is it valid to say "I dont believe in God"?

[infinitelord1]

When you say "I dont believe in God" you are implying that there is the 'absense' of belief. Furthermore, how do we corralate 'absense' with reason? Reason in itself, like belief, is something. Absense is simply nothing. Do we have reason to believe that there is a such thing as absense (or non existence)? I am not necessarily talking about god at this point. I am talking about the absense of existence in the physical realm. Should the concept of "non-existence" even exist?

Personally i dont believe this concept should even exist. I think that it would be contradictory to say that this area of space is non-existant (for example). Another example.........someone made a similar analogy in another thread.........if i were to walk outside and look in the direction of china, obviously i wouldnt see it, does that mean it is non-existant? the same thing with air, we cant see it, but air is phyisical because we have been able to study it and tell what it is made of.......also, air moves. The point is.......human beings have never empirically experienced non-existance. Knowing this, do we have reason to believe in such a thing? If so, please give me an example.

[Paphnutius]

Are you saying that a concept of "nothingness" or "Non-existence" should not exist? Sorry...little humor there. Also when someone says that they do not believe in God, it is not an absence of belief always, occasionly it is. Most of the time it is a holding of a disbleief, and that is something.

I am not sure what you are getting about saying that the concept of nothingness should not exist. That does not seem to make sense. Perhpas some context would help. I could say that a cheesburger is not on my desk. That would be an absence of something. As far as an absence existing, that cannot be said in itself. We may only talk about absence or non-existence in relation to something that exists. We do not, however, have to talk about existence in relation to absence. See the distintion? Some context please.

[infinitelord1]

lets say that there was a cheesberger on the very center of your desk. Now lets examine the space that the cheeseberger takes up. Now lets take the cheeseberger away.........keeping in mind exactly where the cheeseberger rested and the space that it took up.......In this area......there is still existence (air). When the cheeseberger rested there it simply displaced the air. This is what i am talking about when i mention absense (non-existence).

[Paphnutius]

It sounds to me like you are asking if there can be nothing at all in a given space. Well not not really, at least as far I know. That does not mean that we may not talk about "non-existing things". We can talk all we want about a square-circle, such a thing cannot exist by definition. That does not mean that we cannot talk about its non-existence.

[Jaime]

And that's all I have to say about non existence. Sorry I rambled a bit

[Philippe]

what about something that is being created. For example, an essay. I havent written my essay yet so it does not exist but once i start writing it, ive created it and made it exist. I think the whole use of the word non-existence is being used in different ways.

[Paphnutius]

The essay has mental existence.

[infinitelord1]

there is nothing that we can sense empirically that suggests non-existence.It seems to me that in order to prove a fact or a truth.....you need empirical evidence. I think we all agree on this. So really, non-existence is only a concept in our minds.

The question i really want to address is.......why would you not believe in god? really, non-existence after we die is only a concept since non-existence in itself is only a concept. Furthermore, we will never know where this concept came from (I believe satan). shouldnt we base our beliefs on fact rather than concepts? There cant be a reason for a concept to start......if so, it wouldnt be a concept. We can talk all we want about non-existence, but there really is no reason to. Im pointing this out because I think that it is more evidence that god exists.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:06 PM'] there is nothing that we can sense empirically that suggests non-existence.
[/quote]
Well of course you cannot sense or experience nothingness. It is just that nothing.

[quote]It seems to me that in order to prove a fact or a truth.....you need empirical evidence.[/quote]

Keep in mind though that you do not need direct emperical evidence of something. You may infer from truths to another via coherence.

[quote] I think we all agree on this. So really, non-existence is only a concept in our minds.
[/quote]

I dont think anyone is arguing with you on this one.

[quote]The question i really want to address is.......why would you not believe in god? really, non-existence after we die is  only a concept since non-existence in itself is only a concept. [/quote]

Because they find "evidence" favoring the other side. I may look at my desk and not see a cheesburger. Therefore the evidence points to the non-existence of a cheeseburger on my desk. I ask you then, what happens to a dog's soul after it dies? Here is a hint, it is not immortal so it ceases to exist.

[quote]shouldnt we base our beliefs on fact rather than concepts?[/quote]

Prove that God is Trinitarian in nature via natural light of human reason aside from divine revelation. You cannot. If you claim you can you are a heretic. Some things are taken on faith of divine revelation, and not based on cold hard truth that is evidenced in nature.

