Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Tomef]

Yeah, you assume that reality is real as a fact. That is not a given as a fact.

1) Are you aware of what the words ‘cheese sandwich’ refer to?

2) Are you aware of what a fictional character in a work of fiction is?

3) Do both of these things form, in some way, part of your day to day experience? How would that experience be different if you were a brain in a vat, or if someone/something was the actual cause of what you experience when encountering a cheese sandwich or a fictional character?

4) In terms of your experience as a real person / simulation/ brain in a vat / deceived person, in what way would you, or wouldn’t you, differentiate between a cheese sandwich and a fictional character?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1) Are you aware of what the words ‘cheese sandwich’ refer to?

2) Are you aware of what a fictional character in a work of fiction is?

3) Do both of these things form, in some way, part of your day to day experience? How would that experience be different if you were a brain in a vat, or if someone/something was the actual cause of what you experience when encountering a cheese sandwich or a fictional character?

4) In terms of your experience as a real person / simulation/ brain in a vat / deceived person, in what way would you, or wouldn’t you, differentiate between a cheese sandwich and a fictional character?

Well, it is not a given that the words "chesse sandwish" refer to an actual cheese sandwish.
That is your hidden assumption.
There is no the same day to day experince as a real person versus an unreal reality. That is the problem. You have to give evidence for there being a real day to day experince.

 

[Tomef]

What is the real?

Well, the problem is that if you don't know if objective reality is real or not, then you can't know if there is a God or not.
Your argument is a cognitive process in your mind and says nothing about objective reality as such, because your argument doesn't determine if there is a God or not.

I don’t understand why you don’t understand.

It doesn’t matter if everything is real, or if none of it is real. Like it or not, when you read ‘cheese sandwich’ you think of something different than when you read ‘god’. When you read cheese sandwich, you think of something you have seen and touched, when you read god, you think of a fictional character in a book. Those are defining characteristics of the world in which you are typing messages to this post, the world that is consistent with everything you have done, seen and read today and in your whole life. Whether or not those things are real or not makes no difference at all. There are only two ways you can encounter the idea of a god - either you read or hear about it, or someone tells you about it. The possibility of interacting with ‘god’ in the same way you interact with a cheese sandwich (or understand the mathematical proof offered for some hypothesis etc) does not exist as part of the world in which you are reading this post. God/cheese sandwiches/mathematical proofs belong in different categories. Do you understand? Whether or not any of it is real has no relevance whatsoever.

 

[Tomef]

Well, it is not a given that the words "chesse sandwish" refer to an actual cheese sandwish.
That is your hidden assumption.
There is no the same day to day experince as a real person versus an unreal reality. That is the problem. You have to give evidence for there being a real day to day experince.

I know what they refer to for me - you know what they refer to for you. Same for the word god. Makes no difference to the fact that god and cheese sandwich are not in the same category. Whatever the word cheese sandwich conjures up in your mind, it is categorically different to what the word god conjures up.

 

[Tomef]

You have to give evidence for there being a real day to day experince.

Who says it’s real? It doesn’t matter if it’s real. You still haven’t defined what you mean by ‘objective reality’, btw. Perhaps you could answer questions, as would be normal and polite in an exchange, rather than just endlessly repeating the same thing.

 

[McBell]

That's not how the atheist sees it. They mean all gods don't exist. They have no idea of God, themselves. They are rejecting everyone else's. It's why atheism is an absurdly indefensible position, philosophically.

But they deny this. And they claim they are only rejecting the theist's idea of God, whatever that idea is.

Likewise without a definition of existence, which is equally beyond any human's ability to define beyond a personal ideation as "God" is.

Sure ... God is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

You should probably look into what atheists actually think and believe.

Especially if you are going to talk for all of them...

 

[Tomef]

Well, it is not a given that the words "chesse sandwish" refer to an actual cheese sandwish.

What difference do you think that makes to the differentiation between ‘cheese sandwich’ and ‘god’?

 

[PureX]

You should probably look into what atheists actually think and believe.

Especially if you are going to talk for all of them...

Why, you all post about it all the time.

The weird thing is that you all can't see the constant contradictions you keep putting out. It's all negation and no substance.

 

[McBell]

Why, you all post about it all the time.

I have no idea why you think you can speak for all atheists.
Especially given your claim "you all post about it all the time"...

The weird thing is that you all can't see the constant contradictions you keep putting out. It's all negation and no substance.

The weird thing is that you present far to much misrepresentation to be an honest spokesman for atheism.

yet, here you are...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t understand why you don’t understand.

