RE: Everything exists
January 4, 2010 at 6:17 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2010 at 6:27 am by TruthWorthy.)
I'm glad you're willing to understand Rhizo,
World difference can mean relevancy to differing groups. For instance the religious probably would never/rarely say to one another "god exists" unless talking about a non believer type of discussion, etc. Amongst believers the debate would consist of the "inner circle" type. What "god" expects in a situation, who wouldn't get into heaven, etc. Their world view puts god as an entity as being a given.
Atheist world view would invariably claim that "god" is a ridiculous assumption but being that a specific answer is unidentified/unknown every/any possibility means including "god".
That's where I think the "god exists" proposition doesn't work.
Believers wouldn't say it amongst themselves in such an assertion (besides the ground I've already covered about it fitting the missing premise better) that is, a double assertion. Besides, I don't think it can really stand alone the way it does. There's no context for how or what sort of existence is implied, unless this proposition can only trully work as a defence to, say: "god doesn't exist". At least then "god exists" would have a relational context.
World difference can mean relevancy to differing groups. For instance the religious probably would never/rarely say to one another "god exists" unless talking about a non believer type of discussion, etc. Amongst believers the debate would consist of the "inner circle" type. What "god" expects in a situation, who wouldn't get into heaven, etc. Their world view puts god as an entity as being a given.
Atheist world view would invariably claim that "god" is a ridiculous assumption but being that a specific answer is unidentified/unknown every/any possibility means including "god".
That's where I think the "god exists" proposition doesn't work.
Believers wouldn't say it amongst themselves in such an assertion (besides the ground I've already covered about it fitting the missing premise better) that is, a double assertion. Besides, I don't think it can really stand alone the way it does. There's no context for how or what sort of existence is implied, unless this proposition can only trully work as a defence to, say: "god doesn't exist". At least then "god exists" would have a relational context.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
