Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[LuisDantas]

That is the problem.

"God" is just too malleable an idea, and by design it is usually treated as if it had a clear meaning instead.

Igtheism/Ignosticism acknowledges the problem, but far too few people know of it.

Mainly because most of the time that "god" is invoked as an idea the point is to treat it as some sort of well-defined entity, or at least a well-defined idea. When it is anything but.

In practice, for theists perhaps much more than for atheists, we define gods by what they are not.

 

[Watchmen]

How about, “There is no reasonable evidence to support that god exists.”

 

[firedragon]

How about, “There is no reasonable evidence to support that god exists.”

Yep. That's also a positive claim.

 

[firedragon]

How about, “There is no reasonable evidence to support that god exists.”

Mind you. This is a positive claim, but due to it's lack of claim of an existential question, but it's only making a claim that "there is no reasonable evidence", some argue it's a negative claim. Yet, it is indeed claim "there is no reasonable evidence" which is a positive claim hidden within the lack of a hard statement seen as questioning the epistemic grounds for belief.. That makes it look like a negative claim.

 

[1137]

Mind you. This is a positive claim, but due to it's lack of claim of an existential question, but it's only making a claim that "there is no reasonable evidence", some argue it's a negative claim. Yet, it is indeed claim "there is no reasonable evidence" which is a positive claim hidden within the lack of a hard statement seen as questioning the epistemic grounds for belief.. That makes it look like a negative claim.

Correct. In this case one must then define what is reasonable and show why what's been presented does not fit.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

Metaphysics doesn't present a limitation to science, it provides a limitation to people. Nobody can engage with metaphysics scientifically but anyone can engage with metaphysics philosophically and logically. That means that people who challenge metaphysical claims have at least as much credence as people who propose them.

Well, tell Dawkins to provide a lab testing method to test a metaphysical being.

That depends how that being has been proposed. If it is proposed as having influence and interaction on the physical world, those claimed interactions can be studied scientifically. If it isn't proposed as having any kind of influence on the physical world, I don't really see the basis or point in proposing it in the first place.

 

[firedragon]

Correct. In this case one must then define what is reasonable and show why what's been presented does not fit.

True true. But this statement of yours falls under epistemic responsibility. Not necessarily on the claim itself. But you nailed it. It's because of the responsibility put upon a person the statement becomes a positive claim. You know what? I have never worded it that way the way you did prior to this. Thank you very much.

 

[firedragon]

Metaphysics doesn't present a limitation to science

Right. So please do show me a lab test developed to test for a metaphysical being. (By the way, I did not make a general statement on "metaphysics. It was specific to a "metaphysical being").

 

[firedragon]

That depends how that being has been proposed. If it is proposed as having influence and interaction on the physical world, those claimed interactions can be studied scientifically. If it isn't proposed as having any kind of influence on the physical world, I don't really see the basis or point in proposing it in the first place.

No. Any kind of interaction will be deemed physical and science will look for natural processes.

You are making a category error.

 

[HonestJoe]

No. Any kind of interaction will be deemed physical and science will look for natural processes.

Any interaction will be physical. The metaphysical is defined as beyond human senses (which is why it can't be addressed scientifically) but if it has effect that people can see, hear or feel, those effects must be physical. And if a metaphysical being existed and could interact with the natural world, it would be natural (or at least have natural elements) by definition.

The bottom line remains the same; any limitation you apply to others when considering such questions apply equally to you as well.

 

[firedragon]

Any interaction will be physical. The metaphysical is defined as beyond human senses (which is why it can't be addressed scientifically) but if it has effect that people can see, hear or feel, those effects must be physical. And if a metaphysical being existed and could interact with the natural world, it would be natural (or at least have natural elements) by definition.

The bottom line remains the same; any limitation you apply to others when considering such questions apply equally to you as well.

If anyone can see anything, or feel it, that's physical. So science will look for natural processes.

You are making a category error.

 

[danieldemol]

I would simply say there is no reliable evidence for your (@firedragon) God that I know of.

That maybe a positive claim, but I think it's not that hard to support simply by addressing any proposed "evidence" as you raise it.

 

[firedragon]

I would simply say there is no reliable evidence for your (@firedragon) God that I know of.

That maybe a positive claim, but I think it's not that hard to support simply by addressing any proposed "evidence" as you raise it.

Not the topic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you present some sort of non-arbitrary definition of god, then, @firedragon ?

 

[firedragon]

Can you present some sort of non-arbitrary definition of god, then, @firedragon ?

The OP is good enough Luis. You should be working within the context. If you wish to start another thread on some other definition of God, I would not mind participating.

 

[Watchmen]

Correct. In this case one must then define what is reasonable and show why what's been presented does not fit.

And once you go through that exercise, it becomes evident god does not exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

The OP is good enough Luis. You should be working within the context. If you wish to start another thread on some other definition of God, I would not mind participating.

Oh, I see.

Here is hoping that you learn better.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, I see.

Here is hoping that you learn better.

Thanks for the wishes. Appreciated.

 

[HonestJoe]

If anyone can see anything, or feel it, that's physical. So science will look for natural processes.

What is the alternative? Anything physical is a natural process by definition.

Also, yet again, science doesn't do anything, it is just an abstract concept. People look for causes and science is a set of tools that can be used to do so.

You are making a category error.

That is a positive claim you've failed to support. You're the one proposing a metaphysical being that is capable of interacting with the physical world.

 

[Quintessence]

And once you go through that exercise, it becomes evident god does not exist.

No, it doesn't. And that's setting aside that something like "reasonable" is a superfluous and unnecessary value judgement when assessing this question.