jordan_o

Alright I apologize a head of time. I don't remember the exact arguement as I only heard it while standing in a hallway. I hope someone here knows what it is. Basically the premise is that if you say you don't believe in god, you are acknowledging it exists because you mention it or you have to know it exists to believe/disbelieve in it? It is something like that. Does it ring any bells?

I had never heard it before and while I wasn't convinced I am curious to what others think of it. I'll try to get the name of the guy tomorrow from friends.

Agnostic Theist

Argument from Fictionalism?

EricK

Does it ring any bells? Yes. Warning bells. They always go off in my head when someone makes a particularly stupid argument - they tell me to stay away from that person in case I get infected with whatever it is that has affected their reasoning ability.

To see how ridiculous that argument is just replace "God" with any other unlikely object such as leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, or the British Summer.

Eric

Chris Weimer

Sure God exists! He exists as imaginary constructs in some people's brains and as a poor plot device in old myths.

jordan_o

Well that's exactly it. When I heard it, I thought of boogeyman to stick in there. (I always use boogeyman for some reason. :huh: ) And that's why I was asking, because it seemed so easily defeated and I wanted to know if that was the actual arguement, or if someone was just explaining something they didn't understand.

Anyways, that's the parts I heard from them. I guess since it's not very popular there is nothing to it and I shouldn't think about it anymore. Thanks guys.

Agnostic Theist

Hence Fictionalism.

OK, I know that sounds atheistic, but I am addressing the absurdity of the argument, not my belief.

Damo

some variety of the Ontological Argument?

DMC

First, you have to agree to a definition of "exist". Then you can determine if your "god" meets this definition, barring other pedantic issues.

As much as I detest posting definitions, here is "exist" according to dictionary.com, which references Princeton University through Worldnet.

ex·ist Pronunciation Key (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real. (does god have actual being?)
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed. (does god have life?)
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist. (does god live at a minimal level?)
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas. (I think we can rule this one out, except as a "custom" but then you are talking about the existance of god, not the existance of custom).
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category�? (Thomas G. Exter).
(Does god exist under any circumstances, in any specified place? Does god occur?)

I would suggest that the answers to each of these is "no". Whomever decided that, because you can ask "does it exist" it must exist, is clearly being philopolemic (perhaps intentionally, sounds like mental masturbation to me). The suggestion is simply absurd. Otherwise the statement "it does not exist" is always wrong. I can't believe I even addressed it. I guess I am bored.

sweetiepie

this one is cute, and easy.
First of all, we all agree the that idea of God exists. But ideas are just a pointers towards an object that may or may not exist.

Secondly, ideas do seem, for the most part, to have external causes. I can talk about horses for example, because I have seen one before.
But not all ideas are represented by real objects because we can invent new things by pasting together 2+ old things. For example, I can imagine a Pegasus by pasting together the idea of "horse" with the idea of "wing".
Similarly I can imagine God by pasting together the idea of "maximum" with "intelligence" "benevolence" and "power".

exile

I think Descartes tried the tack that because we are aware of the concept of God, he must exist.