Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[McBell]

How would I evidence "I don't believe you?" How would it figure, epistemically, in the discussion?

Got me.
Perhaps the one arguing it, @PureX , can explain it?
Good luck with that.

 

[McBell]

For some reason, all the self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" around here don't seem to understand this, at all. They seem to think they are put on Earth to "falsify" any claim any theist proposes because they are so thoroughly convinced that the theists are wrong ... even though they pretend that they are not convinced of this. Somehow their "highly critical minds" never seem to focus on their own absurd double-speak and blatant hypocrisy. And when anyone dares to point it out, they circle their wagons and fight to the death to negate any form of criticism toward themselves.

Perhaps it is the same reason you continuously misrepresent atheists and atheism?

Or the same reason you run tail tucked when called out?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps it is the same reason you continuously misrepresent atheists and atheism?

Or the same reason you run tail tucked when called out?

The problem is that all reasoning are in effect based on rules for reasoing. That includes the term evidence. But to some people you are not allowed to question the reasoning behind the term evidence.
Some non-religious people act that way for a group of words, which can't be doubted. The main ones are evidence, rational, reasoned, critical thinking and skepticism.

So I get what PureX is saying about talking the term evidence for granted and not doubting it.

 

[McBell]

The problem is that all reasoning are in effect based on rules for reasoing. That includes the term evidence. But to some people you are not allowed to question the reasoning behind the term evidence.
Some non-religious people act that way for a group of words, which can't be doubted. The main ones are evidence, rational, reasoned, critical thinking and skepticism.

So I get what PureX is saying about talking the term evidence for granted and not doubting it.

Some people dislike burden of truth simply because they suck at it.
Others dislike burden of proof because they are lazy.
Still others dislike it because they know all they have is a bold empty claim.
The list goes on and on.

what is at play here with @PureX is that they are trying to completely dismiss burden of proof.
At least for himself....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some people dislike burden of truth simply because they suck at it.
Others dislike burden of proof because they are lazy.
Still others dislike it because they know all they have is a bold empty claim.
The list goes on and on.

what is at play here with @PureX is that they are trying to completely dismiss burden of proof.
At least for himself....

No, not really. It is a form of skepticism in there is in effect no objective, universal or whatever version of proof, truth, true, evidence, valid, justified, and so on. @PureX and I differ when it comes to some variants of logic and belief, but as far as I can tell, we share that there is no objective version of burden of proof and all that.
And yes, that includes evidence.

 

[Hawkins]

Some people dislike burden of truth simply because they suck at it.
Others dislike burden of proof because they are lazy.
Still others dislike it because they know all they have is a bold empty claim.
The list goes on and on.

what is at play here with @PureX is that they are trying to completely dismiss burden of proof.
At least for himself....

It is rather a vague term because people never know what they are talking about.
History is a claim of a historican who is long dead. Only this historian has the burden of proof but not those humans reckon that it is a piece of history.

Whenever you quote from, say Confucius, no one has the burden to prove that was actually ever spoken by Confucius. Only the first historian recorded the speech has the burden of proof. This historian however is long dead, he died 3000 years ago for you to trace him to provide you with the proof.

Actually, it's from this vague term "burden of proof" you can tell how stupid and hilarious huamns are!

 

[ratiocinator]

For some reason, all the self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" around here don't seem to understand this, at all.

Can't say I'd noticed it being used incorrectly, but I don't read every post here.

They seem to think they are put on Earth to "falsify" any claim any theist proposes because they are so thoroughly convinced that the theists are wrong ... even though they pretend that they are not convinced of this.

Given that many of us have seen a lot of supposed evidence and arguments for various, and often contradictory, Gods, and they have all been obviously flawed, becoming highly sceptical that anybody has any sound reasons for their beliefs in their Gods is a fairly good bet.

That doesn't mean that it's an argument that no God exists, but if one does, nobody seems to have solid evidence or sound reasoning that leads to it.

Somehow their "highly critical minds" never seem to focus on their own absurd double-speak and blatant hypocrisy. And when anyone dares to point it out, they circle their wagons and fight to the death to negate any form of criticism toward themselves.

