That depends on context, too.
If someone said to you "I believe in God, but I don't know why," I bet you'd be able to understand exactly what they mean and wouldn't infer that they were contradicting themselves.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"God exist" Vs. "I believe God exist" Vs. "I believe in God"
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
If someone said to you "I believe in God, but I don't know why," I bet you'd be able to understand exactly what they mean and wouldn't infer that they were contradicting themselves.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I don't think you understand the thread, and you just want to take advantage of the chance to say there is no evidence for God.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"'I believe in God, but I don't know why,'"
There is a reason they believe even if at the time they cannot pinpoint it. People do not believe something without a reason.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Wow... you took some bad assumptions and just ran with them, didn't you?
We're talking about the meaning behind these statements. The question of whether evidence for a claim actually exists is separate from the question of whether the person making the statement thinks it exists... and what the originator of the statement intends to express is the thing that matters when inferring the meaning behind a statement.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Wow... you took some bad assumptions and just ran with them, didn't you?
We're talking about the meaning behind these statements. The question of whether evidence for a claim actually exists is separate from the question of whether the person making the statement thinks it exists... and what the originator of the statement intends to express is the thing that matters when inferring the meaning behind a statement.
>>We're talking about the meaning behind these statements. The question of whether evidence for a claim actually exists is separate from the question of whether the person making the statement thinks it exists... and what the originator of the statement intends to express is the thing that matters when inferring the meaning behind a statement.<<
I agree. This has been what happened between Sapiens and I, too.
No.
"I believe God exists." is also a statement of fact.
The first is a claim.
The second and third are statements of fact concerning the person's belief on which s/he is, presumably, the authority.
Any difference between the second and third would depend upon what connotations, if any, are associated with the word 'exist.'
Skwim
Veteran Member
Kind of like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow" is a statement of fact. It's a fact that I believe it's going to rain tomorrow.
Thing is, there's a difference between "It's a fact that you believe X" and "the thing you believe, X, is a fact."
.
Last edited:
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I know God exists... the three is a fluid well. Jesus is God.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
so do you believe in fact of evolution or facebook spamming mentalists...
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
youtube too...
''God exists'' tends to mean that the believer wants others to believe that God exists, so it's said in an objective way.
''I believe God exists,'' is a subjective admission by a believer.
''I believe in God.'' That sort of sounds similar to the second choice.
Just my view.
By misused I don't mean "has multiple meanings". Lots of words are that way, it's the context that let's the audience know which one is intended by the author.
But oftentimes "believe" is used to imply things that aren't really true, such as I believe that xyz is true and have evidence when what is meant is I want xyz to be true so I ignore contradictory evidence.
See what I mean?
Tom
ETA. I believe I am not making myself entirely clear
"God exists" has an element of attempt of denial of the ultimately inescapable reality that god-beliefs are inherently personal and can't be raised to the quality of objective truths.
"I believe God exists" falls just short of making that mistake, while still proposing that it makes logical sense to attempt it.
"I believe in God" is still a sligthly odd form of expressing theistic inclinations, because theism does not really work as a belief.
Last edited:
They each say the same thing: to believe in God is to believe that God exists, and to declare it without context is to declare nothing more than your belief that God exists.
J,
well to explain my view I just change the word God to nature. "Does nature exist? " " I believe nature exists", " I believe in nature"..
So in regards to the first statement it is experience. In regards to the second statement it's in context to the intellect, in regards to the third statement maybe some intellect but much more heart felt. In regards to the last statement, "believe in" the question arrises, does Joseph "believe" mary, or does Joseph "believe in" mary. How that is understood is dependent on a whole bunch of things completely independent of the question totally effecting the answers.
well to explain my view I just change the word God to nature. "Does nature exist? " " I believe nature exists", " I believe in nature"..
So in regards to the first statement it is experience. In regards to the second statement it's in context to the intellect, in regards to the third statement maybe some intellect but much more heart felt. In regards to the last statement, "believe in" the question arrises, does Joseph "believe" mary, or does Joseph "believe in" mary. How that is understood is dependent on a whole bunch of things completely independent of the question totally effecting the answers.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
true, true and true
