It lies with the definition.
The concept exists regardless, as stated but for one to believe g0d exists then a definition they agree with must be given. Therefore the belief in gOd is subjective to the definition the believer adheres to. So even the concept of a g0d is only universal in its belief in a higher power or order. Not "g0d" itself.
Back to the definition, if a universal definition is used then the question of if people believe in g0d gets an overwhelmingly response of yes. That doesn't mean g0d actually exists though. But a definition could be used in which g0d does exist.
Back to topic, the refutation would only mean the denouncer acknowledges the belief in a g0d not that they believe in a g0d themselves. But again, the definition of g0d matters because the denier is only expressing disbelief in a definition. While this has no affect on reality or conceptualuzed versions of g0d. It doesnt make them a believer nor change anything. But g0d would exist under the right terminology and atheist would still disbelieve. That's why agnostics 'exist'. Athiesm, is total disbelief in any form of g0d. So by definition, atheists couldn't be believers. Without or without evidence. Regardless, if g0d's real.
|