djf

Is not believing in the Easter Bunny the same as believing the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? The second one is an assertive position while the first seems to be adressing the assertive position that it does exist and saying its not so. I'm a little confused about this. Can anybody clarify this for me because it seems as it pertains to god the agnostics and atheists disagree on this minor detail.

Makai

The way you worded the question obscures your meaning a lot. Asking about the 'Easter Bunny' in particular is like asking about the 'Old-Testament God'. It would probably be closer to your meaning to ask about mythical bunnies in general

However, yes, there would be a difference between not believing in something, and not believing something exists! I may not believe *in* any cults, but I certianly do know that cults exist. Or I may not believe *in* psychic hotlines, but I again know they do exist. I generally think that atheists and agnostics don't get muddled on this, but rather they get muddled on what agnosticism and atheism really mean.

-Makai

djf

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]</p>

djf

You mean believing something doesn't exist...not "not believing something exists!" right?

Dr. Retard

The two are not the same. The second one is a belief. The first is the absence of a different belief. So, whereas the second one can be true only of humans and other organisms that can believe, the first one can be true of all sorts of stuff. Presumably, rocks and trees manage to pull off not believing that the Easter Bunny exists without thereby believing that the Easter Bunny does not exist. So it is wrong to say that the first -- the belief-absence -- is "adressing the assertive position that it does exist". Belief-absence doesn't address anything; it's just that: the absence of belief.

(I assume that you didn't want to pursue to distinction between believing that X exists and believing in X, so I conflated the two for this response).

Theophage

An excellent way to put that, Dr. Retard!

Makai

Whoops, yea djf. Missed that.

-Makai

Adrian Selby

I might need my thinking clarified, but I thought that in saying 'The Easter bunny does not exist' one is predicating an easter bunny, then saying it doesn't exist.

Or rather, for the non existence to be predicated to the bunny, it must be possible for existence to be predicated to the bunny. But existence is not a predicate. If one says anything about the easter bunny, e.g. its fluffy, one has already had to have assumed the existence of it (mentally or otherwise) in order to say things of it.

'exists' isn't in the same category as 'fluffy' or 'gives presents'.

To deny the easter bunny exists is to deny the proposition without predicating anything.

'I deny (the easter bunny exists)' Here you're disputing a proposition, not predicating non existence to the easter bunny.

A great overview on existence is to be found in the internet enclycopaedia of philosophy.

Adrian

Bill Snedden

Or one could say, "the proposition that the Easter Bunny exists is false."

It seems, however, that the "conundrum" of which you speak may be more of an artifact of imprecise speech or colloquial meaning than a seeming contradiction.

In fact, the EB does exist. As a concept; in the same manner as a childhood fable or myth.

I suspect that when anyone states "I deny the EB exists" they are not denying the existence of the concept (for this would certainly be a contradiction), they are actually denying the proposition that the Easter Bunny is instantiated in reality (like my initial reformulation). This understanding avoids the apparently implicit contradiction.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Infinity Lover

please be so kind to read my post named MAJOR CHALLENGE? and scroll to my eight questions and answers. See if that first one "how do you think" makes any sense to you.

You can be sure(!)
about what you're in doubt of(?)

That's confidence.
If you're not willing to doubt yourself, you can't trust yourself. Wouldn't you recklessly agree?

Or

You can be in doubt(?)
about what you're sure off(!)

That would be that confusion thing you're talking about.

Your question presents two slightly different formulations of the same statement. And a slight difference in choice of words, I think, can subconciously have quite some impact on your attitude. In the case of your example, I think you're making a mountain out of a mollhill. The two formulations don't result in that drastic a difference in attitude.

But let's try another example. If you say you have limitations (see answer two), you're using yourself and your honest knowledge as the startingpoint of your train of thought. You end somewhere. Everybody does. Positive attitude!
But if you say you're flawed, or imperfect, you're starting out with, what I call, an external notion. Or bull(beep!) would be another word.
Flawed, starts with the notion there should be more of you somehow. And you, compared to that notion, are lacking, thus flawed. Negative!
And comparing yourself to perfection, oh brother... Negative!!

See, how a different choice of words, can drasticly influence your attitude? Saying it can become believing it too.

Oh, and if you're worried about this existing thing? You're worried about God existing...are you any good with geometry?

Even the shortest piece of a straight line contains an infinity of points. Infinity within limitation exists for sure. That is only possible if, and because, infinity in total exists. It doesn't end where you end, and it doesn't end where you begin, i'nfinity isn't subject to boundaries and limits. It's part of you, and you're part of it. That's the only way it can logicly work.

But because infinity doesn't end where you might begin, it's IMPOSSIBLE to exist alongside infinity.

Existence is infinite. God can't be endless and still exist alongside us in any way. But that God is in complete contradiction with logic, is something you probably already knew. Ever looked at it like this though?