Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

It’s a nonsensical term that only serves to mislead everyone that is foolish enough to take it seriously. And the only reason we can’t get rid of it is that we humans just love to play the “Kangaroo Judge” over everyone else’s ideas of truth and reality.

Well you could insult terms your way out of logical fallacies. That will not change facts. Why not just search for these fallacies on the internet and read up? That's a better approach than just insult everything and handwave them away.

Anyway, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

"God does not exist" is a positive assertion and a negation of the positive assertion that a god or gods do exist.

Oh good God. Just look at the statements these people make.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh good God. Just look at the statements these people make.

I guess you had nothing substantive to say, so you wrote that rude, dismissive, condescending comment instead.

What's funny here is that in the post directly above that reply, you wrote to another poster, "Well you could insult terms your way out of logical fallacies. That will not change facts. Why not just search for these fallacies on the internet and read up? That's a better approach than just insult everything and handwave them away."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But what if they are not causally disconnect from nature? Something that is supernatural could in principle still have causal power over the natural.

What makes such a thing supernatural to you rather than another aspect of nature? Why would you add the prefix super- to the word natural to describe it? Whatever can affect nature is a part of nature and can be affected by it and be detected.

Fair enough, though in that case, I classify you (and all humans for that matter) as theists. I've yet to meet anyone who is so narcissistic and arrogant to genuinely think there is nothing in the universe greater than themselves, or meet anyone who actually disbelieves in all reality and the universe and nature.

How does that make one a theist? An agnostic atheist will tell you that he hasn't excluded the possibility of gods, but also has no god belief, which is my definition of an atheist.

I am NOT an atheist any more than you are a theist.

Unless you are expecting your gods to behave like immaterial creatures that are aware of you or can be affected by prayers or incantations or other rituals, you meet my definition of an atheist. Sorry if that offends you.

What most polytheists call gods are very different from what monotheists are referring to and what I say that I don't believe in when I call myself an atheist. I have nothing analogous to say about polytheists' beliefs if they don't involve magical entities. Their gods are not something to believe or disbelieve. They're just a way of looking at nature that make few or no positive claims about reality. I'm doing the same when referring to Mother Nature, Father Time, or the man in the moon. It's poetry to me (metaphor).

 

[McBell]

So it is not a fact, that anybody has to meet a burden of proof. It is a norm and there is no objective universal standard for proof.

I never said anyone has to meet a burden of truth.
I merely pointed out the FACT that the term "burden of proof" is well defined and eve provided a link to it.

YOU decided to go off into left field all by yourself.

 

[McBell]

It’s a nonsensical term that only serves to mislead everyone that is foolish enough to take it seriously.

Yes, we all understand that you have to take this position because you can not meet your burden of proof and you hate it with all your heart and soul.
Why you think anyone is going to buy this snake oil is anyones guess.

But you do you.

And the only reason we can’t get rid of it is that we humans just love to play the “Kangaroo Judge” over everyone else’s ideas of truth and reality.

I still find it most comical that every time you start whining about kangaroos, it is you who guilty of it.

 

[McBell]

I am very clearly and deliberately NOT ignoring it. I am pointing out that it is a stupid and illogical demand that many people will not let go of because it serves their bias rather than their serving logic, or honesty.

You are trying in vain to redefine the term in an even sadder attempt at relieving yourself of it.

Problem is, no one is buying it.

 

[PureX]

If it matters to somebody that other people accept what they propose, then it matters that they are able to give reasons for it that are acceptable to said other people.

The rest of your post is just your usual obsession. Sorry, but I lost interest in that some time ago, so it doesn't matter to me.....

Demanding ‘proof’ that one cannot possibly be given is the fools way of “winning the argument”. And it happens here all the time. I’m simply pointing it out, as a service to them, and to everyone.

I’m really curious why you feel the need to object to this.

 

[PureX]

Well you could insult terms your way out of logical fallacies. That will not change facts. Why not just search for these fallacies on the internet and read up? That's a better approach than just insult everything and handwave them away.

Anyway, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

Why not just accept the correction and be grateful that someone bothered to point it out? Why does everyone here have to fight every correction no matter how logical or obvious or honest it is?