It doesn’t matter if everything is real, or if none of it is real. Like it or not, when you read ‘cheese sandwich’ you think of something different than when you read ‘god’. When you read cheese sandwich, you think of something you have seen and touched, when you read god, you think of a fictional character in a book. Those are defining characteristics of the world in which you are typing messages to this post, the world that is consistent with everything you have done, seen and read today and in your whole life. ...

There is no whole life for some vairants of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
Now if your argument is that regards of real or not, there is a cognitive difference in your mind of the belief in the world versus the fictional, then yes, but both the world and the fictional are the beliefs without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know what they refer to for me - you know what they refer to for you. Same for the word god. Makes no difference to the fact that god and cheese sandwich are not in the same category. Whatever the word cheese sandwich conjures up in your mind, it is categorically different to what the word god conjures up.

It doesn't matter if they are in different categories in your mind, if there is no real world, because then both of them don't refer to something real.

And then it becomes unknown what is real or not and that includes the world as well as God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who says it’s real? It doesn’t matter if it’s real. You still haven’t defined what you mean by ‘objective reality’, btw. Perhaps you could answer questions, as would be normal and polite in an exchange, rather than just endlessly repeating the same thing.

Objective reality is that which is in itself independent of the experiences in a given mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What difference do you think that makes to the differentiation between ‘cheese sandwich’ and ‘god’?

I don't think it matters for the idea of objective reality in itself as independent of a given mind to play with ‘cheese sandwich’ and ‘god", because that doesn't determine if you are in the world with a whole life and being the every day world or if it is different, e.g. a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Something else. Do you know how come there is the concept of methodological naturalism and how come somebody has written this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sargonski]

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.

it is interesting the inability of folks to understand the concept and/or not taking the time to think about it long enough to understand..

In general an atheist does not claim to be able to prove that God does not exist .. which would be a positive claim .. claiming one can defacto prove something. In General the atheist claims to believe there are no Gods .. leaving the onus on those who attest to the defacto existence of God to prove their positive claim.

in the case where you have both sides claiming belief .. the onus is on neither to prove anything is defacto true .. what is nice however .. is if either side is able to provide evidence in support of that claim .. such that .. even though not defacto proof .. the balance of probabilities indicates one or the other claim is most likely true.

There is no defacto argument on either side .. only logical fallacyland such as disproving a negative. it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist .. the basis for the existentialist fallacy which is that you can win any argument by challenging the other's perception of reality .. Can you prove how the other see's reality is not true ? of course not .. .. this is circular mindlessness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

in the case where you have both sides claiming belief .. the onus is on neither to prove anything is defacto true .. what is nice however .. is if either side is able to provide evidence in support of that claim .. such that .. even though not defacto proof .. the balance of probabilities indicates one or the other claim is most likely true.
...

Can rephrase the bold one?

 

[Tomef]

I don't think it matters for the idea of objective reality in itself as independent of a given mind to play with ‘cheese sandwich’ and ‘god", because that doesn't determine if you are in the world with a whole life and being the every day world or if it is different, e.g. a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Something else. Do you know how come there is the concept of methodological naturalism and how come somebody has written this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dude you’re obsessed! When someone starts a conversation with me, I expect it to be about whatever it was I said that they responded to. Every time I get a response from you, though, you go off on the same tangent about ‘methodological naturalism’. You just seem to be high-jacking anything remotely related I say in order to talk about some barely relevant thing that happens to interest you.

 

[Tomef]

It doesn't matter if they are in different categories in your mind, if there is no real world, because then both of them don't refer to something real.

And then it becomes unknown what is real or not and that includes the world as well as God.

You can read the posts you responded to again and respond to the actual content, not what you imagine is there. If you have something relevant to say, then I’ll respond to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dude you’re obsessed! When someone starts a conversation with me, I expect it to be about whatever it was I said that they responded to. Every time I get a response from you, though, you go off on the same tangent about ‘methodological naturalism’. You just seem to be high-jacking anything remotely related I say in order to talk about some barely relevant thing that happens to interest you.

So you know that you have had a whole life. Then evidence please.

The point is that I learned for the concept of epistemology that non-religious people are not outside the problems with that.
And yes, I am an atheist, non-religious and naturalist. I am just honest when we play the real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can read the posts you responded to again and respond to the actual content, not what you imagine is there. If you have something relevant to say, then I’ll respond to it.

So you have had a whole life, evidence please.

 

[Tomef]

So you know that you have had a whole life. Then evidence please.

The point is that I learned for the concept of epistemology that non-religious people are not outside the problems with that.
And yes, I am an atheist, non-religious and naturalist. I am just honest when we play the real.

No, you just have a narrow set of ideas you like to talk about and you bend anything you read to fit in with that.