Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Tomef]

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

So, you are claiming this as a fact? A fact in relation to what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

I am not going to post any further for now. That is not a fact as it is all in your imagination as you are not actually reading this.
Mayby you will imagine run into me again at at later point. That will not be real.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Yes that makes sense.

Although, once a theist gives their god some parameters, it makes it clearer if this god does indeed exist....or even should exist

You said you hold no opinion either way, however, do you think a god that controls the weather or smites people, compared to a god that makes someone feel better inside, is easier to dismiss?

 

[McBell]

Although, once a theist gives their god some parameters, it makes it clearer if this god does indeed exist....or even should exist

Agreed.

You said you hold no opinion either way, however, do you think a god that controls the weather or smites people, compared to a god that makes someone feel better inside, is easier to dismiss?

Depends entirely upon how said deity is presented.
Not all presentations are equal.

But for the most part, a deity that is supposed to directly interact with reality is one that is typically easier to dismiss for complete lack of convincing evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed.


Depends entirely upon how said deity is presented.
Not all presentations are equal.

But for the most part, a deity that is supposed to directly interact with reality is one that is typically easier to dismiss for complete lack of convincing evidence.

Well, since the OP is about in effect metaphysics, ontology and epistemology then we are all on the hook for positive claims and not just the theists.

E.g. your use of reality is in a standard understanding a postive claim of what is in effect real.

 

[firedragon]

trying to convince people that god exists.

Sterawman.

 

[O'Darby]

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.

Most atheists are reasonably careful not to state that God does not exist. Just as a believer can, at most, have a conviction that God exists, an atheist can, at most, have a conviction God doesn't exist. In my considerable experience, most atheists do not even assert a conviction God doesn't exist. Instead, they play a semantic game, to wit: "I am not claiming no God exists. I am merely saying I haven't seen convincing evidence God exists. Hence, I am making no affirmative claim at all and have no burden of proof at all. The burden is on you if you wish to convince me God exists. You're the one making the affirmative claim."

Most philosophers agree that so-called hard atheism - "There is no God" - is required for meaningful philosophical discussion, but soft atheism is now the norm.

There is no burden of proof. Since the existence of a deity is a metaphysical question, proof is impossible. There is only a burden of persuasion. Each person decides for himself or herself whether that burden has been met and what evidence and arguments are persuasive.

Certainly, "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both affirmative claims about the ultimate ontological nature of reality. But they are claims that can't be proven and thus what is being asserted is conviction rather than knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

Most atheists are reasonably careful not to state that God does not exist

I know.

The burden is on you if you wish to convince me God exists

Not in this thread.

You're the one making the affirmative claim."

Not in this thread. Many many atheists have tried this Butrend Russel's legacy but it's a fallacious statement eternally revolving around like the Atheists are trained to say this all the time.

Tell me. When did I make this claim in this thread? Now since you will not be able to find it in the OP, you will have to go to my other posts, or a what aboutrary like "so do you believe God exists" and then hope I say "Yes I do", then ask me to prove it? This is called an aunt sally or a strawman attempt. The burden of proof is on the claimant in a proposition. Not by default. The OP does not claim "since you don't believe in God you have to come out and prove it". Everyone has a right to believe. The superiority complex of thinking one's worldview is the default without research findings, then expecting every other worldview to not have a right to believe without coming out and provide evidence is a tribalistic, trained position. Especially expecting evidence based on a reverse epistemology, not owner's. This is called an epistemic injustice because you are together with all your fellow atheists who make the same statement are violating the other person's epistemic entitlement. Just that, the world around you is grooming you to think so fallaciously believing you are right because you are groomed. Many philosophers have written about this. You guys are not read up.

Most philosophers agree that so-called hard atheism - "There is no God" - is required for meaningful philosophical discussion, but soft atheism is now the norm.

Yep.

There is no burden of proof.

There is. In philosophical arguments, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, particularly if it is a positive assertion. For example, someone claiming that "unicorns exist" must provide evidence to support that claim. This is within the context of a case or a debate and the positive claim is made.