Does this kind of rant make you feel better...?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Given that many of us have seen a lot of supposed evidence and arguments for various, and often contradictory, Gods, and they have all been obviously flawed, becoming highly sceptical that anybody has any sound reasons for their beliefs in their Gods is a fairly good bet.

That doesn't mean that it's an argument that no God exists, but if one does, nobody seems to have solid evidence or sound reasoning that leads to it.


Does this kind of rant make you feel better...?

You called since it is about skepticism and I am as much a skeptic as you.
There is no positive evidence for gods and there is no postive evidence that the universe is natural.

Do you agree with both?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is rather a vague term because people never know what they are talking about.
History is a claim of a historican who is long dead. Only this historian has the burden of proof but not those humans reckon that it is a piece of history.

Whenever you quote from, say Confucius, no one has the burden to prove that was actually ever spoken by Confucius. Only the first historian recorded the speech has the burden of proof. This historian however is long dead, he died 3000 years ago for you to trace him to provide you with the proof.

Actually, it's from this vague term "burden of proof" you can tell how stupid and hilarious huamns are!

Interesting example you choose Confucius, like Lao Zi , Confucius may not have ever existed. Though these writings attributed to him have significant reliability as not his writing, but the writings collected from all over China, These writings are not original writings, bu, collections of writings and poetry from the different ancient Kingdoms by the members of the school that bears his name. It was dangerous at the time to compile these materials and possibly come under the wrath of the emperor. Some copies of these works were indeed destroyed. It is likely Confucius was a fictional person to deflect responsibilty for the responsibility of the ytue compilers.

I lived in China for nine years and studied Chinese and translated some of the ancient poetry. The earlier Victorian translations were terrible. Among these poems are the oldest woman's literature in the world not attributed to women in botched earlier translations, The following is an example of my translation published in the Heron Clan Journal

野有死麇 yĕ yǒu sǐ jūn: A doe is slain

A poem written likely as a protest to male violence against women.

野有死麇 , 白茅包之。yĕ yǒu sǐ jūn, bái máo bāo zhī A doe is slain, . in white grass wrapped.


有女怀春, 吉士诱之。yǒu nǚ huái chūn, jí shì yòu zhī, A maid longs for love, by the hunter tempted,

林有樕朴, 野有死鹿。lín yǒu pŭ sù, yĕ yǒu sǐ lù He hews the forest, . another doe is slain.


白茅纯束, 有女如玉。 bái máo cún shù, yǒu nǚ rú yù. A maid like jade, in white grass adorned.


舒而脱脱兮, 无感我帨兮, shū ĕr tuōtuō xī, wú yŭn wǒ shuì xī, Approach softly, the waist cloth untouched.

无使尨也吠。wú shǐ méng yè fèi. Be gentle and not aggressive.

 

[Valjean]

You used wiki. Here you go.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OK... so what's your point? This isn't being disputed/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

---
We assert that we're unconvinced because you haven't adequately met your burden; the burden only the claimant has.
The "default position" isn't my invention. It's the original position that things are not reasonably assumed to exist without evidence.

Doesn't asking for evidence before accepting an extraordinary claim seem reasonable to you?

...

Take 2:
No, I want evidence that it is reasonable. You have the burden of proof on the bold one or if you like evidence, please.
Your standard is evidence, so give the evidence.

That is the point as it makes sense to me.

Edit: Then there is the question of not assumed to exist versus not know to exist or not exist. I would like your evidence for that too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK... so what's your point? This isn't being disputed/

Yeah, you are right about that one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it's [evidence of a god] all around you, you just choose not to see it.

The evidence you cite is the same evidence that supports naturalism. Atheists see the universe that theists see. It just doesn't support the conclusion the theists have come to about it.

"The world that science describes seems to me, with it's order, intelligibility, potentiality, and tightly knit character, to be one that is consonant with the idea that it is the expression of the will of a creator."
- Rev John Polkinghorne, professor of mathematical physics, University of Cambridge

"As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known we were coming."
- Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician

If these were worded a little more forcefully, they would be incredulity fallacies, but they hedge their bet with words like "consonant [sic] with" and "almost seems as if." As written, they're not even statements that these people believe in any god.

