(August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.
Similarly,
I don't understand what a God is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.
See,when someone is presented with an idea that they cannot understand and is asked whether they believe in it or not,it is extremely difficult to decide how to respond.
Can you tell me the appropriate response in that situation?
I get what you're saying.
You don't know what a god is, so you don't know whether you believe in it or not.
But that means you do not have active belief in god, so you lack that belief. That's implicit atheism. The same an infant is an atheist.
Just say what you mean, that you don't know what a god is.
How does telling someone that doesn't understand what god is that they lack a belief in god(which they don't understand in the first place) and is therefore an implicit atheist,work?
Isn't that like saying,
If someone doesn't understand what Theory of relativity is then they lack an active belief in it,and therefore doesn't have a belief in it?
To have a belief or a lack of belief i'd first have to analyze what Theory of relativity is saying,understand them,look at its proofs and then decide my stance according to the evidence?
How come this procedure doesn't apply for God.How come i don't have to analyze what God is,what it is saying,understand it,and then decide my stance?
Seeing how it is virtually impossible to analyze,understand etc what a God is,it just makes things more complicated than the Theory of relativity instance.
