(June 1, 2010 at 9:24 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 1, 2010 at 8:39 am)leo-rcc Wrote: So where does Dotard fit in this list as he is God?

Gnostic theist I guess, assuming he understands the "I think therefore I am" argument for personal existence.

That argument seems silly. A table is brown, therefore it is. To perform an action... a thing must already exist. To be perceived... a thing must already exist. To be defined as a certain thing... a thing must already exist.

There's a reason it is said that existence precedes essence

---

(June 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm)Synackaon Wrote: I've been a life long 3 with leanings to 4.

I've always asked, if a god exists - does anybody care?

To which I would answer 'Yes, theists care'

(June 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Saerules Wrote: To which I would answer 'Yes, theists care'

Theists: We Scare Because We Care.

Apatheists are by definition agnostic in the first place, so your first objection is flawed. To illustrate, if we suppose the contrary (i.e. that you can have gnostic apatheist) then such apatheists hold that the existence (or non-existence) of gods can be conclusively established, then these people must have either a belief or non-belief in God, and are therefore either Gnostic theists or Gnostic atheists.

So then we are left with what you term "apatheist theists" and "apatheist atheists". However, these are both covered in our description of apatheism (i.e. "they sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe'"). The point of apatheism is to be undecided, so I reject the labels of "apatheist theist" and "apatheist atheist" as actual labels, since they show a level of decision that is simply not there.

(June 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Saerules Wrote: That argument seems silly. A table is brown, therefore it is. To perform an action... a thing must already exist. To be perceived... a thing must already exist. To be defined as a certain thing... a thing must already exist.

"I think therefore I am" has no possible comparison with "a table is brown, therefore it is".

The point of the argument is that beings that are capable of cognitive thought exist by definition (i.e. you can't have a non-existent being capable of thought). So in asking the question "Do I exist?" you are in fact answering it. The mere ability to ask such a question (or think it) confirms the beings existence, by the definition of existence.

(June 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Saerules Wrote: That argument seems silly. A table is brown, therefore it is. To perform an action... a thing must already exist. To be perceived... a thing must already exist. To be defined as a certain thing... a thing must already exist.

"I think therefore I am" has no possible comparison with "a table is brown, therefore it is".

The point of the argument is that beings that are capable of cognitive thought exist by definition (i.e. you can't have a non-existent being capable of thought). So in asking the question "Do I exist?" you are in fact answering it. The mere ability to ask such a question (or think it) confirms the beings existence, by the definition of existence.

Wouldn't a thing that is able to act exist by definition? (iow: you surely can't have a nonexistent being that is able to act). Thinking itself is an action... so why would it not also be true "The rabbit runs, therefore it is"?

In asking the question of wether anything exists (not just 'do i exist', but regarding the existence of anything at all)... would not it be true that if a thing can be perceived: it automatically must exist? How could it have been perceived otherwise?

Is not the mere ability to ask that question of anything ('Does it exist?') an automatic confirmation that a thing in fact does exist?

(June 1, 2010 at 6:33 pm)Saerules Wrote: Is not the mere ability to ask that question of anything ('Does it exist?') an automatic confirmation that a thing in fact does exist?

So asking, "Does God exist?" means that he does, in fact, exist? I think not.

(June 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm)Paul the Human Wrote:

(June 1, 2010 at 6:33 pm)Saerules Wrote: Is not the mere ability to ask that question of anything ('Does it exist?') an automatic confirmation that a thing in fact does exist?

So asking, "Does God exist?" means that he does, in fact, exist? I think not.

Everything exists. We had a whole thread devoted to the idea Or did you wish to challenge the notion?

Not here in this thread, no. Perhaps another time and another place. Heheh. I'm glad to know that my weather predicting shoulder monkey actually exists, though!

Though perhaps it only exists in your head

(June 1, 2010 at 6:47 pm)Saerules Wrote: Though perhaps it only exists in your head

No. He's on my shoulder.

Sorry. I'm done derailing the topic now. >.>