I happen to agree with them. Like them, I'm cautious about guessing that that mystery confirms the existence of an intelligent designer. Why make that guess? Agnostic atheism is the only rational position to take regarding claims about gods, which have never been demonstrated to exist (hence the atheism part - no god belief) or been ruled out (hence the agnostic part)

They're also implied special pleading fallacies even if not worded more assertively. That they even suggest that a god exists because the universe looks too complex to exist undesigned is special pleading, or an unjustified double standard excusing their deity from the same argument.

Demanding proof from others that you logically cannot be given is how you justify thinking your position is superior.

His position, which is "We see many believers make claims they can't demonstrate is true," IS superior. He's a critical thinker. He's simply not willing to believe any claim more than the relevant evidence supports. That's the path to avoiding accumulating false and unfalsifiable (Popperian sense; correct statements are also unfalsifiable, but that's a different sense of the word) beliefs.

And you misunderstand the skeptic. He's not demanding "proof" from the believer. He knows as you seem to know as well that none have compelling evidence of a god. He's letting you know why HE isn't a theist.

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.

That was in response to, "Why do believers make claims they can't defend." No defense is required if they don't mind their claims being dismissed out of hand. If they want to be believed, then they have work to do, assuming that they know how construct a sound, evidenced argument that ends, "therefore [insert claim here]" such as "therefore God exists."

And your assessments are irrelevant either way to anyone but you and your ego.

How about a little insight here? You rail on about kangaroo courts and skeptics sitting in judgment of believers' beliefs. Doesn't that make you the judge in your own kangaroo court?

And what about your ego? You seem to take umbrage at being disagreed with. You don't merely disagree. Your posting is peppered with insults to atheists like that comment above. I've read from you that atheists are liars and idiots. All of the above appear on page 28.

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

But that's not all the atheist says. He says I don't agree with any theist regarding gods. When a theist says that a given atheist should believe him, that's when he answers, "I don't believe you." That's what I say when people tell me that they have experienced God or have a personal relationship with a god concept: I don't believe you.

Atheism follows from skepticism. Skepticism leads the critical thinker to agnostic atheism when it comes to the question of gods existing or not. As I explained above, it is the only rational position possible regarding gods until their existence is ever ruled in or out.

The claim someone else's claim is false, IS A CLAIM

OK. So what? Did you think he did that? He said, "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." He didn't "claim someone else's claim is false."

You're one of many RF posters that can't seem to make the distinction between, "I don't believe you" and "You're wrong." When such people read the first, they routinely and without fail transform it to the second.

You also did that with "I require evidence to believe," which becomes demanding evidence to you. Most atheists neither say that believers' god claim are false nor that they expect the theist to provide them evidence.

I've corrected you several times on each of those myself, but I don't expect you to ever change if you haven't yet. Is that because of some cognitive defect resulting in a higher-order dyslexia, or just bad faith disputation? You know the answer, but based in past experience, I also don't expect you to answer me, which suggests which it is.

If it were the former, you ought to be interested in exploring why I think you transform meanings unwittingly. You would be unaware that you do it and appreciate the help of others in bringing this to your attention. You would make an effort to correct your habit.

But you've never expressed any such interest, so the logical conclusion is that you're not interested in getting it right.

They seem to think they are put on Earth to "falsify" any claim any theist proposes because they are so thoroughly convinced that the theists are wrong ... even though they pretend that they are not convinced of this.

If you mean wrong about gods existing, here's more bad faith disputation. You put words in the mouth of others as I just amply illustrated, and then impugn their integrity for allegedly speaking them. What critical thinkers are telling theists is that their arguments aren't sound, not that their unfalsifiable beliefs are wrong. If anything, the critical thinker would call them "not even wrong."

But if you're talking about creationists' erroneous claims of fact regarding evolution, for example, the scientifically literate critical thinker will identify and correct those errors. And not just theists. Climate deniers, antivaxxers, stolen election conspiracists, flat earthers, and several other types of faith-based thinkers are also corrected when they produce misinformation.

That's the power of critical thought, and why I called it the path to avoiding accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs. We should want to avoid all such beliefs, but a lot of people aren't even aware of what critical thinking is or what it can do. You know the type: "That's just your opinion" regarding a demonstrably correct conclusion or preferring the opinions of quacks over those of experts because they're both just somebody's opinion.

