

All that stuff about, accepting, default, and how it should be treated, I just don't know about. I hope to learn more as I progress.

So, in this instance we can tackle this claim as a whole or in parts.

P1 (whole): God is a very powerful being and is also a being interested in the well-being of humans.

P1 (parts):
(a): God is very powerful
(b): God is a being
(c): God has interests
(d): God has interests in humans
(e): God has interests in the well being of humans

Regardless of how we slice it, none of these assertions can be substantiated. Also, and importantly, it cannot be negated. What we can do is show that the attempted substantiations of the assertions are failing in some way. I need a reason for accepting the claims. I don't need my very own assertions to the contrary.

What being? I have no reason to accept that there is such a being. Keep in mind that I don't have to say there is no being, and if I did, then I better well accept eventual defeat because I can no more PROVE my case than they can theirs. I need to show how the claim is failing. That should be my position.

To your comment, and I could be oh so wrong, but this has an appearance of falling victim to theists web of deceit. What being? Why the "if" statement? There is no proof of a being, and even if there were a powerful being, that doesn’t mean that he’s going to help, nor does it mean that he’s not. You're right though, there is no reason to pray, or better yet, theists have failed to provide a good reason to pray.

Then Martha may get better. If a theist prays to a rock: Dear rock, please make Martha well and heal her of her illness. Then Martha may get better. May not--same odds as far as I can tell.

IF there was a God, and if God responded, then God may be lying about how powerful he is. What's up with all the 'if' statements. I'm not too good at analyzing them. Makes things too unnecessarily complex. Maybe if we were talking about something real, I could see it, but we’re still talking about that which hasn’t been even substantiated yet—let alone all these what if’s scenarios that doesn’t PROVE anything.

What God? The Christian God. What Christian God? If theists are going to lay claim that there's a God, then I expect substantiation. If they fail, then they fail. I'm still not (in a non-joking manner) going to start declaring there is no God. If I did, I'm probably correct, but I don't need to be correct. I only need to show that theists are making claims they can't back up.

Why? Where do you get this from? Maybe he's helping us in some unforeseen way like theists like to say. Maybe they're right. I have no way of knowing--let alone proving. All I can do is note how theists have failed to argue their case. They say God is powerful based (I suspect) in part of the culture they live in and their sometimes-unwavering beliefs in testimonies from books. All of that goes to show there is likely no God, but none of that proves anything; moreover, I don't need to prove anything. All I need to do is show that the theists’ claims are unsubstantiated. I'm not going to argue with a bible. All I can do is argue with people, and if people are going to make claims, then I expect for them to back up what THEY are saying.

Maybe he wants to. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he exists. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. I need conclusive evidence (as opposed to misinterpretable circumstantial evidence). Theists fail to prove...atheists fail to disprove. To me, it's seems straight forward, but then again, maybe I need to grow up a little faster than I am...I don't know. All I can suspect is that I'm in a better intellectual position by simply observing that theists fail to prove their claims.

Any of us can go "maybe"..."maybe not" all day long. We can go "is proof"..."is not proof" all day long. In the end, the theist is still the one's making the seemingly bogus claims. I can call them bogus claims, but I cannot prove beyond all shadows of doubt. Religion is a deeply seated aspect of people's lives, so extra ordinary proof on non-existence is in wanting by them to change their beliefs. It's just not going to happen--the extra ordinary proof. Again, all we can do is show them the error of their ways.

Speaking of which, I'm very much interested in just how off base I truly am with all that I've written here today. Feelings aren’t enough. Screaming isn't enough. I need logic. Doubly speaking of which, I am not that good at it at all, so I do hope I can be forgiven for my obvious mistakes.



Devils' advocate for a moment if you please.

No evidence of God you say, huh? Well, the theist will point to people's existence as evidence of God. It is evidence, oh, it most certainly is, but the real rebuttal is "what is it evidence to".

I say connect the dots. Show me that this evidence that certainly does exist is correctly attributable to this thing to which you speak--God.

My last piece of thought (whatever that may be) is that we ought to refrain from proving the 'not'. Stick to what we can substantiate--what is--REALITY.

So, are there any specific points that anyone feels that maybe I was close on, or did I screw it all up.

