Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Madsaac]

Absolutely. Physics needs a metaphysics, if it is to tell the story of the universe. And of course, any narrative we construct to help us understand the world, is a tool of us, the observer.

Yeah this is true but science has never said it can prover everything, however it can prove plenty.

Whereas, theist can prove nothing

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is there some point you wish to present or are you merely padding your post count?

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

Please click on your own link and tell me where it takes you?

 

[PureX]

No wonder they get challenged so often by people with reasoning skill,

"They"??? You fight constantly with anyone that dares to contradict your own unquestioned beliefs! Post after past after post, you can NEVER be wrong. And anyone that dates to suggest that you might be wrong must be ommediately 'vanquished' by any argument you can manage to muster. You're a bigger 'believer' than most of the folks, here, including theists.

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

I don't form beliefs. I think they are almost entirely ego-driven delusions that people use to deny the fact that they could always be wrong about everything.

But you have already admitted that your ideal of belief is not logical or rational, but wishful thinking.

This is complete make-believe on your part in yet another desperate attempt at vanquishing ANY opposition to your own beliefs.

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.

What you perceive as hostility is just my posing the logical criticism of you sacred belief in your own righteousness.

Try an interesting experiment sometime. Try posing a full, logical, and honest critique of your own beliefs. I bet you can't do it. Because you have NEVER once even considered that you coud be wrong.

 

[PureX]

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

No, it's a fool that thinks they have to engage in your 'kangaroo court' nonsense.

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

Of course you do. Demanding proof from others that you logically cannot be given is how you justify thinking your position is superior. When in fact it's quite idiotic. And everyone sees this but you.

Why do believers make claims they can't defend?

No defense is required. Your 'kangaroo court' is just a figment of your imagination. They are free to offer you their logical justifications for their beliefs, or not. And your assessments are irrelevant either way to anyone but you and your ego.

They are mortals, yes? Are they special with special abilities they don't seem aware of, nor can explain?

If this were so, there would be no way for the rest of us to know.

That's how they behave. Or just indoctrinated in ideas they never questioned?

This "they" you're referring to is just your own biased make-believe "enemy". A dead give-away that you hove become completely lost to the foolishness of your own imaginary righteousness.

 

[PureX]

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...

Only the idiot thinks it's a "win" at all, or that there was ever any "fruit" there to be had.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are none. And tell me. What is the most fundamental axiom in the scientific approach?

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, what is your evidence for that? And what is evidence as you understand it? And what is your evidence, that your evidence has evidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, what is your evidence for that? And what is evidence as you understand it? And what is your evidence, that your evidence has evidence?

There is no evidence so it's dismissable. Pretty straightforward without any need for mental gymnastics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no evidence so it's dismissable. Pretty straightforward without any need for mental gymnastics.

So your claim/norm can be dismissed as there is no evidence for it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So your claim/norm can be dismissed as there is no evidence for it.

It's no claim. It's a matter of fact statement.

Like I said, there's no point in using mental gymnastics if there's no evidence , there's no evidence. That's not a claim. That's just pointing out the obvious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's no claim. It's a matter of fact statement.

Like I said, there's no point in using mental gymnastics if there's no evidence , there's no evidence. That's not a claim. That's just pointing out the obvious.

Yes the words "can be dismissed" are of the same physical scientific status as say the theory of gravity.

 

[McBell]

Please click on your own link and tell me where it takes you?

Takes me to the well defined definition of the term that I stated existed.

No clue what you are going on about.

 

[McBell]

Only the idiot thinks it's a "win" at all, or that there was ever any "fruit" there to be had.

Doubling down on your blatant denial.

Not surprised.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Takes me to the well defined definition of the term that I stated existed.

No clue what you are going on about.

What page are you taken to, when you click on your link?

Just post the URL so it is not turned into a link.

en wikipedia org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

 

[McBell]

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And it matters not the least little bit what is presented...

 

[McBell]

What page are you taken to, when you click on your link?

Just post the URL so it is not turned into a link.

en wikipedia org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

ht tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Does it take you to a different page?
If not, I fail to see what you are going on about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And it matters not the least little bit what is presented...

Evidence for what matters as it matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ht tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Does it take you to a different page?
If not, I fail to see what you are going on about.

It is about US law.
The link you should have given could have been this:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McBell]

Evidence for what matters as it matters.

Just a heads up, until you start making some sense, I am not going to be replying.

I mean, it gets old when the vast majority of responses to you is nothing more than repeating "WTF are you talking about?" with no relief in sight.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just a heads up, until you start making some sense, I am not going to be replying.

I mean, it gets old when the vast majority of responses to you is nothing more than repeating "WTF are you talking about?" with no relief in sight.

Well, you are apparently not that good at philosophy, since you would have know that we are doing the is-ought problem in effect.
Not that there is something, but how it matters. The latter is not a fact of what is.