DrLizardPhD

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist “I do not believe God does not exist” is not the same as “I believe God exists.” If there is a tentative tilt toward God’s existence in my position, then there is a tilt toward God’s non existence in yours.

You keep treating “not believing P” as if it were “believing not-P,” but that does not follow. “I do not believe God exists” does not mean “I believe no God exists.” It can simply mean the claim has not been established. That is why weak atheism does not need to be a pro-nonexistence stance. By contrast, weak theism does include at least a tentative tilt toward existence, because it is still theistic rather than neutral suspension. So the two positions are not symmetrical.

Creates the universe yet needs my money. Sounds legit.

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist It would mean that you don’t know if you have an even or an odd amount of hair. You would lack belief in the hair being even or odd if someone told you. So, in your case, you should lack belief in God existing and not existing or you should believe both equally.

No, you just doing a word acrobatics to try to make it look like these two positions are equal, just the sign is different. But it is not. > A lack of belief in God by default is a belief in no God. Let me show you an example. I say that on your head there are even amount of hair. You don't believe me. Because I never seen your head. Does it mean that your position is that you have odd amount of hair?

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist I am trying to indicate that you are no more neutral than I am, but you keep changing your phrasing. A lack of belief in God by default is a belief in no God. A lack of belief in no God by default is a belief in God.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist The issue is not your wording. The issue is whether you remain neutral or give existence a default preference. You already said you do the latter.

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist Okay, so I lack belief in no God.

> "God probably doesn’t exist, but the claim has yet to be established" I didn’t say that. That would indeed be a stronger position than mere weak atheism. Weak atheism: I lack belief in God. Agnostic atheism: I do not believe in God, and I do not claim certainty. Probabilistic atheism: God probably does not exist.

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist It would seem that weak atheism is not is not strictly a suspension of belief either. If you say “God probably doesn’t exist, but the claim has yet to be established” you have a starting preference. It is a pro-nonexistence stance, and so is more like agnostic atheism.

Unfortunately, this position is not a suspension of belief but a starting preference. So it's not neutral as weak atheism". Calling it weak theism wouldn't be correct. It is just an agnostic theism. Neutral - is not "God probably exists" but "the claim has not yet been established". So so summarize: "Weak theism" is still not a neutral suspension of belief. It is still a pro-existence stance, even if tentative, and so it is not analogous to weak atheism

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist I see. I’m willing to say that I am not convinced that God does not exist, but am open to it. My default, however, seems to be different than yours.

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist So when you say you do not accept that God exists are you merely saying you are not convinced that God exists, but are open to it?

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist Simply stating that I do not accept the claim that a god does not exist in no way forces me to state all gods must exist. It merely indicates that I reject the “no God” hypothesis. It could be one god or many, just not none.

Yes, I remember. And I pointed out that it might be not really coherent position, because taking existence of something as a null hypothesis means you're obliged to do so with all of the claims. Which leads to believing that all gods, that were not disproven - exist. Which leads to contradictions

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist I’m a weak theist, remember? I do not accept that God does not exist. I do not need to give an account for my view.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist Good. So god does exist or doesn't? Reminding you that "existing" requires space and time. You can't exist "nowhere" and "no amount time"

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist If you want to argue for illogical premises, then be my guest. But you need to use logic to argue against logic, which is self defeating. To say something can exist and not exist at the same time violates the basic law of non-contradiction

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist It won't be absurd. Because the rules of our local universe might not be the same outside of universe. But you claim the knowledge about all this if you state that it's impossible. I don't make statements about that

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist lol, you’re fun. Assuming we live in a logical world, it would seem absurd to say that something existed before it existed, which is what self creation argues.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist No idea. But why not :) Do you know everything about how universe works? Can you rule out this as impossible?

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist Can a turtle “pop” into existence? Are you saying it produced itself out of nothing?

I would say, additional attributes for the god. But as I said, it depends on your god. Also, turtle must not exist. It must pop into existence, create the universe and disappear like it never existed. And it doesn't have to be conscious. We can instead call it a "Universe creating effect". So it's not an intention but just a process

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist I guess that begs the question: what is the difference between a universe creating turtle, who must exist outside of nature, and a god?

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist But why god specifically? Maybe it was a universe creating turtle? Or any other thing that we can't imagine. And it's not a god, because the only thing it does - is creating a universe and then disappears.

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist I am not necessarily rejecting the possibility of any particular god creating the universe. Only not accepting that the universe is not created by a god of some sort.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist It is definitely less coherent. If your default state allows assuming your god exists, it should also allow the same for any other god. A lot of gods claim the world creation

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist No less coherent than your premise. The God that I refuse to accept did not create the world.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist It's ok if you think that this is coherent. Which god btw?

@CololelS @michaelt5656 Your claims are in conflict with the data. All Biden had to do to stop the illegal immigration was close the border. 80% of republicans are against gender transition for minors, but only 35% of democrats. pewresearch.org/short-reads/20…).

@DrLizardPhD @michaelt5656 Yeah, never met one person that supports under 18 gender procedures. 90% of democrats want immigration reform and republicans blocked Biden border tightening laws. 90% of the population agrees on most abortion issues but they want to make it look like baby killers vs baby savers

Never again America, underestimate the stupidity around us!

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist Sure, if means I don’t need to provide evidence, I’ll remain content with not accepting that God does not exist.

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist But also it means you don't claim that god does exist?

@cato_strophe @Maximumatheist Then I guess I’ll be a weak theist - I won’t accept the claim that God does not exist

@DrLizardPhD @Maximumatheist If they do. Merely not accepting the claim that god does exist doesn't carry any burden of proof. It called Weak Atheism. It doesn't make the statement, that god doesn't exist

@SoftVocale Sure, book elves exist. But I don’t see evidence for real elves.

@DrLizardPhD There are lots of books involving elves

@momothenono23 @SoftVocale @Maximumatheist The universe began to exist All things that begin to exist require a prior cause Therefore, the universe requires a prior cause (i.e. God)