Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion. Maybe this is not a big topic but I thought it should be brought out and some feedback is nice.

In some discussions, people claim that it's not a positive claim and that it's a negative claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim because it asserts a specific proposition about the nature of reality, akin to other existential claims. The confusion often arises from a superficial reading of the grammatical negation rather than understanding the nature of ontological assertions. With this understanding I believe some Atheists unintentionally commit the burden of proof fallacy. While grammatically, it might appear to be a negation because of the word "not," philosophically it is an assertion. Philosophically, a claim's positivity or negativity is about whether it asserts something about the world, not just its grammatical structure. The statement is about the state of reality, not about avoiding a claim. It posits that the world lacks a particular entity (God), which is a substantive assertion. Thus, it's not a negative claim.

When someone says "God does not exist," they are making a claim about the state of the world. This is in contrast to a merely skeptical position or a lack of belief. A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false, rather than simply withholding judgment or being uncertain.

• Assertion of Reality: It affirms a particular view of the world, similar to how saying "Unicorns do not exist" is making a positive assertion about the nature of reality.
• Burden of Proof: Just like with any other claim about existence or non-existence, it carries a burden of proof. The person making this claim must provide arguments or evidence to support why they believe this to be the case.

Cheers.

 

[Audie]

It does not need any explaining.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Assertion of Reality: It affirms a particular view of the world, similar to how saying "Unicorns do not exist" is making a positive assertion about the nature of reality.

Both are poorly worded.

 

[firedragon]

It does not need any explaining.

What does not need explaining?

 

[firedragon]

Both are poorly worded.

Very good. High level response.

 

[1137]

Ngl, anyone even basically familiar with philosophy and religion knows this. It's more a chronically online reddit atheism type of person that says otherwise, and even atheists seem to tire of them.

 

[firedragon]

Ngl, anyone even basically familiar with philosophy and religion knows this. It's more a chronically online reddit atheism type of person that says otherwise, and even atheists seem to tire of them.

Of course. Educated atheists or anyone who has like you said basic familiarity knows this like ABC. Just that, as said it's a linguistic reading that some think IS the philosophical meaning and argue about it like there is no tomorrow.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see it as a nonproblem in practice, precisely because it is so obviously a positive claim about a non-evident entity.

So what can it possibly mean?

In real situations, it is just a reminder of the need for common sense. The common sense to not put too much pending on the hypothetical existence of entities of dubious existence and unclear, often contradictory moods and goals.

The statement is rarely needed or attempted outside of the Abrahamic-dominated communities that make it both meaningful and necessary.

 

[firedragon]

I see it as a nonproblem in practice, precisely because it is so obviously a positive claim about a non-evident entity.

So what can it possibly mean?

In real situations, it is just a reminder of the need for common sense. The common sense to not put too much pending on the hypothetical existence of entities of dubious existence and unclear, often contradictory moods and goals.

The statement is rarely needed or attempted outside of the Abrahamic-dominated communities that make it both meaningful and necessary.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not telling me that it is irrelevant?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion. Maybe this is not a big topic but I thought it should be brought out and some feedback is nice.

In some discussions, people claim that it's not a positive claim and that it's a negative claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim because it asserts a specific proposition about the nature of reality, akin to other existential claims. The confusion often arises from a superficial reading of the grammatical negation rather than understanding the nature of ontological assertions. With this understanding I believe some Atheists unintentionally commit the burden of proof fallacy. While grammatically, it might appear to be a negation because of the word "not," philosophically it is an assertion. Philosophically, a claim's positivity or negativity is about whether it asserts something about the world, not just its grammatical structure. The statement is about the state of reality, not about avoiding a claim. It posits that the world lacks a particular entity (God), which is a substantive assertion. Thus, it's not a negative claim.

When someone says "God does not exist," they are making a claim about the state of the world. This is in contrast to a merely skeptical position or a lack of belief. A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false, rather than simply withholding judgment or being uncertain.

