So God can exist and God can not exist at the same time? 
The problem isn’t about what “exist” means. The problem is that people do not clearly explain what they mean by “X exists” or “X existed”. The thorn in my side personaly is when people say “I believe in X” rather than “I beleive that X”. What the FUCK does “beleive in” even mean?
Take Santa Clause for instance.
“I believe in Santa Clause.”
…
Ok… So?
What the hell do you mean? Do you believe that Santa Clause exists?
“Well no, not really. He’s more of a metaphore.”
Ok, so you believe that the story exists?
“Yes”
So why don’t you just say “I believe that the story of santa clause is useful in child rearing.”?
“I believe in X” is extremely unclear. “I believe that X” is a MUCH better way to go. It makes the conversation go much smoother cuz people can figure out what the hell you are referring to.
Now, are you comfortable with this statement, as far as figuring out what I’m talking about? Do you think that I think that the FSM existed? My quote is ambiguous.
Pretty clear, no?
Unless you want to split hairs in a deep ontology debate, you know what “exist” means. I believe that you do.
God is a dream that we all want to believe is true. For some it’s pleasant, for others it’s a nightmare, and finally for those that live awake this dream means nothing.
So why don’t people wake the fuck up and stop dreaming and face reality?
Murex,
Well, I suppose one could find some sort of convoluted rationale that would allow that position, but not without a lot of effort.
My statement was one of agnosticism where, if one indulges in speculation, no possibility can be entirely dismissed. Those who say is -isn’t absolutely are suspended in belief without any way of proving anything. There belief may be absolute, but all that can be offered is opinion.
Read my post again. I can’t see where I implied that a God could both exist and not exist.