I'm sorry our discussion was derailed. For the record, I'm a big boy and don't mind being called silly. I've been called worse. Additionally, I am not a logician, and admit that the initial discussion on negation was flawed on my part (although I think it is clear that Smart's statement regarding atheism negating theism is internally consistent for the reasons set forth in my last post).

I guess I should also make clear that I not only do not believe in, but expressly reject the existence of, any personal god whatsoever. Hopefully we can move past any notion you may have that my arguments are being brought from some hopeful Christian perspective.

I would like to take up our discussion again but I do not have time today. I will try to put together a response to your last substantive post later this week.

I called your post silly, there is a difference.

While Smiths application of the negation was consistent with the correct use of negation, his definitions of atheism and theism were wrong thus the negation of those terms resulted in wrong negation. As I said in the last thread, Theism is not defined as "there is a God" theism is defined as "a belief in God".


WIKIPEDIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
"in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists." Note the term "belief" in this definition.

WEBSTERS:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism
"belief in the existence of a god or gods" Note the term "belief" in this definition.

DICTIONARY.COM:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
"belief in the existence of a god or gods" again, Note the term "belief" in this definition.

I will bet that virtually every definition you find for theism defines it in terms of belief.

So, the accepted definition of the word Theist is as I claimed "belief in God" and the negation of that is "not belief in God" or non-belief in God.

If Smith does not discuss theism in terms of belief, then Smith is not discussing theism, because by accepted definition of the word "theism", theism is about belief. I am sorry, Smith can not redefine words in order to make them fit into his philosophical vision. If he needs to change the definitions of words to fit his philosophical vision, then there is something wrong with his philosophical vision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 12:12PM by MJ.

here is another definition from Brittanica....

atheism
Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.
just sayin

Please provide a link to this definition. Thanks.

just use google........is google a deity? maybe thats the ticket!

Opps, looks like someone is trying to have a double standard.

But who best to claim what a person or a group of people believe than the person or the group of people, eh?

the horror the horror.
no actually I really was just showing another definition.... I never tried to imply that that definition is the end all be all!! i apologize if that is what you took me to say..... and as the communicator it is incumbant upon me to try and be a succint as possible so there will not be any misunderstanding!! again i was just putting that definition out there not as a belief in that particular definition, just to show there are more than one.... agreed? and as such....... .. i cant/wont label myself nor what i beleive in.....lets just say both are a work in progress!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:48PM by bignevermo.

I have never denied that definition of Atheism exists so why do you seem so desperate to spew it?

If you have noticed (probably haven't wanting to assume the worst in me and all) I often talk about "The definition of Atheism that includes all atheists is the lack of belief in God" I actually do this to acknowledge that there are other definitions, but if you want the definition that includes ALL atheist as atheist (not the Britannica) define themselves, then the best one, the one that suites that need, is that Atheist don't believe in God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 06:01PM by MJ.

But who best to claim what a person or a group of people believe than the person or the group of people, eh?
please tell me which logical fallacy you are appealing to? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:55PM by bignevermo.

I mean if you can not even say what your beliefs are, Bignevermo, then why should ANYONE ever believe ANYTHING you have to say>?

http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

http://atheistempire.com/atheism/atheism.php

"Atheism (A'thE-iz"um),-n, is defined as:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Both those organizations acknowledge the definition of Atheist to included those that simply disbelieve or do not believe in a God (without denying the existence of God)

sorry i forgot!
hey wait thats a logical fallacy!!! :) :) :)
appeal to authority i think??? let me check wiki!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:33PM by bignevermo.

Opps, looks like someone is trying to have a double standard.

But who best to claim what a person or a group of people believe than the person or the group of people, eh? Or are you going to say the Britannica trumps everyone? Seriously if a person or a group of people can not state what their beliefs are, who really can? Why do you seem to have a problem with people defining for themselves what their beliefs are???

But get this, Bignevermo, going to atheist for the definition of Atheism, is going to the SOURCE.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 06:05PM by MJ.

What? Brittanica actually says an atheist "believes" there is no God and must offer evidence? Seriously?

