Well I’m not sure where this should be posted but considering the source I posted my comments here. I don’t even remember now what I was Googling to begin with but I came across this thread on another message board [URL=http://pub86.ezboard.com/favtfrm16.showMessage?topicID=11.topic]
I found it of great interest that the athiest in the debate was so caught up in his belief that he failed to notice that the argument meant nothing. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. Not that God does not exist. These two words may seem of trivial or inconsequential nature, however as shown in the thread it IS possible to show that God exists. Now go look up Atheist in the dictionary and see what it says. The point I am making is that the Atheist in that thread had his Logic fussed up because he could not accept what the other side was saying…regardless of the fact that it did not invalidate the atheists belief. I have thought on this and have found many situations in everyday life that could use the lesson learned here. That you should not allow yourself to be decieved by what you consider to be an affront to your position/beliefs/morals on any subject. Stand back and really look at things, see them for what they are, and then take an appropriate action.
A weak atheist states that there is currently no good reason to believe in God, so he doesn’t. If someone came up with a convincing argument or evidence, the weak atheist would be willing to reconsider his position. However, he’s already seen all the usual fallacious arguments and so-called evidence, so it’s a tall order to convince someone like that.
A strong atheist, on the other hand, actively believes that God doesn’t exist. It’s not clear to me what a strong atheist would do in light of convincing argument or evidence, but there is some chance that, even in light of valid and sound arguments, he would remain a strong atheist.
Transitionality, you are missing the point… strong, weak, hard, soft, fundy it makes no difference God does exist, as a concept. The point being that you cannot prove the existence of God. Big difference between the two words. You are falling into the same trap, exist, and existence have different meanings, hell one is a verb the other a noun. That was the point of my post. While having these Great Debates don’t lose focus.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Most so-called atheists would not, I believe, say that no concept of god could possibly exist. Instead, they would claim that the traditional concept of God (i.e., the God described in the Old and New Testaments) cannot possibly exist. And, since a “non-traditional” concept of God is one who has worked no miracles, speaks to no one, and promises eternal life to none, most atheists would also question what the use of believing in such a “God” would be in the first place.
All I want is for people to realize what they are talking about. I want an atheist to say I don’t believe in the existence of god. For surely we can prove god exists. It makes no difference wether we say god exists as one type of concept or another. The concept still is a fact.
Watch a neat trick…
gnifflestyronomists
now i can say without a doubt gnifflestyronomists exist.
However ask me to prove gnifflestyronomists existence and I am at a loss.
This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin.
How about the fact that you can’t even be consistent withoin your own argument. “Surely we can prove god exists,” you claim. And then, you go on to say, “ask me to prove gnifflestyronomists existence and I am at a loss.” Either a concept can be proven to exist or it cannot. Which is it?
More importantly, to say that the concept of a thing exists is different from saying that the thing itself exists. Atheists do not deny that there is a concept of God. They do not say they do not believe in the concept of God.
If you cannot see the distinction between the concept of a thing and the thing itself, it’s rather pointless even discussing this with you.
Oh – and if it makes you happy, I don’t believe in the existence of God (at least, not in the traditional sense). I obviously believe that there are many, many different concepts of God, but a concept alone does not impart existence to the thing conceived.
Your argument is pointless. You’re talking about the existence of a CONCEPT being equal to the existence of a BEING. They are NOT the same, however much some people want to believe that “whatever we imagine, become reality.”
The concept of “Wookiees” from Star Wars does exist. However, there is not a drop of evidence that actual 7-foot-tall furry beings lived and piloted starships long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. See the difference?
You are proving my point for me. Here I will help you out a bit.
Definition of exist:
Main Entry: ex·ist
Pronunciation: ig-'zist
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Latin exsistere to come into being, exist, from ex- + sistere to stand, stop; akin to Latin stare to stand – more at STAND
Date: 1602
1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist> b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
Notice it is a verb
Definition of existence:
Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Pronunciation: ig-'zis-t&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven – John Keats> d : sentient or living being : LIFE
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
This is a noun.
Simply put I know that a ham sandwich exists. However to prove the existence of a ham sandwich I need to have one put in front of me. Do you see the difference between the two words here. It is more than a simple matter of somantics. It gets right to the heart of what I was posting about to begin with. I do not refute what you said, that was what I was trying to point out.
The atheist in the debate I read was so caught up in his belief that he found it hard to accept the concept. Who cares… Exist and Existence are not the same thing.
I do not see any contradictions inherent in the following statements that might be made by someone:
“I acknowledge the existence of the concept of God.
I acknowledge that some people believe in the concept of God.
I acknowledge that some people believe in the existence of God.
I acknowledge that some people believe God exists.
I do not believe in the existence of God.
I do not believe that God exists.”
It’s all rather redundant more than anything, but I do not see how these are somehow contradictory. If anything, saying, “I do not believe in the existence of God because I do not believe God exists,” makes a lot of sense, if you’re trying to (somehow) differentiate between “God exists” and “the existence of God.”
It seems that our new friend is trying to argue that anything one can conceive of “exists”, because the word “exist” refers to the intangible idea. By contrast, only material things “have existence”. Do I have this right?
You do realize that one equally valid definition of “exist” is “to have existence”, do you not? Which dictionary are you using for this, incidentally?
Moderator’s Note:Silly-Beppo, when you start a thread in Great Debates you need to give it a title which gives some clue as to what the thread is about. I have edited the title of this thread accordingly.
