This is a very good direction of thought. You've hit the mark well.



IFF the acknowledgment of the possibility exhausts all meaning within the belief. It is a matter of believing that it is possible, not one of believing in this or that specific kind of god. In other words, that is not to say that possibility itself makes all belief in god true.

A belief in the possibility of X is a true belief IFF there is a possibility of X. If we can show that possibility, then we have a justified true belief. We have a bit of knowledge regarding the possibility of X. Whether or not a belief in god is true all depends upon whether or not it corresponds to and/or necessarily follows from fact/reality. I'm driving a wedge between a belief in something or other, and a belief that something or other. Something or other need be clearly defined prior to our being able to analyze either, a belief in or a belief that something or other exists. "God exists" and "possibility exists" are two entirely different animals.

Regarding the quote above, that would be the case IFF, a belief that it is possible is the entirety of the belief. That point is crucial to my thinking on the matter. If a belief is held that some sort of unknown entity may exist without any other conditions, without any properties or attributes being attached to this unknown entity, then a belief that a god may exist is true. It is an acknowledgment of the unknown, the ineffable. We ought be very careful in our parsing things out here, for the unknown realm is the birthplace of illusory thought/belief stemming from purely imaginary objects - those of which that always breach the ineffable condition of the unknown realm.

The possibility that there are things which exist completely unbeknownst to us is more than evident. We know that that possibility exists. Therefore, on my view, that is the intellectually self-honest position to hold. However, and this is also crucial to understand... it is an empty claim - void of all properties, void of all attributes, void of all distinction, and therefore void of all substantial meaning. It is completely meaningless... necessarily so, as all unknowns must be. As soon as attributes are attached to the ontological possibility, this belief in god/possibility will take shape through distinction; the placeholder of meaning. God is this, and not that. Etc. Thus, after things are attributed to the possibility, the belief that it is possible transforms from an acknowledgment of the unknown realm, into a truth/knowledge claim about the way things are - to a belief in god. It is here that a belief becomes subject to epistemic criticism.

The plausibility of a belief in god, therefore, entirely depends upon what is being claimed about this god and how it fits into what we know - how it corresponds to and/or necessarily follows from fact/reality. In closing, a belief that it is possible that a god exists is not a belief demarcating that god is anything at all, or that god is not anything at all.



My position holds that nothing can be corresponded to truth. Rather truth is correspondence to fact/reality. True thought/belief and statements correspond to fact/reality, and false ones don't. Not all statements are truth-apt, because not all utterances are claims about the way things are.

'God exists' is a true statement if, and only if, God exists.

When we look at the above, we see that it is a conditional. It is a hypothetical proposition whereby the predicate sets out the truth conditions of the antecedent. It is also reducible without losing meaning. We can remove "is a true statement" because it unnecessary. We can combine the conditional "if, and only if" to it's conventional symbol IFF, and we would have...

'God exists' IFF God exists.

The antecedent is a claim about the way things are. The predicate is a linguistic placemark for fact/reality(the way things are). So, in short claims about the way things are are true if and only if they match up to the way things are. This fairly recent linguistic tool and it actually works very well. However, in order to avoid the possibility of unnecessary confusion, for the time being let's avoid the meaninglessness inherent to 'God exists' and employ something a little more useful. I'll go back to a good example that I've adopted from another philosopher on another forum. It sets things out rather nicely, and very simply.

'The cup is on the table' IFF the cup is on the table.

I'll pause here because I'm almost certain that you've a couple of questions for me already... Am I correct?

Been a long hot day. I'll be back tomorrow to reply. Thanks

This goes along, several posts, with your objection to using ( a ) or (the) to prefix the subject. What you refer to as ineffable, (e.g. the indescribable attributes of god), are necessarily ineffable because we are considering an unknown realm which we have both agreed is only a realm of ‘possible existence’ for which we cannot have pre-existing knowledge. To add anything more, (i.e. attributing characteristics to, or describing god in any way) would be “purely illusory thought/belief stemming from purely imaginary objects.”

I think comprehend thus far.



Yes, I agree



Not at the moment – please proceed with your example.

'The cup is on the table' IFF the cup is on the table.

Would you agree?

I think you are discussing the meaning of the word "truth" rather than actual truth.

You're mistaken.

The meaning of the word varies with personal use. That tells us nothing about truth itself.

Actual truth is the engagement. The acting it out. That's the largest part of my focus, one which I've previously pointed out.

If that were true, then you would understand what I say when I say:

I am.

{That is truth.)

Instead, you go into all kinds of thinking about how I arrived at that point of realization and what came before that etc.

But the truth is that NOW is your only point of power. I exist now. No other 'time' is relevant. I am now. What came before, what comes after, irrelevant. Beginning and end is irrelevant.

I agree with this view.

I don't think it is necessary to complicate life. Just enjoy it.

If that were true, then we need only look at our behavior to show truth/reality presupposition being engaged.



All by itself the statement "I am" is self-referencial and meaningless. I am this and not that(whatever this and that are) has meaning because it engages truth by attaching properties and attributes to the subject "I". "I am" is nothing more than a misuse of the English language. There are no private languages. Languages have rules. "I am" is meaningless without a predicate. Meaningless claims are useless claims.



I do not accept X as being the case without thinking about what it would take for X to be true.



Here we go again with "But the truth is"... You're confusing your beliefs(numbered) with that which makes them true(or not). You've called your beliefs, "the truth". If they correspond to fact/reality then they are true beliefs, not "the truth". You've also shown a relatively high degree of conviction here... certainty that these beliefs correspond to fact/reality; that these beliefs describe the way things are.

That is another topic altogether. It is not necessary to do a lot of things. Enjoying life does not requires much complication. With that I would agree. One need not come to terms with their own belief in order to enjoy life.

If the experience of being cannot itself be recognized as a self-evident truth, then any further discussion of what "truth" might even mean would be totally meaningless.

I'm not talking about what the term "truth" might even mean. How someone uses the term clearly shows what the term means to them. It does not necessarily show what truth is.

(Rather than try to navigate a bunch of quote tags I will address your claims individually)

"I am" by itself is not meaningless. But then, perhaps to you it is.

Meaning (for anything) itself is assigned by people..

"I am" is just another way to state "I exist." The word "am" itself meaning "being or to be" and "being or to be" meaning "to exist."

I be. <------ I exist.
I am. <-------I exist.

–verb
1st person singular present indicative of "be."

(To "be" is to exist.)

"To be or not the be, that is the question."

"To exist or not to exist, that is the question."

Everything breaks down into either zero or one.
Something or nothing.
Existence or no existence.

To be or not to be.

I am.

Thank you for proving my point.

I guess that's your problem.



I have also said many times that everything is an opinion. So..... so?





So? I believe these beliefs are probably the truth. They are the truth according to my point of view.

I also believe everything is an opinion from a point of view.

You have a point of view and an opinion, and so do I.

I don't think I proved your point. You made the claim that "I am." is a misuse of the English language. You are wrong. It is perfect English. And you said it has no meaning. It has a lot of meaning.

You are wrong on both points creative.
See next post.