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

[infinitelord1]

im not asking them to believe in god, im just saying they should disbelieve. Really if anything, i think they should be agnostic rather than atheist.

[infinitelord1]

shouldnt disbelieve

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 07:57 PM'] im not asking them to believe in god, im just saying they should disbelieve. Really if anything, i think they should be agnostic rather than atheist. [/quote]
Well if you are saying they should be agnostic that is still believing in God, but saying you really cannot know anything about God.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I hope you will excuse that I am not going to add to the debate above, but rather, directly answer the initial question of this post:

St. Anselm addresses much of what you are asking about the Sixth Chapter of his [i]Monologion[/i], when he discusses how it is to be understood that God created all things [i]ex nihil[/i] or "from nothing"

[quote]But we are confronted with a doubt regarding this term [i]nothing[/i]...nothing either means something, or does not mean something. But if nothing is something, whatever has been created from nothing has been created from something. If, however, nothing is not something; since it is inconceivable that anything should be created from what does not exist, nothing is created from nothing; just as all agree that nothing comes from nothing. Whence, it evidently follows, that whatever is created is created from something; for it is created either from something or from nothing. Whether, then, nothing is something, or nothing is not something, it apparently follows, that whatever has been created was created from something.

...

In three ways, then -- and this suffices for the removal of the present obstacle -- can the statement that any substance was created from nothing be explained.
There is one way, according to which we wish it to be understood, that what is said to have been created from nothing has not been created at all; just as, to one who asks regarding a dumb man, of what he speaks, the answer is given, "of nothing," that is, he does not speak at all. According to this interpretation, to one who enquires regarding the supreme Being, or regarding what never has existed and does not exist at all, as to whence it was created, the answer, "from nothing" may properly be given; that is, it never was created. But this answer is unintelligible in the case of any of those things that actually were created.
There is another interpretation which is, indeed, capable of supposition, but cannot be true; namely, that if anything is said to have been created from nothing, it was created from nothing itself (de nihilo ipso), that is, from what does not exist at all, as if this very nothing were some existent being, from which something could be created. But, since this is always false, as often as it is assumed an irreconcilable contradiction follows.
There is a third interpretation, according to which a thing is said to have been created from nothing, when we understand that it was indeed created, but that there is not anything whence it was created. Apparently it is said with a like meaning, when a man is afflicted without cause, that he is afflicted "over nothing."
If, then, the conclusion reached in the preceding chapter is understood in this sense, that with the exception of the supreme Being all things have been created by that Being from nothing, that is, not from anything; just as this conclusion consistently follows the preceding arguments, so, from it, nothing inconsistent is inferred; although it may be said, without inconsistency or any contradiction, that what has been created by the creative Substance was created from nothing, in the way that one frequently says a rich man has been made from a poor man, or that one has recovered health from sickness; that is, he who was poor before, is rich now, as he was not before; and he who was ill before, is well now, as he was not before.[/quote]

In this way, we see that the term "nothing" or even the term "non-existence" does indeed connote, though it does not connote [i]some[/i]thing. Rather, it connotes a lack of something.

Thus, one must be careful in the use of the term, but the term can still be used. For example, if I say "pink elephants are non-existent" I should be prudent to qualify my statement. Rather, I should say "pink elephants are non-existent in material reality."

In this way, though the idea of "pink elephants" exists, by the use of the term non-existent I connote that there is a lack of real existence corrolating to the idea of "pink elephants."


Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

Of course we would have an Anselm follower enter

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, I heart Anselm.


Are there more Anselmians around besides me??? In all honesty, I'm the only one I know... :ph34r:

[Paphnutius]

Havent you heard? Thomism is all the rave as of late!

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, well, being an Anselmian, strict thomism is about 150 years ahead of my time

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 24 2005, 09:29 PM'] I hope you will excuse that I am not going to add to the debate above, but rather, directly answer the initial question of this post:

St. Anselm addresses much of what you are asking about the Sixth Chapter of his [i]Monologion[/i], when he discusses how it is to be understood that God created all things [i]ex nihil[/i] or "from nothing"



In this way, we see that the term "nothing" or even the term "non-existence" does indeed connote, though it does not connote [i]some[/i]thing. Rather, it connotes a lack of something.

Thus, one must be careful in the use of the term, but the term can still be used. For example, if I say "pink elephants are non-existent" I should be prudent to qualify my statement. Rather, I should say "pink elephants are non-existent in material reality."

In this way, though the idea of "pink elephants" exists, by the use of the term non-existent I connote that there is a lack of real existence corrolating to the idea of "pink elephants."


Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff [/quote]
this is exactly the point i was trying to make

[infinitelord1]

well jeff.....you know another anselmian.

[infinitelord1]

you know....we will never be able to prove god logically. I dont even know why i sit here everyday trying to do this. It is fascinating, but i am starting to learn that it still will never be enough proof in my mind to actually say god exists. I think it is more probable that he does, but im not sure. I will never be sure, unless i personally had a physical encounter with him. I pray for this all the time......deep down i know it will never happen.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 25 2005, 12:20 AM'] well jeff.....you know another anselmian. [/quote]
hahaha, nice to meet you! What all have you read by Anselm?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 25 2005, 12:25 AM'] you know....we will never be able to prove god logically. I dont even know why i sit here everyday trying to do this. It is fascinating, but i am starting to learn that it still will never be enough proof in my mind to actually say god exists. I think it is more probable that he does, but im not sure. I will never be sure, unless i personally had a physical encounter with him. I pray for this all the time......deep down i know it will never happen. [/quote]
Anselm would disagree. He would say that belief in God cannot be possessed without Faith, and that, to some extent, faith preceeds understanding. However, he is quick to point out that Christian doctrine, and most especially the idea that God exists, can be shown to be logical.

This is because in Anselm's mind, it is [i]illogical[/i] to deny God's existence, but that doesn't change the fact that people do. This is why, in his mind, it is the Fool of whom scripture speaks when it is written that he says in his heart "there is no God."

Thus, the man without faith is illogical, but that doesn't change the fact that he is without faith.