Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

A negative claim is a negative claim.
Unless you want to try multiplying it with another negative claim.

I have no interest in doing that simply because it is mixing math with (Le Gasp!) philosophy.

Well, that is in effect non-X is non-X and thus a postive as true, but that doesn't tell us the relationship of negative claims to reality as such

As for what you have no interest in doing, that is the point. It is your standard and I have a different one.

 

[Valjean]

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

Nevertheless, most people do identify themselves as agnostic because of this when they understand it could lead to a fallacy of burden of proof.

Most atheists make no claim that God does not exist. They may personally believe it, but they don't have the evidence to assert it.
Those hard atheists who do make the claim, clearly have assumed a burden.

 

[McBell]

Well, that is in effect non-X is non-X and thus a postive as true, but that doesn't tell us the relationship of negative claims to reality as such

As for what you have no interest in doing, that is the point. It is your standard and I have a different one.

IMO, it all boils down to the fact that burden of proof is on the one making a claim.
It does not matter in the slightest bit if said claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.

I honestly see absolutely no reason to make it any more complicated than that.

Interestingly enough, IMO, the OP is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a mole hill with the whole "this particular negative claim is really a positive claim" nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most atheists make no claim that God does not exist. They may personally believe it, but they don't have the evidence to assert it.
Those hard atheists who do make the claim, clearly have assumed a burden.

Well, as an aside, any non-religious person who in effect claims the universe(everything) is natural, phyiscal, material or any variant to that effect, are in effect saying that there are no supernatural gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO, it all boils down to the fact that burden of proof is on the one making a claim.
It does not matter in the slightest bit if said claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.

I honestly see absolutely no reason to make it any more complicated than that.

Well, I understand it differently, but that is the point. There is no objective universal standard for the burden of proof. It depends on what a given person believes that the burden of proof is.

 

[firedragon]

Most atheists make no claim that God does not exist.

Since I didn't say "most atheists" this is a strawman.

Those hard atheists who do make the claim, clearly have assumed a burden.

You seem to be affirming the OP.

 

[IsraelMoses]

From the enormous amount of data and people that believe, the evidence cannot be so easily dismissed, but there is such a fight to discredit. Why ? There are deeper things going on inside the psyche that don't want to acknowledge the existence, because of a realization that it might curb freedom, when it is just the opposite, when the supernatural, the spiritual comes into a person's life. There is much proof, just have to research, take the step. Ronald Wyatt did and what God allowed him to find will be revealed, concerning the Ark of the Covenant, buried underneath the spot where Jesus was crucified. The adopted Israelites that allowed him to dig, found out later, when they got anxious and wanted to move it, see it or what, sent 6 adopted Levites into the area and they all ended up with both eyes crossed, from double strokes ? They died, were slain. Ronald had to be called back from the US to assist dragging them out. The adopted Israelites realized, what Ronald had told them, that God will not allow the Ark to be brought out for public view, until the day that the Pope decides to help, assist with declaring that Sunday is the lawful, Holy Day of which it is not. The Holy Day is on the 7th Day of the week, far right of the calendar. Blood was found by Ronald on the way down and deemed not worth examining by the lab, but were given a particular way of processing, by the 4 plain clothed Angels who were present guarding the Ark. The lab returned the results and asked, whose blood is this, it's alive. Ronald replied to them, It's your Saviour's blood. 23X chromosomes female, and 1Y for the Male. There are others that have been killed because of revealing info about the Ark. The Truth will turn upside down many lives. Proof ? I have all kinds of proof. He speaks, has been speaking for 28 years. I have heard. I have seen all the proof, that I need. He waits for others, with love that surpasses all understanding. His, is a personal relationship. Take the time to focus, meditate and humble yourselves in His Son Jesus' name and you can hear the voice, too.

 

[Valjean]

Since I didn't say "most atheists" this is a strawman.


You seem to be affirming the OP.

Of course!
Anyone making a positive (actual, real) claim assumes the logical burden of defending it or conceding to the logical, default conclusion that the claim is unfounded. It doesn't matter if the claim is that God exists or He doesn't.