With kindest regards, I am and remain

fast

ELECTROGOD

What's your point? That the definition of atheism is not reliant on being opposite to the exposed idea of a/many gods? If nobody ever promoted the ideas of gods as claims but kept them tucked away in their brains as just ideas then how would anyone else know what a god idea was? (also relevant to inventions)
I use quotes to point out and stress certain words but it appears that for you I should have done it more.
There CAN be a difference between a concept and a claim but they CAN ALSO be the SAME thing. Do understand that? "(Assuming a yes answer) Good." (if not then think about...really)
You can conceive of the IPU but you don't REALLY think that it's true do you? (Assuming a no answer) Good. So you will not claim it and no one has to have a contrary position about it's existance. I understand that ANY mystical character (not necessairly a claim but definately an idea) can apply...this is why I SPECIFICALLY mentioned two different ones. Do you remember this?
I was talking claims/concepts/ideas...anything that comes out of our brains. You seem to have completely missed some of the points I made and instead have focused on one portion here or there.
I can conceive of an "aserooiddgjseee" (an idea). Because my imagination created this "aserooiddgjseee" which I understand is my own thought, you don't have to take a contrary position (passive or active) to it since I myself don't believe it to be real. You do not have to be a believer or non-believer in a "aserooiddgjseee". I don't believe in it myself. It is an idea/concept but not developed into a claim. Now I could make it into a claim but I would then have to assert it to someone in some medium outside of my own mind. Then you WOULD be in the position to accept or not my ideas of the "aserooiddgjseee" which I claim to be true.
I see what you are trying to get at but it seems that you are missing some key components of the logical process.

Claim: "To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain.
Concept: " Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion."
Idea: "Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity."

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

And so are the scientists and skeptics that subscribe to directed panspermia? You just chided them, too, it would seem, and also, there is more evidence for the God in the Bible (fulfilled prophecy, for instance) than there is for these aliens.

Some Chesterton!

"I have listened to scientific men (and there are still scientific men not opposed to democracy) saying that if we give the poor healthier conditions vice and wrong will disappear. I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination. For it was like watching a man energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on. If these happy democrats could prove their case, they would strike democracy dead. If the poor are thus utterly demoralized, it may or may not be practical to raise them. But it is certainly quite practical to disfranchise them. If the man with a bad bedroom cannot give a good vote, then the first and swiftest deduction is that he shall give no vote. The governing class may not unreasonably say: 'It may take us some time to reform his bedroom. But if he is the brute you say, it will take him very little time to ruin our country. Therefore we will take your hint and not give him the chance.' ... So it is when the ordinary Socialist, with a beaming face, proves that the poor, after their smashing experiences, cannot be really trustworthy. At any moment the rich may say, 'Very well, then, we won’t trust them,' and bang the door in his face. On the basis of Mr. Blatchford’s view of heredity and environment, the case for the aristocracy is quite overwhelming. If clean homes and clean air make clean souls, why not give the power (for the present at any rate) to those who undoubtedly have the clean air? If better conditions will make the poor more fit to govern themselves, why should not better conditions already make the rich more fit to govern them? On the ordinary environment argument the matter is fairly manifest. The comfortable class must be merely our vanguard in Utopia." (Chesteron, "Orthodoxy", ch. 7)

This also would be why the rich and well-bred have such a low rate of suicide?

That is what I have understood directed panspermia to be, I have no idea if that is what Flew believed before his change of view, though.

That's actually my point, the criticism you make of the creationists applies quite well to these scientists and skeptics, too, "a vague, cryptic belief in some god/alien or other."

Well, I was only out to show that the claim of victory does not work if your refutation also refutes some scientists. You have also refuted some science, not to mention some skeptics, which may be true, but then you also have these people to convince that you have quite clearly disproved their view.

But creationists hold that God is self-existent, for which there is some evidence, for starters, he has apparently real knowledge of the future, as in what we see of fulfilled prophecy. This would imply that God has perceptions that transcend time, and thus God is arguably not within time, and thus he is arguably self-existent.

Not if he is self-existent!

Well, no, there might be evidence for that. And then it is not question-begging...