I've just described the Dunning-Kruger contingent. They don't recognize expertise, they can't evaluate evidence properly themselves, and they don't know that there's a proper way to do that. It's not that they think that they're as smart as smart people. They think that there are no smart people. They have no idea how much more some people know than they do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Take 2:
No, I want evidence that it is reasonable. You have the burden of proof on the bold one or if you like evidence, please.
Your standard is evidence, so give the evidence. That is the point as it makes sense to me.

In logic and related arguments it is up to the one making the positive claim, in this case those that believe in Gods to support the claim that Gods exist. In varying degrees of belief the atheist simple believes there is not objective evidence for the existence of Gods. This is not the positive claim in the argument.

The standard of atheists and many agnostic id consistent objective verifiable evidence, This is the up front evidence which is lacking in the claim that Gods exist.

Edit: Then there is the question of not assumed to exist versus not know to exist or not exist. I would like your evidence for that too.

The more common claim by atheists is that they do not know absolutely whether Gods exist or not, but they have no reason to believe based on the lack of evidence for the existence of Gods. The hard atheist takes the same stance, but claims to know God does not exist, but also waits for theists to present a consistent evidence based positive argument for the existence of Gods. Unfortunately no such argument or "objective evidence" is currently forthcoming.

No, the atheist claim is not a positive claim.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofReligion/comments/15bwmw3

"prove god exists" - is the main fallacy. "burden of proof" is nonsense​

By definition god is something without a reason. Otherwise it's not god. If god exists, everything including logic follows from god. therefor there is nothing to derive god from.
Therefore "prove god exists" is a logical fallacy. If god could be proven, it would not be something without a reason and would not match the definition of god.
It's like requesting to prove that parallel lines never meet. They never meet by definition and god can not be proved by definition.
In fact nothing is ever proven in science and all of science is based on unprovable axioms/postulates/dogmas.
Therefor god can not be proved, only postulated. And the burden of proof is nothing more then trolling. "Prove unprovable" "Prove that parallel lines never meet"
Edit:
What is the problem? Burden of proof is the problem.
Burden of proof is about court, when there is independent judge. And here atheist "philosophers" come with this "Burden of proof" as if they are independent judges. No they are not.
There is only one independent judge - nature. Not atheist. God should be tested through predictions. Just as everything in science.
Not proved.

More to follow . . .

 

[Valjean]

And confusion is skepticism if I define skepticism as confusion. But of course this is just silly sophistry because atheism is atheism and skepticism is skepticism and confusion is confusion. We have these different words because they refer to different states of mind. Everyone knows this and understands that they are different, but you.

I can be skeptical of things without being confused about them.
So why do you insist on making up your own definitions, when you know perfectly well that your interlocutors are using different ones?

Of course you do. Every time you claim that when you are not convinced to your satisfaction that there are any gods your "default" conclusion is that there are none.

I may personally believe there are none, but that doesn't follow from the inadequate arguments of the believers.
I don't claim that I don't believe because I know my disbelief is inadequately evidenced and can't be logically supported in an argument. That is, my disbelief is not strong enough to logically justify a claim of absolute non-existence., so I make none.
The only position I can logically hold is the default position, which logically obtains when the claim is inadequately evidenced.

Atheist can lie about this all they want but anyone reading their posts can see plain as day that they are asserting that there are no gods unless proven otherwise. And they believe this so intently that they come here to fight with anyone that dares to propose there are. Just as you are doing.

Who's lying about what? Now you're claiming that we're claiming '"no gods," even after we've repeatedly explained why we're not.
Claiming that an assertion is inadequately evidenced is not the same as claiming it's been established as wrong. Such a conclusion would not follow logically.

We're not fighting with you. You are not the claim, just the claimant. We're only questioning the claim; pointing out how it's not well supported.

No one cares that you are "unconvinced" but you. No one cares what you think the "burden of proof" required is, but you.

No. The formal rules governing logical argument are not mine, any more than the rules governing mathematical calculations.

We all know that you won't accept ANY justification that you're given, because you're here to fight against any that any theist dares to offer. Because you are already a 'true believer' in your atheism.

