Any clarification on this, Jib?

Jibs, when you're done dodging everyone else's questions, here's one more to shy away from...

According to your logic, we all must either live as though we believe aliens exist, or live as though we believe aliens do not exist.

Even if we avoid quibbling about whether this logic is even sound, how can we use this insight if we completely ignore what it means to live as if aliens exist?

A couple points. First, remember that you are claiming that they are living inconsistently with believing that God exists, not with God actually existing (otherwise we have a new proof of the non-existence of God).

Second, you are making a mistake in your reading of bunny's claim. He is not claiming that agnostics are living consistently with a belief in God and inconsistently with a belief in God. Rather, he is claiming that agnostics are living consistently with a belief in God and living consistently with a disbelief in God. This isn't so weird. For example, most people live consistently with a belief that string theory is true and with a belief that string theory is not true. This is because the belief that string theory is true (or false) doesn't have significant implications for actions. Bunny's claim is that the same is true of the belief that God exists. Thus, if you want to show that he is wrong, you'll have to point out these implicated actions, and show how they are taken by agnostics.

I'll also point out that we often act in ways that are inconsistent with our beliefs, but this doesn't mean that we don't still have those beliefs--just that we are fallible human beings. So I'm very skeptical that we'll be able to find actions that are in any strong sense inconsistent with believing that God exists. As it says in the Bible, even the demons believe, and tremble.

noted.

maybe i am misunderstanding him, but I dont think that he is making the claim that believing god exists has no significant implications for actions. if this is his claim, then yes, that would change things.

if we were talking about a generic deistic god then the conversation would be different, but I did clarify ealier in the thread that I was refering to specific theistic gods, which makes actual requests (or hold some sort of significance to someone) and therefore would have an impact on our actions.

the fact that our actions can be inconsistent with our beliefs really only strenghtens my argument.

as far as giving specific actions, that would only be necessary if bunny believes that believing god exists has no significant implications on our actions. if that is the case then we will direct the conversation that way.

as always you fail to understand what we are talking about.

It's your claim, not mine. You are claiming that living as if god exists has a set of consequences A,B,C which are inconsistent with believing that god doesnt exist.

What are they?

EDIT:
Was it really not clear that I was looking for examples?

Any response to this?

Answered earlier.

The level of “know” I would expect is a fairly standard definition: ”To be aware of the truth or factuality of; be convinced or certain of.” You say the “vast majority of the evidence that we do have leans towards created.” I didn’t see a response to my request, but I’d still like to see this. I’m not aware of any evidence from outside the universe, let alone “before” the Big Bang, so I’m not even sure how we could know this. So I’d still like to know what evidence you see here.

For something to be unknown or uncertain, it certainly doesn’t require that the evidence be 50/50 for and against. 100% of the available evidence could support a position, without that position being compelling. But here you refer to the vast majority of evidence supporting one position, with pretty much no evidence to the contrary, such that you are forced to accept the theistic position. This sounds like compelling evidence, and I would like to see it.

Good thing that noone is making that claim.

Again you say “tons of evidence.” Let’s see it.

I don’t understand this claim at all. Can you elaborate?

I have never had an experience that has caused me to doubt my atheism, but I have no doubt that a personal experience could be compelling, so I am open to that possibility. But I am also open to scientific evidence for the existence of a god. If you have any, please share.

I’m not sure where this came from. On the God question, I have a strong belief about which position is more plausible. But I also don’t understand why claiming that the God question is underdetermined is inconsistent with evidence or reason.

Can you link to a thread that lays out your beliefs?

Fair enough.

I don’t see how you can “know” without compelling evidence. And I certainly don’t see compelling evidence on any of these questions. So for me “I don’t know” is the only possible position.

Jibninjas? Are you still taking part in this thread?

Any comment as to why this is not 'living consistently with God existing' and 'living consistently with God not existing'? If you think this action is one such thing consistent with both, I think you are conceding the argument (since I can now hypothesise someone who makes only such actions) but if you wish to claim there are some 'essential' actions or choices which we are forced to take a view on - any hypothetical (but specific) example as to what such an action might be?

Also - just a comment with regard to your usage of the law of the excluded middle. You have to be careful in articulating what the negation of a statement is. It's true that either A or not-A must be true. In this context A is "X lives as if God exists" and not-A is "It is not the case that X lives as if God exists". (Taking the bolded phrase as well-defined for the sake of the argument).

