Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are having a conversation- that is a fact. It doesn’t matter if this involves actual real phones, physical brains, or whatever. We’re having a conversation regardless of how it is occurring.

No, not if we are in different Boltzmann Brain universes. Then there is no conversation.

 

[Tomef]

No, not if we are in different Boltzmann Brain universes. Then there is no conversation.

There’s still a conversation, just not between actual separate people. However you dice it, the conversation exists, whether within one brain or more. Again, that makes no difference to how it is experienced, nor does it mean that a conversation is a kipper, a boot is a defensible fortification, or a cheese sandwich is a fictional character. However you quantify the experience of a thing, it changes nothing with regard to any difference it has to other things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There’s still a conversation, just not between actual separate people. However you dice it, the conversation exists, whether within one brain or more. Again, that makes no difference to how it is experienced, nor does it mean that a conversation is a kipper, a boot is a defensible fortification, or a cheese sandwich is a fictional character. However you quantify the experience of a thing, it changes nothing with regard to any difference it has to other things.

Then this is not a fact:

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.

Make up your mind.

 

[Tomef]

Then this is not a fact:


Make up your mind.

Just read it:

That is consistent with everything I experience. It is consistent with the fact that we are having this conversation.

I experience us having the conversation. This ‘is it objectively real’ thing is your bag, you insist on bulldozing it into every conversation. It makes no difference at all. Whether you are a figment of my imagination or anything else, we, as I imagine you or you as a real person, are having a conversation. You also know this is a fact. You demonstrate that by (whether you are imaginary or not) answering some questions and avoiding others. Fictional characters don’t do that, hence - even if imagined - you are imagined as a real person, not a fictional character.

 

[Tomef]

Then this is not a fact:


Make up your mind.

Either you really don’t understand or you are being disingenuous. To get to the heart of it, explain why you know these are different:

1) Fish swim in the sea.

2) haiornrbakallalalalal

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just read it:

That is consistent with everything I experience. It is consistent with the fact that we are having this conversation.

I experience us having the conversation. This ‘is it objectively real’ thing is your bag, you insist on bulldozing it into every conversation. It makes no difference at all. Whether you are a figment of my imagination or anything else, we, as I imagine you or you as a real person, are having a conversation. You also know this is a fact. You demonstrate that by (whether you are imaginary or not) answering some questions and avoiding others. Fictional characters don’t do that, hence - even if imagined - you are imagined as a real person, not a fictional character.

But that is not the same as fact and we. That we is not just your experince and a fact is more than an experience. Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
See known. An experience is not a fact. You do know the difference between the 2, right?

 

[Tomef]

But that is not the same as fact and we. That we is not just your experince and a fact is more than an experience. Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
See known. An experience is not a fact. You do know the difference between the 2, right?

Yes, the fact we are having a conversation is part of my experience. What difference does it make if you are imagined by me or not? How would that make it any less of a fact?

It is a fact that my dog just barked. That is a fact by any metric. If that bark is part of some projection of my imagination I have no awareness of, then it’s a fact within that projection. If my conversation with you, and the sky being blue, are facts within that projection they are facts within that projection. None of your avoiding the point makes any difference to that. Whether my projection, someone else’s illusion, or anything else, this realm or whatever you want to call it is a place where facts and fictions are different things. The substance of what makes up that world - you being part of my unconscious projection, us all being part of someone else’s illusion, it is within the parameters of that realm that things are fact or fiction, not in reference to something supposedly outside of it.

 

[Tomef]

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true

In relation to what? Earlier you said you only have belief. What definition are you offering up here?

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Not sure about if it's a positive or negative claim? Is this more theist jargon to confuse me. Doesn't take much but....

Isn't it about the definition of what what god is.

When an atheist says 'God does not exist' its the same as you saying 'Unicorns do not exist'. However you need to consider what type of unicorn are you talking about? Toy unicorn for example.

'God does not exist' is the same. What type of god are you talking about? The one in your brain for example.

 

[firedragon]

Not sure about if it's a positive or negative claim?

Absolutely sure it's a positive claim.

Is this more theist jargon to confuse me.

Not at all. It's a very well known philosophical term as described in the OP.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant rhetoric so of course I will not respond to them.

 

[Sargonski]

Nothing wrong with orange.

My apologies .. perhaps its the TDS flaring up ! ha ha .. just kidding .. there is nothing true about Biden Blue ! Go carrot top !

and while perhaps not my definition .. I heard rumor some worship him like a God !

 

[Madsaac]

The rest of your post is just irrelevant rhetoric so of course I will not respond to them.

No, it makes perfect sense, maybe too much sense for you?

It may be simple but it's correct

 

[firedragon]

No, it makes perfect sense, maybe too much sense for you?

It may be simple but it's correct

Great.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In relation to what? Earlier you said you only have belief. What definition are you offering up here?

No, I am using the standard defintion. Using Google now to check standard defintions.
Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. True: in accordance with fact or reality. Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So if we are having a conversation we both exist and are not figments of one of our imaginations or what not.
Now for:
1: The dog is barking
2: Dghlopstnvmsa
The first one has referents what can happen in actual relatity and be known as true. That is the point with your argument. A cheese sandwish is a fact, gods are not.
That is how you use fictional, it is not actually happening and only is imagined.

 

[Madsaac]

Great.

No need to be rude, my friend

It seems like you have just had another fail, trying to convince people that god exists. Try and be a little more creative next time.

 

[Tomef]

The first one has referents what can happen in actual relatity and be known as true.

You’re not getting it. What is the difference between 1 & 2 and how do you know? What makes 1 different to 2?

 

[Tomef]

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. True: in accordance with fact or reality. Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

In relation to what?

 

[McBell]

Isn't it about the definition of what what god is.

It is for theists.

I have not been convinced that a deity exists.
Some theists, in their desperation, declare that the above means I believe that gods do not exist.

Which is simply not true.
The existence of god is NOT the false dichotomy so many theists want it to be.
I do not believe that god exists.
I also do not believe that god does not exist.
I hold no opinion either way.
Why, because I have not seen anything that convinces me either way.

I will admit that I lean towards the idea of no deity.
Of course, I hold the exact same opinion concerning a large number of other proposed entities.
Any of which when even mentioned really annoy theists because they dislike the idea of their gods being compared to them.

 

[Tomef]

So if we are having a conversation we both exist and are not figments of one of our imaginations or what not.

What is the difference between us existing as natural, physical beings or experiencing exactly the same things as some other sort of being (digital, whatever else)? Try to stop relying on dogma and think about it before responding.

 

[Tomef]

No, I am using the standard defintion. Using Google now to check standard defintions.
Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. True: in accordance with fact or reality. Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So if we are having a conversation we both exist and are not figments of one of our imaginations or what not.
Now for:
1: The dog is barking
2: Dghlopstnvmsa
The first one has referents what can happen in actual relatity and be known as true. That is the point with your argument. A cheese sandwish is a fact, gods are not.
That is how you use fictional, it is not actually happening and only is imagined.

You haven’t thought any of this through. You understand something about what someone else has to say about related issues, you yourself however have not thought about what any of that means. That’s the fundamental issue that leads to your recursion to citing this or that thing rather than engaging in the conversations you blunder into with your particular agenda.