If anyone makes any claim about anything, she assumes the burden.
If a claim cannot be defended, it is declared unfounded and dismissed, pending further evidence or defense.

Thus, soft or agnostic atheists have no burden of proof, since they're making no claim, save the fact that they're unconvinced of the proposition's truth.

 

[firedragon]

Of course!
Anyone making a positive (actual, real) claim assumes the logical burden of defending it or conceding to the logical, default conclusion that the claim is unfounded. It doesn't matter if the claim is that God exists or He doesn't.

If anyone makes any claim about anything, she assumes the burden.
If a claim cannot be defended, it is declared unfounded and dismissed, pending further evidence or defense.

Thus, soft or agnostic atheists have no burden of proof, since they're making no claim, save the fact that they're unconvinced of the proposition's truth.

Nice. Cheers.

 

[Madsaac]

Most atheists make no claim that God does not exist. They may personally believe it, but they don't have the evidence to assert it.
Those hard atheists who do make the claim, clearly have assumed a burden.

What about if someone defines the god they believe in.

Or say something like, 'My god made the world'

This is what believers always do, as you put it. 'Assume the burden of proof'

And atheist only then, can find evidence against this belief?

 

[PureX]

To assert that "Your God does not exist" is still a positive claim that warrants logical justification. So there is no honest scenario where atheism gets off without having to justify itself.

"I don't believe you" is not atheism. It's just skepticism.

 

[McBell]

To assert that "Your God does not exist" is still a positive claim

No, it is not.
All forms of 'god does not exist' are negative claims.
The problem is, for some reason, people think that negative claims are somehow immune to burden of proof.
They are not.

So there is no honest scenario where atheism gets off without having to justify itself.

If you make the claim "god exists" and I say, "I do not believe you".

"I don't believe you" is not atheism. It's just skepticism.

that you divorce the two is a you problem.
Not one that I am concerned with.

 

[McBell]

Well, as an aside, any non-religious person who in effect claims the universe(everything) is natural, phyiscal, material or any variant to that effect, are in effect saying that there are no supernatural gods.

Wow.
And if a theist makes the same "natural universe" claim are they also 'in effect' saying there are no supernatural gods or do they get some sort of pass?

 

[PureX]

Of course!
Anyone making a positive (actual, real) claim assumes the logical burden of defending it or conceding to the logical, default conclusion that the claim is unfounded. It doesn't matter if the claim is that God exists or He doesn't.

The logical default conclusion is not that the claim is false just because it has not been argued true by your or anyone else's criteria. "False" is not the only possible, or even the probable alternative to "true".

If anyone makes any claim about anything, she assumes the burden.

They assume only the responsibility to share their logical justifications for asserting their proposed claim. They assume no burden whatever to convince you or anyone else that their claim it truth.

If a claim cannot be defended, it is declared unfounded and dismissed, pending further evidence or defense.

Again, this is a totally dishonest and illogical "default" conclusion.

Thus, soft or agnostic atheists have no burden of proof, since they're making no claim, save the fact that they're unconvinced of the proposition's truth.

The claim someone else's claim is false, IS A CLAIM, and therefor assumes the same responsibility to present logical justification as any other truth claim does. By the way, an agnostic will not claim anyone else's god claims are false because they will already have concede pd to their inability to make that determination.

Like nearly all the atheists on here, you are responding to this whole based issue on your very biased and wrong presumption that it is the theists responsibility to convince you, and that when they fail to do that, that you can then claim the victory of your atheist over them, by some idiotic notion that atheism is the logical default to tegus my. This is totally false, and dishonest, and illogical, of course, but it will not stop any of the atheists on here from continuing to engage in this intellectually dishonest and childish presumption.

 

[PureX]

No, it is not.
All forms of 'god does not exist' are negative claims.
The problem is, for some reason, people think that negative claims are somehow immune to burden of proof.
They are not.

So, you just completely proved my point immediately after claiming that it's wrong.

If you make the claim "god exists" and I say, "I do not believe you".

No one cares what you don't believe. It has nothing to do with anything that's being discussed.

that you divorce the two is a you problem.
Not one that I am concerned with.

You can't seem to understand that you are not the decider what is the truth or untruth of anything.