Well, you don't have to defend communism, you only have to defend your point that all religion has to be removed before we can see the effect you have promised! Why is that, may I ask?

Actually, they frowned on religion because they were materialists! And believed that all behavior was due to class conditioning, except, of course, the behavior of believing communism!

This claim would need to be supported! Why did the communists repress free speech, and why would the west not do this, if they had become the communists?

Jobar

My pleasure.

Fast, and all- AFAIK before I mentioned werekoalas, they didn't even exist as a fanciful concept. Thus there were no people who believed werekoalas existed ('werekoalaists'), and no people who didn't believe they existed ('a-werekoalaists'). Everybody was a 'non-werekoalaist'.

Now that I've dreamed up and written of the concept of a werekoala, I'm sure all reading this (including me, of course) are a-werekoalaists. Even the most gullible child wouldn't believe in such a thing- unless he or she was told by parents or other responsible adults that werekoalas did, in sober truth, exist. And if they were told this by *all* the adults around them, told why it was that no pictures of werekoalas existed because they were invisible, told tales about the strange and wonderful abilities and actions of werekoalas, and that werekoalas loved and cared for them- well, most small children believe in Santa Claus and other fantastic things, if they are told those things exist.

Now apply all that to god(s). Because 'god' is a concept with incredibly powerful social reinforcement, which most people have been told is real as real can be from the time they learned to talk, most people believe god is real. (It's a consequence of our being social animals, and of children being wide open to indoctrination by those around them. That openness is a survival trait, by and large; if a child doesn't believe that there are tigers because he or she's never seen one, then that child may not obey when they're told not to go wandering in the woods, and so becomes tiger food. Skepticism is not without its dangers!)

If there was nobody proclaiming the belief that god(s) exist, there'd be no one proclaiming that god(s) don't exist; just as there is no one proclaiming that werekoalas don't exist.

Atheism can be asserted *now* only because of the previous assertion of theism. And anyone who says they believe in god(s) is making this assertion, at least implicitly. If they make any claims whatsoever about god(s), if they come here wanting to talk about god(s) for any reason- if they even mention the word 'god'- then it's up to them to define and demonstrate what they mean by it. The only way theists could put the burden of (dis)proof on us would be if they had never said a word about belief in god, and yet we unbelievers had started insisting no god(s) exist!

John A. Broussard

For the same reason various ideologies have done so, like Protestants in Protestant countries and Catholics in Catholic countries and Moslems in Moslem counties and Fascists in Fascist countries, etc.

breathilizer

Your mistake is that you are not considering that concepts can be passed from person to person without a claim being made. If you walked up to me and said "Aserooiddgjseee" and then defined it, you would not have claimed its existence, but I would then hold the concept in my mind. If I hold this concept, then I am automatically in a position of belief or non-belief. If I don't believe it, then I'm an a-Aserooiddgjseee-ist without a claim of serooiddgjseee being made.

I'm not missing anything. You are (namely, consideration for the exchange of concepts without claiming the existence of those concepts)

seebs

Heh, I know the feeling.

I just PM'd you the link. I just started a debate on homosexuality, so policy sez you have to wait until calebnostro and I are done playing.

I have one already, PM'd to you.

I'm not especially worried. If the debate is conclusive, I learn something one way or another. You will note, however, that I have chosen to argue the affirmative position; this may reasonably be taken as evidence that I'm pretty sure of the viability of the point, because normally I only offer to argue negatives.

Alf

Seems like you also have a big one. I won't quote and comment on everything. It is simply too huge for that. I will try to cover some poitns though.

I guess we to some degree agree. The argument is over details.

My point is that if someone say "I believe God exist" I take them on their word that they really do believe God exist. I.e. it is their opinion that this "God" really do exist. Wether they "know" this as we know things we can see around us exist, or they "know" it through revelation or simply "guess" it. I don't know but I do believe they think in their mind that God exist and as such they make an implicite claim that god exist.

If they purposely want to avoid making the claim "God exist" just to avoid having to substantiate it, it means that either:

1. They know they cannot. This does not mean they know there is no god. It means that regardless of their inner certainty or lack of such they don't feel that they are capable of providing enough evidence or substantiation for their case so they can satisfy the other party of the debate. I.e. it is possible they have managed to satisfy themselves that there is a god but for whatever reason they know they cannot satisfy the other person and so they cannot substantiate the claim.

