Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all. The word 'leaves' doesn't refer to any discrete concrete object in particular. In other words, it is not a proper noun. Just like the word 'natural' doesn't either. Both are categories, with one being simply much larger than the other.

So if I point to a single leaf and say it is a green one, that is a leaf is not concrete.
Leaf: a flattened structure of a higher plant, typically green and blade-like, that is attached to a stem directly or via a stalk. Leaves are the main organs of photosynthesis and transpiration.

 

[Koldo]

So if I point to a single leaf and say it is a green one, that is a leaf is not concrete.
Leaf: a flattened structure of a higher plant, typically green and blade-like, that is attached to a stem directly or via a stalk. Leaves are the main organs of photosynthesis and transpiration.

The thing you are pointing to is concrete. The concept of 'leaf' in itself is not. It is pretty much a platonic form.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The thing you are pointing to is concrete. The concept of 'leaf' in itself is not. It is pretty much a platonic form.

The point to the contrete thing of the universe and the property of the concrete thing as natural as in the universe is natural.

 

[Koldo]

The point to the contrete thing of the universe and the property of the concrete thing as natural as in the universe is natural.

Can you rephrase this?

 

[Tomef]

Well, yes. It is a part of one version of modern science, so in a sense you should at already have heard of methodological naturalism. And since you have a better version of science, you should be able to explain how methodological naturalism is irrelevant other than just claiming that your version is better.

I have a better version of science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a better version of science?

No, you don't as you, but you claimed a version of science as per a named person. Now explain how that works and not just claim that it works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you rephrase this?

A leaf as a word can refer to a concrete thing. Green can refer to an emperical experience.
What is the universe as a contrete thing and what is natural as an emperical experience.

 

[Koldo]

A leaf as a word can refer to a concrete thing. Green can refer to an emperical experience.
What is the universe as a contrete thing and what is natural as an emperical experience.

The word universe refers to all concrete things.
The word natural is applied to everything that can be experience through your five senses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The word universe refers to all concrete things.
The word natural is applied to everything that can be experience through your five senses.

Then there is more than that the universe is natural.

 

[Tomef]

No, you don't as you, but you claimed a version of science as per a named person. Now explain how that works and not just claim that it works.

I’m not sure what you are getting at. Latour’s actor - network theory and general philosophy of science isn’t a ‘better version of science’. The question isn’t whether it works but rather what it helps to illuminate.

 

[Koldo]

Then there is more than that the universe is natural.

?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not sure what you are getting at. Latour’s actor - network theory and general philosophy of science isn’t a ‘better version of science’. The question isn’t whether it works but rather what it helps to illuminate.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Can you give a brief idea of what it is, it does?

 

[Tomef]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Can you give a brief idea of what it is, it does?

Basically the idea that everything involved in something a person does has a role that contributes to whatever the outcome might be, e.g. a scientist working in a lab is part of a network that includes everything from what he ate that day, through his particular education, the lab equipment used, the place, everything and anything else. Beyond that are ideas about the importance of abandoning the idea that humans are special in some sense, that we stand outside of nature rather than being an integral part of it, and other ideas about emergence, as opposed to structuralism, with a given society for example emerging from a wide variety of different individual and collective factors and influences particular to a time, place, set of people, environmental conditions and so on.

 

[1137]

And?
You were going on and on about how allegedly no one defends the God does not exist "argument."
I flat out "defended" it.
You really should be happy

The fact that you think what you gave is a defense of a godless universe does not make me happy at all. It's actually very sad.

Why should yours?
Or anyone elses for that matter?

It's special pleading then, only your subjective mental state matters.

People are free to believe whatever suits their fancy.
If you wish to leave your standards for evidence low enough to allow for your favoured deity, then that is on you.

But you haven't even explained what the standards are for you, or why other standards are too low. You just presumed your subjective standards are the valid ones.

My standards for evidence are rather quite high for an all knowing all powerful creator of all there is.

Okay this makes sense, you're the type of atheist who doesn't even realize not all theists are omni-monotheists.

To each their own.


Choir members.
Basically people who already believe are much much easier to "convince" than those who do not already believe.

I guess? I was an atheist though.

For all the whining and complaining you did over no one ever "defending" the opposite of your beliefs stance, you sure shut up quick when someone did....

Bro you didn't defend that there is a godless universe lol.

I do not pretend that theists use a much lower standard for evidence than I do.
Well, at least when it comes to their beliefs.
Most of them seem to have a real problem applying the same standards of evidence to their beliefs that they want others to present for theirs.

Being subjectively convinced of something is not a high standard of evidence tbh.

Creationists are really bad for it.

Interestingly enough, they also do an awful lot of whining and complaining when it is pointed out their standards are so low that the only worries about them is stubbing ones toe.

You just keep throwing out the same claim over and over, without explaining why it doesn't meet your subjective standards.

Your claim is that there are people who believe Inana, Sauron, and the phantom tollbooth are real?

Inana yes, way to double down on the absurd claim haha.

Your argument is a bit inconsistent. ‘Reading a book is an experience’ hardly makes sense of it - without the book, you would not know about the relevant god.

I wouldn't know what the ancients THOUGHT about the god, but I became a theist from my own experiences and reason, not because of a book.

You arrive at knowledge of that god through the book, not through ‘experience and reason’. Without the book, your ‘experience and reason’ would lead you to some other set of beliefs.

I think you might be projecting. I, personally, don't believe something just because I read about it.

 

[1137]

The OP does not discuss the existence of God, or any theistic claim whatsoever. It only discusses the philosophical meaning of a particular statement.

So debating me about anything related to theism as if I made that argument as a whole is a strawman.

But they can't do anything else, because as you rightly have pointed out, they won't actually support their own position. They must deflect.

 

[Tomef]

Inana yes, way to double down on the absurd claim haha.

What are you talking about?

 

[Tomef]

I think you might be projecting. I, personally, don't believe something just because I read about it.

Your answers make no sense.

 

[1137]

What are you talking about?

I think you may be a bit tired today haha. You claim people don't really believe gods like Inana exist, I point out how silly it is to say theists don't actually believe, and you doubled down on the claim that people don't really believe the gods exist.

 

[1137]

Your answers make no sense.

Ah you're trolling, my bad. Please, continue.

 

[Tomef]

I think you may be a bit tired today haha. You claim people don't really believe gods like Inana exist, I point out how silly it is to say theists don't actually believe, and you doubled down on the claim that people don't really believe the gods exist.

Nope.