• Assertion of Reality: It affirms a particular view of the world, similar to how saying "Unicorns do not exist" is making a positive assertion about the nature of reality.
• Burden of Proof: Just like with any other claim about existence or non-existence, it carries a burden of proof. The person making this claim must provide arguments or evidence to support why they believe this to be the case.

Cheers.

Problem with that is its a theistic assertion in reverse.

It's why I became agnostic on the issue, not that I think there is a possibility because I don't. It's just to keep the issue open to any new information as science does.

 

[firedragon]

Problem with that is its a theistic assertion in reverse.

It's why I became agnostic on the issue, not that I think there is a possibility because I don't. It's just to keep the issue open to any new information as science does.

Science does not scientifically engage with the metaphysical. That's not a good analogy.

Nevertheless, most people do identify themselves as agnostic because of this when they understand it could lead to a fallacy of burden of proof.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science does not scientifically engage with the metaphysical. That's not a good analogy.

Nevertheless, most people do identify themselves as agnostic because of this when they understand it could lead to a fallacy of burden of proof.

I'm privy to Dawkins approach. Science can answer such questions as it's purely a yes or no answer. Either its there, or it isn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion. Maybe this is not a big topic but I thought it should be brought out and some feedback is nice.

In some discussions, people claim that it's not a positive claim and that it's a negative claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim because it asserts a specific proposition about the nature of reality, akin to other existential claims. The confusion often arises from a superficial reading of the grammatical negation rather than understanding the nature of ontological assertions. With this understanding I believe some Atheists unintentionally commit the burden of proof fallacy. While grammatically, it might appear to be a negation because of the word "not," philosophically it is an assertion. Philosophically, a claim's positivity or negativity is about whether it asserts something about the world, not just its grammatical structure. The statement is about the state of reality, not about avoiding a claim. It posits that the world lacks a particular entity (God), which is a substantive assertion. Thus, it's not a negative claim.

When someone says "God does not exist," they are making a claim about the state of the world. This is in contrast to a merely skeptical position or a lack of belief. A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false, rather than simply withholding judgment or being uncertain.

• Assertion of Reality: It affirms a particular view of the world, similar to how saying "Unicorns do not exist" is making a positive assertion about the nature of reality.
• Burden of Proof: Just like with any other claim about existence or non-existence, it carries a burden of proof. The person making this claim must provide arguments or evidence to support why they believe this to be the case.

Cheers.

There's no doubt that both statements, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are positive claims. But most people usually don't make either. For the most part, they frame it as a belief statement, such as "I believe in God," and "I don't believe in any gods." Those are also both positive statements, but they are NOT statements about God/god at all -- merely statements about what the speaker himself believes.

I think you'll find that not only do most atheists frame it thus, but so do most theists. Go into any Christian church, and sometime during the service you'll here the congregation reciting their "creed," which just comes from the Latin word credo, which is the first person, singular form of the verb to believe. Here's the Catholic version, in Latin:

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem,
factorem caeli et terrae,
visibilium omnium et invisibilium,
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei unigenitum,
et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula,
Deum de Deo, lumen de Lumine,
Deum verum de Deo vero,
genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri:
per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.

Here's the Protestant one in English:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

As you can see, all framed as statements about the congregants' beliefs, not as statements about deities.

 

[firedragon]

I'm privy to Dawkins approach. Science can answer such questions as it's purely a yes or no answer. Either its there, or it isn't.

Well, tell Dawkins to provide a lab testing method to test a metaphysical being. Not just worship him like God.

 

[firedragon]

There's no doubt that both statements, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are positive claims.

Very good.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, tell Dawkins to provide a lab testing method to test a metaphysical being. Not just worship him like God.

As you are probably aware it's that evidence thing.

 

[firedragon]

As you are probably aware it's that evidence thing.

Yes. It's that evidence thing. But again, what's the lab test developed to test the existence of a metaphysical being?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes. It's that evidence thing. But again, what's the lab test developed to test the existence of a metaphysical being?

I'd like to know myself.

 

[firedragon]

I'd like to know myself.

There are none. And tell me. What is the most fundamental axiom in the scientific approach?