It is also possible that they cannot really substantiate it even to their own satisfaction. If so, they have probably acquired the belief that God exist at early childhood when they did accept things told to them without asking for substantiation and then at adulthood simply kept on keeping this belief even though nobody has ever provided any substantiation of it. This is perhaps irrational but it is not really bad. You may acquire a lot of opinions and ideas and views on things from childhood and not all of it has received due attention and substantiation at adulthood and so you just keep on having those opinions even if you never once asked yourself for substantiation of them.

You might argue that to a christian this belief is so important that they should give it due attention. However, simply because it is important for them, might lead them to NOT due it, to purposely avoid it since giving it due attention might lead them away from the safety of the social community (the church) that they are member of.

So while people may walk around and believe there is a god it is both possible that they are not able to substantiate the belief to themselves and it is possible that they can substantiate to their own satisfaction. In either case it is quite possible that they realize that they cannot substantiate it enough for some other person who hasn't experienced their life etc.

In either case, saying "I believe there is a god" includes an implied claim "there is a god". This is my contention. Thus, the atheist doesn't have to show his case until the theist does provide substantiation to that claim. He can simply say "I don't see evidence in support of that claim" and the debate is over.

If the theist then choose to provide any evidence at all. The ball is over on the atheist side. He must then attack the evidence in some way. Either show it is false or irrelevant. If he cannot do that and support his case with substantiation, the theist has won the case and the debate is over.

However, due to the way it is set up it is also clear that no victory can be final. Whowever has the last argument in a debate, there is always a chance that later on there comes someone else along who attack that very argument and thus continue the debate.

Also, when two people debate over "God" it is whatever god they agree upon. When a christian and an atheist debate it is usually over the christian god. None of them will argue that Zeus exist or that Allah is real. The debate is over the christian god and if Allah or other gods come up during the debate it is only to prove a point showing the christian that he is doing special pleading. It is not to really prove that Allah exist. If it was, the atheist would be a muslim and not an atheist.

So yeah, they implicitely or explicitely define some specific "God" within the context of the debate and it is that god they debate over. If this god is defined so that it includes your god then the debate also have importance to you, if the god is completely different from your god, you will generally consider the debate as irrelevant for you. If you don't believe there is any god you will probably consider it relevant in so far as to show that this god is also one that doesn't exist etc. However, unless the debate defines "God" to be a "any God any human has ever and will ever believe in" it cannot possibly be that particular type of god.

True. However, you cannot from there conclude that people who claim they believe in God doesn't believe that their god exist. In fact we can safely conclude the opposite. They really do believe that their god really do exist. Thus they make an implicite claim.

That depends on what you mean by "know". A christian for example is very certain that his god exist. He gets this certainty from "faith". He is convinced there is a god. No christian will say "I believe there is a god and that means that I think it is likely that there possibly could be a god, but I am not sure about it". They are not sure in the sense that they don't have hard evidence that they can show to the unbeliever, but they are convinced within themselves that there is a god. If they are not, they will start to walk on a path away from the faith.

Agreen. However, the "I believe" qualifier is not a universal "get out of having to substantiate your case for free" card.

It does mean that we believe you on your word that you believe there is a god. However, it does not in any way substantiate that there really is a god. So, in order to remain a person we can take seriously we will implicitely think you have made the claim "there is a god" and so your lack of substantiate it undermines this implicite claim.

However, there may be many reasons why a person cannot substantiate a claim. One thing is to substantiate it to your own satisfaction. I was there, I saw it happened is good enough evidence to substantiate to yourself that it really happened. It is hard to convince someone else though, it might be that you misunderstood the situation etc. So, it might turn out that it is difficult or impossible for you to substantiate the claim to someone else.

It is also possible that you simply lack the capacity yourself but you know of other people who also think the same as you and you think they are able to substantiate the claim even if you cannot.

So just because someone cannot substantiate their claim, doesn't mean they have to conceede and accept defeat in a debate.

