re americans and evolution in article pq tinn lp senator bedfellow mit edu bobs thnext mit edu robert singleton writes deletion i will argue that your latter statement i believe that no gods exist does rest upon faith that is if you are making a positive statement that no gods exist strong atheism rather than merely saying i don t know and therefore don t believe in them and don t not believe in then weak atheism once again to not believe in god is different than saying i believe that god does not exist i still maintain the position even after reading the faqs that strong atheism requires faith no it in the way it is usually used in my view you are saying here that driving a car requires faith that the car drives for me it is a conclusion and i have no more faith in it than i have in the premises and the argument used but first let me say the following we might have a language problem here in regards to faith and existence i as a christian maintain that god does not exist to exist means to have being in space and time god does not have being god is being kierkegaard once said that god does not exist he is eternal with this said i feel it s rather pointless to debate the so called existence of god and that is not what i m doing here i believe that god is the source and ground of being when you say that god does not exist i also accept this statement but we obviously mean two different things by it however in what follows i will use the phrase the existence of god in it s usual sense and this is the sense that i think you are using it i would like a clarification upon what you mean by the existence of god no that s a word game the term god is used in a different way usually when you use a different definition it is your thing but until it is commonly accepted you would have to say the way i define god is and that does not exist it is existence itself so i say it does not exist interestingly there are those who say that existence exists is one of the indubitable statements possible further saying god is existence is either a waste of time existence is already used and there is no need to replace it by god or you are implying more with it in which case your definition and your argument so far are incomplete making it a fallacy deletion one can never prove that god does or does not exist when you say that you believe god does not exist and that this is an opinion based upon observation i will have to ask what observtions are you refering to there are no observations pro or con that are valid here in establishing a positive belief deletion where does that follow aren t observations based on the assumption that something exists and wouldn t you say there is a level of definition that the assumption god is is meaningful if not i would reject that concept anyway so where is your evidence for that god is is meaningful at some level benedikt