 

[danieldemol]

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

Not exactly, if there is no point to your assertion that it is a positive argument then saying so what eliminates it as pointless. It would make it akin to saying, "atheists say the grass is green which is a positive assertion", it is true but pointless and thus best answered with a "so what?"

 

[F1fan]

But that’s what ‘belief’ is … that blind presumption that what we ‘believe’ to be true IS TRUE. Not that it is maybe true, or that we might be wrong About it being true. To ‘believe’ is to believe that we are right.

No wonder they get challenged so often by people with reasoning skill, and who follow evidence to sound conclusions, which is how valid beliefs are formed.

I am very clearly and deliberately NOT ignoring it.

Given your ideal way to form beliefs there are no rules in logic that you value.

I am pointing out that it is a stupid and illogical demand that many people will not let go of because it serves their bias rather than their serving logic, or honesty.

But you jhave already admitted that your ideal of belief is not l;ogical or rational, but wishful thinking. You are hostile to logic and reasoning, and all the rules that make reasoning the best way to form valid beliefs. The bias is all yours.

 

[F1fan]

Demanding ‘proof’ that one cannot possibly be given is the fools way of “winning the argument”.

It's a fool who makes a claim that they know they can't prove.

And it happens here all the time.

It does. We see many believers make claims they can't demonstrate is true.

I’m simply pointing it out, as a service to them, and to everyone.

Why do believers make claims they can't defend? They are mortals, yes? Are they special with special abilities they don't seem aware of, nor can explain? That's how they behave. Or just indoctrinated in ideas they never questioned?

I’m really curious why you feel the need to object to this.

Reasoning is like skill at playing chess, and debate is the practice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we all understand that you have to take this position because you can not meet your burden of proof and you hate it with all your heart and soul.
Why you think anyone is going to buy this snake oil is anyones guess.

But you do you.


I still find it most comical that every time you start whining about kangaroos, it is you who guilty of it.

Well, if you think you can meet the burden of proof as to objective reality in itself, you would be the first human in recorded history to do so.

 

[McBell]

Demanding ‘proof’ that one cannot possibly be given is the fools way of “winning the argument”.

I agree it is a shallow win.
Low hanging fruit even.
Of course, being a shallow wind and low hanging fruit does not make it false or wrong...

And it happens here all the time.

Then stop setting yourself up for the obvious failure..?

I’m simply pointing it out,

No.
No you are not "simply pointing it out".
You are flat out trying to redefine it out of existence.
When you got called out on it you started chasing your kangaroos.
You got called out on the kangaroo chasing.
Now you are simply attempting damage control.

as a service to them, and to everyone.

Your sad attempts at relieving yourself of the burden of proof is completely self serving.

I’m really curious why you feel the need to object to this.

It is dishonest.
No other reason needed.

 

[McBell]

Why not just accept the correction and be grateful that someone bothered to point it out? Why does everyone here have to fight every correction no matter how logical or obvious or honest it is?

Interesting how you are now trying to play off your blatant dishonesty with even more blatant dishonesty.
"corrections"
What a load of **** ... er ... crap.

 

[McBell]

Well, if you think you can meet the burden of proof as to objective reality in itself, you would be the first human in recorded history to do so.

Unfortunately for you, the term "burden of proof" is a well defined term that you are trying in vain to ignore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree it is a shallow win.
Low hanging fruit even.
Of course, being a shallow wind and low hanging fruit does not make it false or wrong...


Then stop setting yourself up for the obvious failure..?


No.
No you are not "simply pointing it out".
You are flat out trying to redefine it out of existence.
When you got called out on it you started chasing your kangaroos.
You got called out on the kangaroo chasing.
Now you are simply attempting damage control.


Your sad attempts at relieving yourself of the burden of proof is completely self serving.


It is dishonest.
No other reason needed.

Yeah, if you have in effect a belief system that works for you, good for you. If you can meet the burden of proof in the strong sense of in effect valid and true, then unpack how you do it. Otherwise you are like the rest of us and can't do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately for you, the term "burden of proof" is a well defined term that you are trying in vain to ignore.

Yeah, is this about law?

"Burden of proof (law) ..."

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IsraelMoses]

Can the people with, it appears, all knowledge and all wisdom of the ages, are they able to prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, does not exist ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can the people with, it appears, all knowledge and all wisdom of the ages, are they able to prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, does not exist ?

No. Nor can they prove that this God exists.