Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Tomef]

So you have had a whole life, evidence please.

Relevance please.

 

[Tomef]

So you have had a whole life, evidence please.

You have some confusion between:

1) things that are different

2) things that are real (or not)

Until you have something useful to say about that, I’m not going to respond.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, yes. Then moment someone plays real and in your case the world, then yes.
Just don't claim you know and if you know, give evidence.

 

[Sargonski]

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.

ghh

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

We are in existentialist fallacyland Brothers Tom and Mik

There is no objective reality that is independent of the experience in any given mind .. that you can prove. .. and on the contrary .. get objective external eyewitness accounts of a car accident from two witnesses .. one on one side of street .. the other on other side .. you get two different stories.

Question -- What happened ? tell me about the objective reality .. Person A says the light was yellow when car entered .. Person B says light was Red. .. What is the objective reality ? Was the damn light red or green .. what is really going on here is the difference between "What Happened" and what we make it mean.

You can win any argument by questioning the others perspective of reality .. well .. not "Win" exactly .. more like derail .. which is a win for the troll.

Can rephrase the bold one?

Why do you want me to rephrase ?? the balance of probabilities indicates that one or the other is true !

How about we explain it to you. Let us say that you have 500 witnesses to the accident 499 claim without a doubt that the Light was Red when car entered intersection .. one claims the light was yellow . Most likely the 499 claim is true.. and you can proceed on with your life knowing that this represents objective reality .. within a local frame of reference.

 

[Tomef]

Well, yes. Then moment someone plays real and in your case the world, then yes.
Just don't claim you know and if you know, give evidence.

I claim I know what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Relevance please.

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. ...

Well, you brought up the world and the whole life as if you have evidence for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I claim I know what?

See above.

 

[Tomef]

Well, you brought up the world and the whole life as if you have evidence for that.

No, I didn’t. Just read the posts again.

 

[Tomef]

See above.

What? You aren’t saying anything.

God / cheese sandwich - different things.

Is either real by your definition? It has nothing to do with the point, which is:

God / cheese sandwich - different things.

 

[Tomef]

See above.

Answer me this -

Barring some sort of food intolerance, can you eat a cheese sandwich?


Nb. to avoid endless pointless tangents, whether or not the sandwich is objectively real is irrelevant at this point. I’m going on the assumption that you, Mikkel the Dane, undergo some kind of nutritional intake on a regular basis. Is that the case?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I didn’t. Just read the posts again.

So you think there is a world but that is not given and you think that in that world are fictional texts, but that is not a given. But it is all about how you think regardless if there is a real world or not? Is that it? Is that your claim?

 

[Tomef]

So you think there is a world but that is not given and you think that in that world are fictional texts, but that is not a given. But it is all about how you think regardless if there is a real world or not? Is that it? Is that your claim?

My claim is that a cheese sandwich and god are different things. That is consistent with everything I experience. It is consistent with the fact that we are having this conversation. Whether or not cheese sandwiches or gods are ‘objectively real’ by your definition has nothing to do with the reality that when you write god you mean one thing and when you write cheese sandwich you mean something else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My claim is that a cheese sandwich and god are different things. That is consistent with everything I experience. It is consistent with the fact that we are having this conversation. Whether or not cheese sandwiches or gods are ‘objectively real’ by your definition has nothing to do with the reality that when you write god you mean one thing and when you write cheese sandwich you mean something else.

So we are doing real! Okay, that is all. I understand your position now and will leave it here for now.

 

[Tomef]

So we are doing real! Okay, that is all. I understand your position now and will leave it here for now.

Not so fast! You started this conversation, you need to answer some questions.

1) can you eat a cheese sandwich?

If you don’t like that, answer this instead:

Here is one thing, some words you wrote:

So we are doing real!

Here is another thing:

Parsnipparsnipparsnipparsnip

Those are two things; in what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not so fast! You started this conversation, you need to answer some questions.

1) can you eat a cheese sandwich?

If you don’t like that, answer this instead:

Here is one thing, some words you wrote:

So we are doing real!

Here is another thing:

Parsnipparsnipparsnipparsnip

Those are two things; in what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different?

Okay. I believe in and have faith in that the universe is real, fair, orderly, knowable and natural.
So yes, there is a difference to me in my understanding between "cheese sandwish" and "god". I believe in one of them and not the other.

 

[Tomef]

Okay. I believe in and have faith in that the universe is real, fair, orderly, knowable and natural.
So yes, there is a difference to me in my understanding between "cheese sandwish" and "god". I believe in one of them and not the other.

What is the difference between god and a cheese sandwich?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the difference between god and a cheese sandwich?

That the former is in my understanding supernatural and thus to my fictional and the other is natural and real. Now, not that I can show evidence for any of that. It is just my belief and faith.

 

[PureX]

Seems to me that if we could start right off accepting that none of us can know if God exists or not, or how, or what kind of God we're talking about, and that what we ARE talking about is an IDEA of God that we are choosing to hold in our minds, then we could avoid a whole lot of needless and pointless argument and contention.

We could also eliminate atheism from the discussion, for the most part, because most self-proclaimed atheists are not atheists at all when pressed, but are in fact just rejecting everyone else's idea of God. They have developed none of their own and they don't intend to. So they have nothing but their blanket negation to contribute to the conversation.

Whatever discussion takes place, then, would require each participant to describe the God-idea they hold to in their mind, and why they do so, before they could then discuss, debate, share, etc., their respective positions and the valued active results.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems to me that if we could start right off accepting that none of us can know if God exists or not, or how, or what kind of God we're talking about, and that what we ARE talking about is an IDEA of God that we are choosing to hold in our minds, then we could avoid a whole lot of needless and pointless argument and contention.

We could also eliminate atheism from the discussion, for the most part, because most self-proclaimed atheists are not atheists at all when pressed, but are in fact just rejecting everyone else's idea of God. They have developed none of their own and they don't intend to. So they have nothing but their blanket negation to contribute to the conversation.

Whatever discussion takes place, then, would require each participant to describe the God-idea they hold to in their mind, and why they do so, before they could then discuss, debate, share, etc., their respective positions and the valued active results.

God is to me the universe as real, fair, orderly, knowable and natural. But that is my belief and faith.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Absolutely irrelevant to the topic. I find it hard to understand why a lot of people try to deflect with "my side is not like that" kind of statements without address what's simply said in the OP. That's the definition of tribalism.

If you don't make that argument misunderstanding what a positive claim is and falling into a burden of proof fallacy, leave it. Don't speak for every Atheist out there. That's bad argumentation and it's a hefty tribalistic attitude.

TC