Certainly, "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both affirmative claims about the ultimate ontological nature of reality. But they are claims that can't be proven and thus what is being asserted is conviction rather than knowledge.

Yep. Both are positive claims.

Read the OP. It's about those who make the claim it's not a positive claim. I have explained it. I did not generalize it You are doing a strawman implicitly.

 

[O'Darby]

I know.


Not in this thread.


Not in this thread. Many many atheists have tried this Butrend Russel's legacy but it's a fallacious statement eternally revolving around like the Atheists are trained to say this all the time.

Tell me. When did I make this claim in this thread? Now since you will not be able to find it in the OP, you will have to go to my other posts, or a what aboutrary like "so do you believe God exists" and then hope I say "Yes I do", then ask me to prove it? This is called an aunt sally or a strawman attempt. The burden of proof is on the claimant in a proposition. Not by default. The OP does not claim "since you don't believe in God you have to come out and prove it". Everyone has a right to believe. The superiority complex of thinking one's worldview is the default without research findings, then expecting every other worldview to not have a right to believe without coming out and provide evidence is a tribalistic, trained position. Especially expecting evidence based on a reverse epistemology, not owner's. This is called an epistemic injustice because you are together with all your fellow atheists who make the same statement are violating the other person's epistemic entitlement. Just that, the world around you is grooming you to think so fallaciously believing you are right because you are groomed. Many philosophers have written about this. You guys are not read up.


Yep.


There is. In philosophical arguments, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, particularly if it is a positive assertion. For example, someone claiming that "unicorns exist" must provide evidence to support that claim. This is within the context of a case or a debate and the positive claim is made.



Yep. Both are positive claims.

Read the OP. It's about those who make the claim it's not a positive claim. I have explained it. I did not generalize it You are doing a strawman implicitly.

Oh, dear, one of those.

'Bye.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, dear, one of those.

'Bye.

Bye Bye.

 

[Alien826]

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.

I tend to think about it in terms of probability. In the end there is no such thing as 100% certainty but some things have a very very high probability or a very very low probability, and I live my life as if these things were absolutely true, and use language that way also.

That may be what you mean.

 

[danieldemol]

I believe the OP can be refuted by a simple "so what?". Some of those on the omni-monotheist side makes a positive claim they appear unable to support using sound reason and reliable evidence and a subset of the other side makes a positive claim in response which is probably going a bit too far to hold with 100% certainty, but to hold tentatively seems reasonable in my view for the same reason we tentatively don't accept the claims of anything outside our experience for which we don't have reliable evidence and/or the application of sound reason to uphold.

 

[firedragon]

I believe the OP can be refuted by a simple "so what?

That's not a refutation. That's just a "so what"/

 

[PureX]

There is no such thing as a "burden of proof". Proof is an individually subjective determination based on individual, subjective criteria. No one of us can logically be expected to concede to such a demand from any others of us, nor to be expected to meet it.

So please, let's stop with the "burden of proof" nonsense.

What is being wrongly labeled as a "burden of proof" is a responsibility to offer one's justifications for whatever truth assertion they are proposing.

But justifications are not proof. So please stop demanding proof, expecting proof, and then whining negation when you don't get it.

Now watch everyone ignore this as usual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no such thing as a "burden of proof". Proof is an individually subjective determination based on individual, subjective criteria. No one of us can logically be expected to concede to such a demand from any others of us, nor to be expected to meet it.

So please, let's stop with the "burden of proof" nonsense.

What is being wrongly labeled as a "burden of proof" is a responsibility to offer one's justifications for whatever truth assertion they are proposing.

But justifications are not proof. So please stop demanding proof, expecting proof, and then whining negation when you don't get it.

Now watch everyone ignore this as usual.

Well, yes. The problem is that the claim that there is a burden of proof is without proof.

 

[firedragon]

There is no such thing as a "burden of proof". Proof is an individually subjective determination based on individual, subjective criteria. No one of us can logically be expected to concede to such a demand from any others of us, nor to be expected to meet it.

So please, let's stop with the "burden of proof" nonsense.