[quote] We can talk all we want about non-existence, but there really is no reason to.[/quote]

Well Aquinas uses the fact that there are things that cannot exist (such as a square-circle) because they are a contradiction in logical definiton to help define God's omnipotence. So yeah, talking about something not being able to exist is helpful sometimes.

[Aloysius]

see, this is perfect. get someone to believe in existence, and they eventually have to believe in God. that's becuase God is the very DEFINITION of existence, YHWH.

And you are right, there is nothing to suggest something can simply not exist. At least in the case of matter, we have the Law of Conservation of Matter meaning that matter cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. everything must exist. This simply shows the universality of God who is Existence. Existence is universal and cannot be changed, therefore God is unviersal and cannot be chagned. Existence in the same way is not affected by time, all the matter that existed at the moment of the big bang exists right now, therefore existence is non-temporal and God is non-temporal. This is an apologetic point I have been trying to refine, Athiest Alex here on PM didn't get it when I tried it on him... anyway, I need to refine it to really use is as proof to the athiest, or at least as a starting ground.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:19 PM']
And you are right, there is nothing to suggest something can simply not exist. At least in the case of matter, we have the Law of Conservation of Matter meaning that matter cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. everything must exist. This simply shows the universality of God who is Existence. [/quote]
Well a square is made of matter, and a circle is made of matter, yet a square-circle cannot exist by definition.

[quote]Existence is universal and cannot be changed, therefore God is unviersal and cannot be chagned.  Existence in the same way is not affected by time, all the matter that existed at the moment of the big bang exists right now, therefore existence is non-temporal and God is non-temporal.[/quote]

Well actually things come into actuality that were potentiality before all the time. You did not exist at one time, yet now you do. I understand the point you are making, but it does need tweaking. You need to make the distinction that Heideggar was making, between Being and a being. Being is not a being, but all beings participate in Being. The trick is not to categorize Being into a being. But how does one define Being and what not? Figure that out and you are famous. Remember, Being and a being are not the same and once you make Being a being, you loose the value of existence and essence.

[Semalsia]

I'm not really sure what's going on here...

But "believing in God" is an action. Just like having a drink of water or jumping. You are either doing or not. It's quite valid to state that I'm not drinking anything now. Neither am I jumping around. In fact I'm sitting in my chair quite calmly. And beaver dam, am I thirsty.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:31 PM'] I'm not really sure what's going on here...

But "believing in God" is an action. Just like having a drink of water or jumping. You are either doing or not. It's quite valid to state that I'm not drinking anything now. Neither am I jumping around. In fact I'm sitting in my chair quite calmly. And beaver dam, am I thirsty. [/quote]
I dont see the corrolation between believing in god and actions. However, I do see the corrolation between believing in god and choices.

[Aloysius]

this is even more confusing that the debate I had with a calvinist about soteriology!!!

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:16 PM'] Well of course you cannot sense or experience nothingness. It is just that nothing.

thank you for agreeing.


Keep in mind though that you do not need direct emperical evidence of something. You may infer from truths to another via coherence.

then you would be using other facts (all which are based from empirical evidence) to come to a conclusion about another truth.


I dont think anyone is arguing with you on this one.



Because they find "evidence" favoring the other side. I may look at my desk and not see a cheesburger. Therefore the evidence points to the non-existence of a cheeseburger on my desk. I ask you then, what happens to a dog's soul after it dies? Here is a hint, it is not immortal so it ceases to exist.

that is what this is all about........THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!!!!
this is a bad analogy because physical matter would exist in place of the cheeseberger......i think you are missing the point i am trying to make.



Prove that God is Trinitarian in nature via natural light of human reason aside from divine revelation. You cannot. If you claim you can you are a heretic. Some things are taken on faith of divine revelation, and not based on cold hard truth that is evidenced in nature.

but i have more reason to believe that there is a god than one would to believe there isnt. The existence of a man named jesus christ (who claimed to be the son of god), people who have claimed to have had encounters with god, the bible that says there is a god, etc. (all of which are or were in physical existence)

Well Aquinas uses the fact that there are things that cannot exist (such as a square-circle) because they are a contradiction in logical definiton to help define God's omnipotence. So yeah, talking about something not being able to exist is helpful sometimes

its helpful because it points us in the correct direction. [/quote]
jk