A cactus does not 'live as if God exists', but can't be said to live 'as if God does not exist'.
Same with a rock, a comatose patient, my dead grandmother,...None of them 'live as if God exists' but the reason they fail is not because they are 'living as if God doesn't exist'.

You are equating "It is not the case that X lives as if God exists" (not-A) with "X lives as if God does not exist" (call this B) and this is an error. Although every X which satisfies the B also satisfies not-A, there are some things for which not-A is true and B is false (eg the examples I listed above, also my friend dave I alluded to earlier).

You may claim that you mean the statement to range only over some restricted set of objects which all must be alive and must be making a decision one way or the other. However, to assert that these two sets are now exclusive and exhaustive over all conscious people is begging the question. This is why some examples of hypothetical actions would be such an essential part of establishing your claim - I (and others) can see many people who don't satisfy A and also don't satisfy B. I'll repeat my query about my friend Dave:

"I have a friend who doesnt go to church, donates a moderate amount to charity, donates heavy amounts of time in things he considers to be 'worthy causes', really likes hot chocolate, works in the theatre industry, is unmarried (and considers marriage to be an error for everyone), says he doesnt know if God exists but can't see how the universe would just 'pop into' existence, thinks that morality is subjective,....

How is he living? Do you need anything else? When he drinks coffee he has one sugar and milk."

No I am not conceding. Never once did I say that ever single action that you take is directly a result of your belief in God or disbelief in God. What would you think that I would say that? Don't you think that it is a little absurd that you would even bring that up?

If you want to argue that belief in, say, the God of the bible will have 0 implications on your actions, then go a head. But that is a completely different conversation then what we have been having. It has been said earlier ITT, I believe, that the reason we were talking specifically about a theistic God as opposed to a deistic God, is because on the implications on your actions.

But you do agree that we all take some actions which are consistent with both beliefs?
I don't think you said that.

You are stating that we must either live as if God exists or that we must live as if God doesnt exist. I am taking 'living as if...' to mean taking deliberate actions and that your view therefore implies there must be some actions which we choose to take which are inconsistent with one of these views. I've asked about a dozen times for a specific example of what sort of action that would be but you haven't provided one. I've made an intentionally poor offering (how I have my coffee) which you rightly dismiss on the grounds that it is obviously consistent with both. That was kind of my point, I wasn't claiming 'you said how I have my coffee is a theological decision', I was claiming that it was possible to only make such decisions. I was also setting the scene for you to present your concrete example of behaviour...

What's an example of an action we take which is inconsistent with one or the other? (And perhaps to clarify: Is it right that you think everyone takes such an action?)

I don't think this is true - my belief in God has had profound implications as to the actions I take. Before I was a theist, my belief that there was no God had equally obvious and easy-to-articulate consequences.

I agree. but I don't see how that is an issue for my position.

Now you are just getting nitty. Non of these things "live" period. So if you would like me to add in "if one is living" then fine, but I don't see how this is changing anything other than wasting time on things that should be a given in this conversation.

There is no error. You are right that I can be more specific in my position, but that is about it. So we can add the qualifier "for every action that can be said to qualify as 'living as if God exists'..."

I'll repeat, bringing up actions that are not effected one way or another is not what is under discussion. If you would like to argue that there is no actions that are effected then go ahead. Otherwise we can get back to our regularly scheduled programming.

So would you agree that if there are parameters that are defined that my argument holds?

Or are you going to argue that believing in the God of the bible will have 0 effect on your actions, and that there is not parameters on how to live?

I think this just confuses the issue. There are no actions you take that some atheist somewhere doesn't take.
Unless Jibs argument is "non-believers don't believe" , which I think he has watered it down to now since he has provided no examples of "living differently" that he can discern from stalking a person for a month.
Heck, some atheists go to church, some theists don't. What are they doing that identifies ALL of them so clearly. answer ... nothing.

I agree with most of this (except possibly confusing the issue). When I argue with people, I try to do it according to the rules they set. Jibninjas seemed to misunderstand my position to think that I am saying believing in God has no consequences. As such, I think I should clarify that I don't think this - hopefully it will make him reread what I wrote to see that the implication is different - something along the 'what characterises all (a)theists?' as you allude to here.

You should study some logic then.