However, if you want to convince someone else of your claims validity, you must of course be able to substantiate your claims so that that other persons satisfaction. Hence a burden of proof.

Also, non-existence is the default position until we have verification that something exist.

Thus, theists who claim that God exist always have the initial burden of proof.

Some of them point to the bible as evidence and then someone says the bible is not acceptable evidence because of various reasons. Now it is this other person who has burden of proof. He must show why the bible is not acceptable evidence. Once he has done that, it is the theist who thinks the bible IS evidence who has the burden of proof again and must show why the other person is mistaken and so on.

Depends on what you mean by "know". I assert that they do "know to their own satisfaction" or otherwise they wouldn't believe.

How they know or why they know, is a different issue.

Exactly my point. So, in their mind, they assert "X exist".

I think our disagreement is not as big as you think it is. I just interpret the claim "I believe God exist" to be "I believe that the claim God exist is a true claim" I.e. they implicitely make the claim "God exist" and they assert that it is their belif that this claim is true.

To other people yes, but not to the beliver himself. "God exist" is true for him - period. I.e. it is his opinion that "God exist" is a true claim.

Well sort of it does. Without that original existence claim the non-existence claim is non-sense.

If I claim "Garfumble does not exist" what sense would you be able to make of that claim?

Or maybe instead of just using a jumble of letters, I could use something descriptive:

"Invisible green elves flying around Mars does not exist". Wouldn't the response simply be "Huh? Nobody claimed there were such things!" rather than "yes" or "no"? In so far as you did reply with a "yes" or "no" you would first consider the opposite claim and then if you agreed with the opposite claim then you would say "no, you are wrong" and if you disagreed with the opposite positive claim you would say "Yes, you are right"?

I hope I have time to cover the rest of your post another time. I really need to do other things now.

Alf

ELECTROGOD

And then it still remains just an idea/concept until someone else actually makes the ***CLAIM*** that it is truth. An idea is NOT a claim until someone makes it. What are you actually arguing? You do realize the logical steps are that an idea comes first, then it's formed into a concept (still an idea[s]), then it can be made into a claim (asserted idea/concept). Right? Please answer this question.
Let's go back.
I asked what your point was. How about an answer?
Do you remember how I used MORE than one mythical idea? You didn't answer that one either after you incorrectly stated my point as being reliant on one character.
It seems that you are just arguing to argue, going from bit to bit and not bothering to take anything in because you want to be right. We are both Atheists but you hold that the definition of "atheist" is not reliant on anyone ever claiming that there are gods. I am saying that if no one ever mentioned that there was a god then there would be no way to define what a god is or an atheist is (what is a god, I never heard of that before). Of course, in a world that never dreamed up gods, you could then be a person who does not have a belief in gods but you wouldn't know it and there would be no definition for what your passive "position" is and nothing to compare it with.
Concepts are not by default claims. Not all ideas have to be believed or dis-believed. (I have an idea for the form of my next abstract painting...do you believe in it or not? It doesn't matter, it's not open to your belief or dis-belief)
I can get an idea of an "Aserooiddgjseee" and form it into a concept but in no way believe it to be true (as the creator) or assert it (claim) it to be true to others. This is what fiction writing is ALL about. It's conceived but not claimed as truth. Why don't you get this? I assume that you know the difference between fiction and non-fiction? This is what this example is all about. How can I explain it any clearer? Does anyone else see some flaw in my reasoning here?
"I feel like I'm eating crazy pills!" -Mugatu

John A. Broussard

It's clear enough.

The difficulty is that the only way we can discuss language is by the use of language. That's where the confusion lies.

E.g., we have labels (words) for what the words are about (referents).

So let's try a really tough one.

"God."

What's the referent?

Some say it's a sentient being who exists.

Some say it's a figment of some people's imagination.

My OED has ten columns of referents to "god."

Any wonder there's confusion?

That's why I always insist on narrowing down the referent to "god" as much as possible on the occasions when I'm expected to carry on a serious discussion about that word.

To make matters worse, there's also a magico-religious aspect to language. Some people use language to cast spells. Some believe in blasphemy. One Christian theist in this forum insists that the initial use of a word makes the referent come into existence.

Go figure.