By "we all" I assume you mean yourself.

I'm a true believer in logic.
If an argument is illogical I reject it. If it's logical, I have no choice but to accept it.
You're drawing illogical conclusions. And you're apparently incapable of understand how.

It doesn't matter who invented it. It's YOUR presumption, now. And it's not logical, nor evidential. It's just biased.

It's not biased, or mine. It's a algebraic operation. You're questioning mathematical constants.

What is unreasonable is the presumption that when you aren't getting the evidence that you demand, and that logic dictates you could never get, that this magically confirms your bias against the existence of any gods.

What I "demand" is correct logic, and the rules of logic are not mine. I'm not making up the rules.
When an equation in mathematics contains an error, the answer reached invalid. Even if it's correct, it's rejected as a conclusion.
Anti-God bias? When did I say I was anti-God? I'm anti logically invalid conclusions.

I don't care how they are misusing the term. And it's exactly what they are asserting. It's why they are called, and are calling themselves atheists. Most of those people are lying. Both to themselves and to us. The whole reason they're here is to tell the theists that their gods don't exist.

You're projecting your own presuppositions and bias on atheists. It's you who are biased.

Yes, a responsibility that the atheists know they cannot rise to even as they INSIST all theists must. It's why they keep trying to hide their atheism behind double speak like "unbelief" and "atheism = skepticism" and silly sophistry about atheim being the logical default for when the theist fails to convince the atheist in the atheist's 'kangaroo courtroom' of biased debate.

You continue to assert your prejudices, and dismiss the explanations you've been given. I'm not malevolent, or duplicitous, or prejudiced against your claim. I've patiently explained my position and reasoning, but you ignore my explanations and repeat your accusations. I explain how your arguments don't follow, but you ignore this, too, and repeat them.

We all know your position. And why you can't just be honest about it. You aren't fooling anyone but yourselves.

Hogwash!
I'm not being dishonest or trying to fool anyone. Atheism is not a conspiracy against God or Christians.

 

[Valjean]

For some reason, all the self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" around here don't seem to understand this, at all. They seem to think they are put on Earth to "falsify" any claim any theist proposes because they are so thoroughly convinced that the theists are wrong ... even though they pretend that they are not convinced of this. Somehow their "highly critical minds" never seem to focus on their own absurd double-speak and blatant hypocrisy. And when anyone dares to point it out, they circle their wagons and fight to the death to negate any form of criticism toward themselves.

We're "falsifying" erroneous claims because we're in a debate forum debating your claims.
No, we don't think we're put on earth to oppose you. You make claims in debate/discussion sites. We question the reasoning supporting the claims. We're questioning the claims, not the theists. We're not out to get you.
Your vitriolic attacks make me wonder whether, deep down, you realize your house is built on sand, and that an attack is the only defense you can muster.

 

[firedragon]

We don't assert that no gods exist.

Are you speaking on behalf of every single atheist in the world?

 

[Valjean]

Are you speaking on behalf of every single atheist in the world?

No, I'm generalizing.

 

[firedragon]

No, I'm generalizing.

Generalizing without a quantitative research is equal to conjecture. And even then, it falls into the problem of induction. If the problem of induction is the fourth step, and still is not absolute, you have failed prior to even making the first step.

There are many atheists who do claim that no God exists. This agnostic position is a development that occurred lately because of the epistemic dilemma atheists face. Hard atheism is a well known stance of atheists, and you making such a broad generalization calling everyone "we" is such a fallacious position. It's epistemic irresponsibility.

Peace.

P.S. In this case, your generalization IS "speaking on behalf of everyone"

 

[Valjean]

Generalizing without a quantitative research is equal to conjecture. And even then, it falls into the problem of induction. If the problem of induction is the fourth step, and still is not absolute, you have failed prior to even making the first step.

There are many atheists who do claim that no God exists. This agnostic position is a development that occurred lately because of the epistemic dilemma atheists face. Hard atheism is a well known stance of atheists, and you making such a broad generalization calling everyone "we" is such a fallacious position. It's epistemic irresponsibility.

Peace.

P.S. In this case, your generalization IS "speaking on behalf of everyone"

OK, I'll revise: I don't assert that no Gods exist.