Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, becuase 4 does not affirm the existance of God, merely rejection of non-existance. 2 Does not affirm the non-existance, merely the rejection of existance. Niether makes a claim, it merely rejects the opposite claim. Only 1 and 3 make claims
Gah. Wordplays do not change the claims and rejections. As I've said, the positive claims and definitions comes first, then rejection or acceptance next.
If you say 'dogs exists, here is a dog by the way', can I reject you?
0 + 1 and no rejection = +1
Quote:
By the same token you do not know God does not exist.
You describing God is akin to a blind guy describing 'color'. In each case neither will ever get close to the truth.
Quote:
No, I'm not defining God without knowledge. I believe God exists I have a Bible etc to indicate this (lets not get into the veracity of the evidence, as it is pointless), prior to knowing about God I had no opinion, 0, once given the idea "God" I can decide to believe in it or not, or sit on the fence. I have three options.
The only thing I will modify is that agnostics which say either 0 or +1. The but there's still only two positions.
Quote:
No, -1 is only minus -1 in relation to one, in reality both choices represent different +1's. However, in order to express their diametrical opposition one must be -1.
Yes, 0 + 1 + -1 = 0.
Quote:
You assume that I decided God existed before I decided he didn't. I began with the opposite belief. It actually looks like this:
0 = No Claim
+1 = God exists.
+1 = God does not exist.
How can they be both positive? +God + -God = 0 = Neutral.
Quote:
Both claims are plus one, you can make "God exists" -1 and the effect remains the same.
One is +God, the other is -God to cancel the other.
Quote:
No, you are assuming God does not exist, which is a positive claim, expressed as -1 in relation to the opposite claim.
You made the claim first right? I reject it.
If I were to claim Leprechauns exists, I have to define what Leprechauns are, hence the positive claim comes first, not the rejection.
Quote:
Prior to losing faith I held a belief. In losing faith I would lose that belief, 0, but I might well also adopt the opposite belief, a new +1 but -1 in relation to my original belief.
But the starting point is 0. You gained faith (+1). You lost your faith (-1). 0 + 1 -1 = 0 (which was the original starting point).
Quote:
an atheist does not merely reject God, that is what an agnostic does, he also declares that there is no posibility of the existance of God.
If it is really possible to define/describe something that exist without any knowledge or proof, then demonstrate it 100 times over. Define something that exists that noone earth has no knowledge of (other than God of course).
Quote:
True agnosticism is not making either claim.
Ok, thinking it many times over. Agnostics say either 0 or +1.
Quote:
Not really, I merely lack a word for "not-God" in this context.
You are using your positive claim (+1) as the zero starting point is what I meant. And I'm the one making the initial "negative claim" that god does not exist.
Quote:
We are talking about holding beliefs, not the nature of the Universe. Our debate here requires the existance of God because atheists know about God.
I already said, I have no knowledge and neither do you too. Hence the rejection.
Quote:
You are the one who refuses to accept that non-existance is possible. You cannot specify what does not exist, which is why lack of knowledge is zero. Once you have a concept you can decide whether it exists or not. In either case you will come to a conclusion you did not hold before.
So, can you name anything that does not exist at all? If you can't then to you, everything exists.
Quote:
I do not define God, merely state his existance, that does not require definition.
Existence of what again? Without a definition, God is just a word made up of three letters.
Quote:
Can a blind man tell you when he does not see blue?
Whatever he says cannot be blue.
Quote:
I cannot state the existance or non existance of any of these, I make no decision. However, in giving voice to them you have created them. The concept of these quantities now exists, however their actual existance is an enigma.
Right! You can't define anything without any knowledge. So how did people defined god as 'the creator of the universe', for example, without any knowledge? Whereas you've demonstrated, it is impossible to do so.