Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What do you consider a positive claim then?
-
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!
Do You Hate God?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
What do you consider a positive claim then?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
A statement of fact, as opposed to belief or opinion.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yes. So are "There is a God" and "there is evidence of God. "
ETA: ... as opposed to "I (do not) believe there is a GOd."
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yes, but it's a well-known rule.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
1) The existence of God has nothing to do with the ettiquette of debate
2) Either I'm right or it's your job to prove me wrong. Either way, I'm too tired and too cranky to put in much effort just because you're feeling ornery.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I think the problem here is that if I just came out and said something, it would be different. In the case of a debate, there are two sides. By your definition both sides would be making a positive claim. Both sides would not have the burden of proof. So, here the claim "God exists" would have to be the positive claim, seeing as how it's claiming something in the positive, rather than "There is no God", which is claiming something in the negative. You have to start from the position that all that exists is what we can perceive with our senses. Anything beyond that requires proof.
logician
Well-Known Member
Bingo, which is why Christianity can only rely on faith.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Sure they would.
"Positive claim" refers to a claim of factuality, not the nature of the fact itself. Believers don't automatically make positive claim, nor do atheists; it's all in how the argument is presented.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Aye, but also the opposite positive statement "God does not exist". (another form of that statement is "there is no God")
If there is no proof either way, that god exists or that god does not exist, then both statements must be statements of opinion/belief/faith.
logician
Well-Known Member
To be honest, the statements "god exists", or "god does not exist" are not well defined, thus are statements that cannot be proven or disproven. The term "god" can mean so many things that just to list the many definitions of "god" is a large undertaking. I suppose one could take each definition individually, see if that "god" was well defined, and attempt to prove or disprove its existence, but certainly would require great effort.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I understand the point that if I say something that I expect you to believe, I need to prove it, but that's separate from the burden of proof being on the one making the positive claim.
I think you have to start with the idea that nothing exists, and that's what humans do. We are taught that things exist, and then we accept them. Babies start out only knowing their parents exist when they can see them. At a cetain point the baby realizes that when mom walks away, she still exists, just not where she can be perceived. It's like Kant's "I think therefore I am". He realized that we can't even take our own existence for granted, and so he set out to prove it.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Howso?
I think I disagree, but please, expand.
(Wasn't that Descartes?)
See, I'm of the opinion that there are things we just have to accept, like existence. Even with "Cogito, ergo sum," you can't prove that you think.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
To me a positive claim is not just a factual statement. It is basically a statement that something exists, whereas a negative claim says that something doesn't exist, hence the negative part.
Just like with that baby who assumes that nothing exists unless he/she can currently perceive it. If the baby can't see or touch something, including the parents, then it doesn't exist. It is only later that the baby learns that when mommy is not around, she still exists. So, as humans we start off assuming nothing exists unless we can perceive it. Later we start to accept other things that we can't perceive because they're taught to us by others whom we trust.
Yes, it was Descartes!
Just call me a moron. That's what I get for trying to do work while writing on here. I guess I think that the proof that I think is result.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, from a linguistic point of view, that's perfectly valid, but it's just not what the phrase actually refers to.
Ok, I get your point, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, it may interest you to know that I don't just assume God exists. I believe because of personal experience. In fact, if you want to pick nits, I claim knowledge rather than belief. But I don't pretend that my subjective experience even approaches objective proof, so I avoid making positive claim as best I can. I just get cranky when people on either side of the issue act like their stance is an obvious fact when nobody's got proof, or even strong evidence.
You're not a moron, I wasn't positive myself.Yes, it was Descartes!
You lost me.Rephrase, please?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
From WordNet - Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory
(n) myth (a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people)
Since the concept of God is nothing more than a story used to explain a persons world view, God is most definitely a myth.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Why? Isn't my claim equal in weight to his?
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
That does not make it a myth.