EDIT: This came off unnecessarily harsh. I meant it as a genuine comment, not in the narky way it sounds. You postulated the law of the excluded middle (A or not-A must be true) and then proposed A and B (where B isn't not-A) as the two statements you were applying it to. In my opinion, basic logic is an excellent course to study on your own, especially if you're interested (as you are) in philosophy. The reason for this unsolicited advice is that it is very clear that you haven't done a formal course in logic, but are rather using 'half rigorous logic and half intuitive logic'. Sorry for the tone - I couldn't believe it when I read it back. :/
I don't think I'm being nitty at all - my understanding of nittiness is to focus on irrelevant, minor errors whereas here you are comitting a major one. The point is you haven't established that all living people are either A or B - you have just claimed it repeatedly. I was pointing out that the law of the excluded middle doesn't give it to you (so far this is the only argument you've advanced beyond "It's obviously true"). If the law of the excluded middle did operate as you claimed it would indeed have established that cactuses are either living as if God exists or living as if God doesnt exist.

The error is in your application of the law of the excluded middle. A and not-A are not as you indicated.
FWIW, if I ask you about those actions then they are under discussion. However, I agree with you that they don't really matter. I was making some indications of things I considered to be actions not affected one way or the other as a lead in to you providing examples of actions which are...
I will answer these questions below (although I've already answered them). First let me point out that your tactic of responding to questions with further questions makes it difficult to maintain momentum in a conversation. For reference, this is the example I provided (my friend Dave) who I think is agnostic and doesnt live as if God exists and also doesnt live as if God does exist. Your initial claim was he lived as if God doesnt exist, since modified on the grounds that you don't know how he lives. I'll answer whatever questions about him you need in order to determine which category he lives in:

"I have a friend who doesnt go to church, donates a moderate amount to charity, donates heavy amounts of time in things he considers to be 'worthy causes', really likes hot chocolate, works in the theatre industry, is unmarried (and considers marriage to be an error for everyone), says he doesnt know if God exists but can't see how the universe would just 'pop into' existence, thinks that morality is subjective,....

How is he living? Do you need anything else? When he drinks coffee he has one sugar and milk."

------------------------------------------------------------------

To address you questions:
Your argument holds if there are actions which are never taken by theists and if there are actions which are never taken by atheists and if everyone must take at least one such action (from either class - we haven't even got to the problem of people who do things from both). I can't think of any such action so I see no reason to think your argument holds (an example would be very compelling though, perhaps I should ask for one...)
No I'm not going to argue this. Never have, since I don't even really understand what it means. Believing in the God of the bible will have plenty of effects I suspect, the trouble is the same effect will be observed in people who don't believe - making the effects not indicative of the internal state of belief.

I am not really going to have time to respond to all of this tonight, but I wanted to touch on this. I have stated earlier that I believe B is equal to not-A. In other words, not living as if God exists is the equivalent to living as if God does not exist. Which is why I see no issue with my earlier application of the law of excluded middle.

Side note: I do agree that I could benefit from studying formal logic further. I have a little but it was a long time ago. So if you know any good online resources I would appreciate if you would link to them.

Are you saying that:
1. the negation of "X lives as if A"
2. "It is not the case that X lives as if A"
3. "It is the case that X lives as if not-A"
are all equivalent?

Because cactuses, coma patients and dead grandmothers illustrates that this isn't true (2 is true, 3 is false).

I think you are claiming that if you restrict X to 'people who live and can make cogent decisions' or similar then 2 and 3 are logically equivalent and this is an error - it is question begging, since this is what we are trying to resolve.

Ultimately, the best way to win is to provide an example. Why is it so hard to do so?

What is an example of some action which, if you observed someone taking it, would lead you to know they are living as if God doesnt exist?

Nah - online is not my thing. I'll rustle up some books I would recommend though.

+
= I immediately need a taker for my prop -> this will end with " non-believers don't believe", before it gets formally admitted and kills my action.

The more this thread proceeds, the more I think your hopes for any resolution are ill-founded.

Hi Jibs.

I dont want to give any action. But this will end without closure or with non believers taking actions that show they believe in God.

It's a two-letter response or a three-letter response; punctuation optional. Not that there isn't more to come, but really, I don't see the question as complicated.

Yes or no, depending on whether God descends to man or man ascends to God.