 

[McBell]

The logical default conclusion is not that the claim is false just because it has not been argued true by your or anyone else's criteria. "False" is not the only possible, or even the probable alternative to "true".

Strawman.
Unless of course you can show where @Valjean actually said anything about false?

Again, this is a totally dishonest and illogical "default" conclusion.

Your inability/unwillingness to meet burden of proof does not make it dishonest or illogical.
It simply makes burden of proof unmet.

The claim someone else's claim is false, IS A CLAIM, and therefor assumes the same responsibility to present logical justification as any other truth claim does. By the way, an agnostic will not claim anyone else's god claims are false because they will already have concede pd to their inability to make that determination.

Make up you mind.
Or is that you think your claims are burden free but the claims that counter your claims are not burden free?

Like nearly all the atheists on here, you are responding to this whole based issue on your very biased and wrong presumption that it is the theists responsibility to convince you,

The one making the claim has burden of proof.
Even if it is inconvenient for you.

and that when they fail to do that, that you can then claim the victory of your atheist over them, by some idiotic notion that atheism is the logical default to tegus my.

It appears you are having problems with keeping your inner demons separated.

We all know you dislike having the burden of proof because you have real difficulty meeting it.
But your 'default position' is actually a separate demon from burden of proof.

This is totally false, and dishonest, and illogical, of course, but it will not stop any of the atheists on here from continuing to engage in this intellectually dishonest and childish presumption.

Yes, it is obviously a really large tender sore spot for you.
Your repeated emotional rants on the matter make that perfectly clear.

But until you support your rant ("This is totally false, and dishonest, and illogical, of course, but it will not stop any of the atheists on here from continuing to engage in this intellectually dishonest and childish presumption."), and that is a mighty long list of bold empty claims, they can simply be dismissed for the bold empty claims they are.

 

[McBell]

So, you just completely proved my point immediately after claiming that it's wrong.

That you honestly believe this is a big part of your problem.

No one cares what you don't believe. It has nothing to do with anything that's being discussed.

You sure do have an awful lot to say about something you claim to not care about.
Who are you trying to convince?
Me, or yourself?

You can't seem to understand that you are not the decider what is the truth or untruth of anything.

Seems you can not understand that you are not the decider of what is and what is not truth of anything.

Perhaps you want to take your own advice?
Or perhaps at the very least not be guilty of that you whine about others?

 

[Valjean]

What about if someone defines the god they believe in.

Or say something like, 'My god made the world'

This is what believers always do, as you put it. 'Assume the burden of proof'

And atheist only then, can find evidence against this belief?

Atheists don't need to. The belief topples all on its own if the believer can't meet his burden.
In fact, there is already an assumption of non-existence, even before any claim is made.

"Only then?" Things without evidence of existence are assumed not to exist until evidence is produced. This assumption preëxists the claim.

The evidence for God, pixies, unicorns and spider-men of Rigel II is precisely equal. Do you accord each equal credence?
If not, why not? Aren't they equally evidenced?

 

[PureX]

That you honestly believe this is a big part of your problem.

That you can't see it is astonishing,

You sure do have an awful lot to say about something you claim to not care about.
Who are you trying to convince?
Me, or yourself?

I'm just pointing out that philosophical debate has nothing to do with your belief or unbelief, or what you are convinced of or not convinced of. Because none of these things have anything whatever to do with what can be shown by a course of logic to be true or not true.

Seems you can not understand that you are not the decider of what is and what is not truth of anything.

Perhaps you want to take your own advice?
Or perhaps at the very least not be guilty of that you whine about others?

My own advice would be to stop arguing with idiots that can't understand anything their being told. So I think I will take my own advice, here, and leave you to your foolishness.

 

[Valjean]

To assert that "Your God does not exist" is still a positive claim that warrants logical justification. So there is no honest scenario where atheism gets off without having to justify itself.

"I don't believe you" is not atheism. It's just skepticism.

But atheism makes no such assertion. The definitive atheist position is deferred belief, pending evidence. "I don't believe you" is atheism. Atheism is a skeptical position. This is our "honest belief."

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

If you're going to redefine terms you're building a straw man.