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

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:06 PM'] Yes, and when you burn that book, that collection of papers ceases to exist. Agreed? It ceases to have the existence and essence of a book by your own definition. [/quote]
the important thing is though that the matter was not non-existent...........it was converted into another form.


You could say the same thing about paper before it was made too. In order for it to become paper it had to have a maker. In order for it to be destroyed it had to have a destroyer. It had to have a cause in order for there to be an effect.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:35 PM'] You could say the same thing about paper before it was made too. In order for it to become paper it had to have a maker. In order for it to be destroyed it had to have a destroyer. It had to have a cause in order for there to be an effect. [/quote]
That is a different arguement than from existence then. That is an arguement from change, aslo known as the second way of Aquinas.

I am just helping you become aware of what you are dealing with when you toss words like existence, existing, being, essence around.

[infinitelord1]

i can really see where this existence arguement would lead to. It ultimately would lead to atheists nor theists being able to prove anything. However, I still have more reason to believe in god than an atheist would not to believe in god (because of divine revelation). I think the best thing for this debate would be to focus on cause and effect.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:03 PM'] i can really see where this existence arguement would lead to. It ultimately would lead to atheists nor theists being able to prove anything. However, I still have more reason to believe in god than an atheist would not to believe in god (because of divine revelation). I think the best thing for this debate would be to focus on cause and effect. [/quote]
Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:30 PM'] Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God. [/quote]
where as an atheist would have no "presupposes" that a god does not exist.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 04:12 PM'] where as an atheist would have no "presupposes" that a god does not exist. [/quote]
Are your proposing that they have a presup, or not?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 04:22 PM'] Are your proposing that they have a presup, or not? [/quote]
i say they dont have one

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:30 PM'] Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God. [/quote]
how is this an arguement from change rather than existence (cause and effect)? Or are you refering to me approaching the arguement differently now?

[track2004]

Wouldn't the statement "I don't believe in God" be somewhere in between "I don't believe in emus" and "I don't believe in the loch ness monster"?

On one hand (the emu hand) you've probably heard of an emu (maybe not), and there is a possibility your life has been affected by said emu. People who reject emus are either ignorant or weird... On the other hand you've peobably heard of the monster, but have very little reason to believe it.

So believers think of God along the lines of the emu. He's real and you're werid for not believing in Him. Athiests think of God as the monster and think you're weird for believing in Him.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 05:23 PM'] i say they dont have one [/quote]
Trying to form an arguement without presuppositions is always the best thing to do, however, it is nearly impossible. A Presupposition usually has to be defended and if it is a bad one may come up as an objection to your arguement. That is what makes the arguement from Divine Revelation so weak against athiests, it assumes there is a God. It tries to prove a God from an assumption one exists. See? You are arguing from God to God. That only works if they accept your presup first, which they do not.


[quote]how is this an arguement from change rather than existence (cause and effect)? Or are you refering to me approaching the arguement differently now? [/quote]

An arguement from existence stops with there is existence so there must be God. It says that since there is something rather than nothing there must be a God. It is a harder to defend arguement than of change.

Cause and effect is an arguement from change. A movement from a cause to an effect is a change. It is a movement from potentiality to actuality. It involves one thing being acted upon by a causer and thus becoming an effect. It involves the change in the thing acted upon by the causer. Does that make sense?

One argues from something rather than nothing, your argues from there is change in the universe.

Also do you understand when something is said to have X "in itself" or "objectively?" Those two things will help you out greatly.

[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