What is being wrongly labeled as a "burden of proof" is a responsibility to offer one's justifications for whatever truth assertion they are proposing.

But justifications are not proof. So please stop demanding proof, expecting proof, and then whining negation when you don't get it.

Now watch everyone ignore this as usual.

A burden of proof is in philosophical argumentation. You should understand that. Not by default which is called epistemic injustice. Do you understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A burden of proof is in philosophical argumentation. You should understand that. Not by default which is called epistemic injustice. Do you understand?

But the point still stands as in effect it is not with objective authority and you can in effect have a life even if you don't meet another humans burden of proof.

 

[F1fan]

Certainly, "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both affirmative claims about the ultimate ontological nature of reality. But they are claims that can't be proven and thus what is being asserted is conviction rather than knowledge.

Well said. I notice most theists seem to believe that their belief in a God carries some significance in itself, as if they are somehow beyond reproach. They also seem to believe the prevalence of religious belief somehow verifies and validates any belief in God, and that any skeptic is missing something. What is this thing skeptics are missing? The gullibility that social pressure acts upon. No believer has made a rational conclusion that a God exists via the evidence. They end up believing due to how the humamn brain evolved, and the social influence to adopt one religious framework or another. There's a reason why religions are geographical, and tied to cultural evolution.

Many theists believe that God is a given, and that atheists have to prove this popular social idea isn't true. It's a huge error. Believers are the claimant, where's their evidence that any of the many thousands of Gods exist outside of human imagination?

 

[F1fan]

Not in this thread. Many many atheists have tried this Butrend Russel's legacy but it's a fallacious statement eternally revolving around like the Atheists are trained to say this all the time.

Who trains atheists? I'm an atheist and have never been trained. Explain your claim here. Use facts.

There is. In philosophical arguments, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, particularly if it is a psitive assertion. For example, someone claiming that "unicorns exist" must provide evidence to support that claim. This is within the context of a case or a debate and the positive claim is made.

That's the thing about the overall debate about religious ideas like gods. There were no atheists before theists existed. Atheists became a category afterwards and in response to what theists believe and claim. The whole debate about whather Gods exist is driven by the many theists who claim one God or another exists in some way. Atheists are only responding to claims, not making any sort of independent assertion or argument. Any can reject a claim of "There's a God in this box and it's knitting a sweater." We look in the box and there's nothing, certainly no sweater being knitted. We reject the who claim. We can even assert that this "sweater-knitting God" doesn't exist since the claim made a condition on the God.

Critical thinkers can reject a claim of a God existing if and when the believer offers adequate conditions of how the God exists and what it does. Many believers these days are careful to be vague, and avoid details that skeptics can use to cast doubt of the Gods fallible mortals think exist.

 

[F1fan]

There is no such thing as a "burden of proof".

Can you prove it?

No, so why make this claim when your own standard is that anyone can just disagree with you for any arbitrary reason? In essence you are asserting there's no evidence, yet this doesn't stop you from acting as if evidence does apply to you and your beliefs.

You are clearly mistaken, so perhaps you understand your assertion here is total nonsense, and you make it to remain consistent.

Proof is an individually subjective determination based on individual, subjective criteria. No one of us can logically be expected to concede to such a demand from any others of us, nor to be expected to meet it.

Tell that to scientists and courts. By your way of thinking no one can ever be convicted of a crime. You almost sound Trumpian.

So please, let's stop with the "burden of proof" nonsense.

You stop your nonsense first. Your appeal is completely self-serving since you hold beliefs that you fail time and time again to defend.

What is being wrongly labeled as a "burden of proof" is a responsibility to offer one's justifications for whatever truth assertion they are proposing.

Only if you are an irrational thinker. Justifications can mean anything, and typically means personal bias and thinking. They are an appeal to a person's own conviction, and may not align with reason and facts.

But justifications are not proof. So please stop demanding proof, expecting proof, and then whining negation when you don't get it.

Now watch everyone ignore this as usual.

So you feel like you get ignored? Could it be that you present nonsense and irrational posts?