Ok. Here's my evidence as I say this out loud...
God, if you exist, strike me with lightning.........

Nothing. There's my evidence. Now prove that my evidence is not evidence.

Here is the difference between a "positive a-fairyist" and a "negative a-fairyist"


Positive a-fairyist: "there are no fairies, and I am willing to make that case through rational argumentation."

Negative a-fairyist: "i have not heard sufficient argument to demonstrate that fairies exist, therefore, I have not adopted such a belief."

The positive Atheist must prove there is sufficient reason to DENY god(s) existence.

The Negative Atheist has not been satisfied that there is sufficient reason to adopt a god belief.

The agnostic says, "nothing can be known with perfect certainty, therefore I can neither affirm or deny anything (even my assertion that nothing can be known for certain).

BTW, I am a POSITIVE ATHEIST, I assert that the Chrisian God(s), Allah, and Hindu pantheon do NOT exist. But my Athiest type is VERY rare.

HH =)

It's easy to disprove the christian god:


A. The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

B. The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

4. But the universe is not perfect.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

C. The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

D. The Immutability vs. Omniscience Argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.

4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.

5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.

6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).

7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).

8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

E. The Immutable vs. All-Loving Argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.

3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.

4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.

5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

F. The Transcendence vs. Omnipresence Argument

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).

2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.

3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.

4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.

5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).

Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

G. The Transcendence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time.

4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time.

5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot be a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

H. The Nonphysical vs. Personal Argument

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.

4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

I. The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).

4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

J. The Omniscient vs. Free Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

2. If God exists, then he is free.

3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.

4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.

5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).

6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.

7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).

8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

K. The Justice vs. Mercy Argument

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.

2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.

3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.

4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.

5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.

6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).

7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).

+1

if god is transendent and non-physical ....what do you get then?

you get a worthless god that is incapable of revealing itself to humans.. since we exist in space & time, and that god does not.

"2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe."

Actually, the product (universe) should not be qualitatively different--or often, opposite--to its creator. You (or your source) accept this. But you accept point 2, then conclude God doesn't exist, and the flaw is your second premise, which is based on primitive creation myths. Why not skip it and say the universe is imperfect, mutable, etc., and was NOT created by God? This is the Gnostic position (cf. Demiurge), but also the transcendentalist position that says if God did not create the universe, then the universe as we know it is an illusion.

Just wanted to point out that all "theists" have not accepted that crucial second point, from which all the subsequent contradictions arise.

Please identify a theistic belief system that does not assert that their god created anything.

Your response should include the following criteria:

1. The name of the theistic belief system.
2. The name(s) of the god(s) in that theistic belief system.

If you can't do either, then it is not theism; it is probably deism, and we are not discussing deism.

Please do not appeal to "everything is one" arguments because then you're saying everything and everyone is god and the word loses all meaning.

Thanks,

(the god[s] of conventional religions), then yes, these do acknowledge their god as the creator of the physical universe and make that a tenet of their beliefs. And so does Deism, by the way. But not Gnostic philosophies, which derived from the esoteric sides of many ancient religions and also influenced sects of early Christianity. Conventional/orthodox religion generally considers these heresies, but they have influenced leading philosophers and others (see ol' Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism )from pre-Christian times up to the present.

By the way, did you mean to type "everything"? (Above: "Please identify a theistic belief system that does not assert that their god created ANYTHING.") As I understand it, such systems do see God as Creator, but of Heaven (a perfect dimension, perhaps symbolized in the prelapsarian Eden), not of the fallen dimension we perceive as earth.

You're welcome,

I was just showing that there is more than one definition for almost any word.....and we all chose the definition that suites us best...
this is supossed to be under Rob's post



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:35PM by bignevermo.

But the best definition is the one that best fits the point being communicated and that is not the same as "that suites us best"

thats why all the dictionaries have more than one entry for ANY word.....and which one is "best"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:52PM by bignevermo.

The best definition to included all atheist is the broadest definition of the term Atheist. That would be Atheist do not believe in God or gods.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2011 05:34PM by bignevermo.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

I find this list fascinating, because I have heard people seriously put forward most of these baseless arguments for God.