Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

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

I appreciate that Val.

 

[ppp]

I appreciate that Val.

The term gods is not not well-enough defined to represent existence. It is not narrow enough nor exclusive enough. Every generation is told that the set of X is the exclusive province of some god, and every generation sees some subset of X created by some mere human or discovered to be an entirely natural process.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Hot Potato of "shifting the burden of proof."

Shifting the burden of proof - Religions Wiki

religions.wiki

Burden of proof by claim​

Theism​

Theism has the burden of proof because in apologetics they claim to have knowledge, not just belief, of God.

"the object of the exercise is, presumably, to discover whether it is possible to establish that the word 'God' does in fact have application. Now to establish must here be either to show that you know or to come to know. But knowledge is crucially different from mere true belief. [4]"
When asked to support the claim that a god exists, it's not unusual for an apologist to respond with "You can't prove God doesn't exist", or similar statements. Essentially, this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof (a logical fallacy).

A rephrasing of "I believe that god exists" into "I don't believe that god does not exist" is also an attempt to dodge the burden of proof - the proposed equivocation seeks to convert a claim acceptance to a claim rejection, but the two are not logically equivalent. "I don't believe that god does not exist" can be (and often is) a position held by atheists, and says nothing about how the person stands on the claim "god exists".

Therefore, apologists are claiming knowledge about a fact. This claim is unfalsifiable. Gods may exist in an inaccessible spiritual world or be immune from testing. "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Luke 4:12 For this reason, the burden of proof for the existence of God lays on believers and not with skeptics.

Some apologists fully shoulder the burden of proof, such as Norman Geisler with his proposed adequate truth test. However, other apologists are more modest in their claims and only seek to make their view appear as plausible, rather than true beyond doubt. [

 

[danieldemol]

Another handwave. I am not interested.

Physician heal thyself in my view

 

[firedragon]

Physician heal thyself in my view

Great. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term gods is not not well-enough defined to represent existence. It is not narrow enough nor exclusive enough. Every generation is told that the set of X is the exclusive province of some god, and every generation sees some subset of X created by some mere human or discovered to be an entirely natural process.

Well, existence is a problematic term itself. Then there is the general problem of what objective reality is in itself. So for gods, I choose I don't know, but that is a subset of I don't know what objective reality is in itself.

 

[PureX]

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

Every time you assert that unless someone can prove to your satisfaction, and by your criteria, that a God exists, then the natural default assumption is that any god proposed by any human you have ever encountered in any way does not exist, you are asserting that no gods exist. And everyone can see this but you, apparently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every time you assert that unless someone can prove to your satisfaction, and by your criteria, that a God exists, the natural default assumption is that any god proposed by any human you have ever encountered in any way does not exist, you are asserting that no gods exist. And everyone knows this but you, apparently.

@Valjean
Well, Valjean assert that there is no reason to assume that a given god without evidence exists. The problem is that it is a double standard as there is no evidence for the bold one, but it is okay to ask other people for evidence.
That is how I see the trick. That only that with evidence is relevant, but that it is relevant is without evidence.

 

[PureX]

Well, existence is a problematic term itself. Then there is the general problem of what objective reality is in itself. So for gods, I choose I don't know, but that is a subset of I don't know what objective reality is in itself.

But the atheist isn't saying "I don't know". The atheist is saying "no gods unless I say so". "And I ain't saying so until you come into my kangaroo court and somehow prove to me that your make-believe God exist".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the atheist isn't saying "I don't know". The atheist is saying "no gods unless I say so". "And I ain't saying so until you come into my kangaroo court and somehow prove to me that your make-believe God exist".

Yeah, their trick is in effect a double standard for evidence, because their system of evidence can't be doubted, but their system can be used to doubt what they do in effect like.

 

[McBell]

But the atheist isn't saying "I don't know". The atheist is saying "no gods unless I say so". "And I ain't saying so until you come into my kangaroo court and somehow prove to me that your make-believe God exist".

Tie me kangaroo down sport...

I have stated numerous times all over RF that I do not know.

Which means I am not an atheist, right?
I mean, it surely isn't that you are wrong...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Tie me kangaroo down sport...

I have stated numerous times all over RF that I do not know.

Which means I am not an atheist, right?
I mean, it surely isn't that you are wrong...

Well, do you know if the universe as everything is natural? And what do you know evidence as a methodology to be?

In general it doesn't matter if we are atheists or not. It is our understand of what is and how it matters, that separates atheists into different holders of different worldviews.

 

[McBell]

Well, do you know if the universe as everything is natural? And what do you know evidence as a methodology to be?

In general it doesn't matter if we are atheists or not. It is our understand of what is and how it matters, that separates atheists into different holders of different worldviews.

I do not understand why so many people have such a difficult time understanding the phrase "I do not know".

I flat out state I do not know and the first you do is ask?

Is it that I am not using a big enough font?
Wrong colour perhaps?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not understand why so many people have such a difficult time understanding the phrase "I do not know".

I flat out state I do not know and the first you do is ask?

Is it that I am not using a big enough font?
Wrong colour perhaps?

I really don't care that you and I are both atheists. It in effect tells nothing about our individual understanding of the universe and how to live as humans. That is all.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I remain perplexed by the use of the expression "God" here.

And as I usually do, I have to ask what real entity you intend to denote when you say "God", and how, if we find a real suspect, we can determine whether it's God or not.

As far as I'm aware, the only way in which God (and gods, and other supernatural critters) are known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, and since there are billions of brains there are likely at least that many "gods", one or more or many more per brain. But unless they have a real counterpart, an entity found in the world external to the self, that's all they are ─ in the particular brain's collection of fictional and notional beings.

So what exactly is it that you intend to denote with your phrase "God does not exist"?

 

[PureX]

Tie me kangaroo down sport...

I have stated numerous times all over RF that I do not know.

And yet you presume to know what would be evidence for the existence of this thing that you can't define and don't know if, or how, could exist. AND you then presume that when no such "evidence" is being given to you, that no gods exist (by any definition anyone has ever given you).

Thus is the idiocy of most atheists we encounter these days. Especially the ones that fancy themselves to be "critical thinkers". And even as they read this, they still won't see how stupid their position is.

 

[McBell]

I really don't care that you and I are both atheists. It in effect tells nothing about our individual understanding of the universe and how to live as humans. That is all.

I agree that being an atheists does not tell anyone anything.
At least nothing near as much as some other members would like to claim.

interestingly enough, the label "theist" does not tell anyone anything of much use either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that being an atheists does not tell anyone anything.
At least nothing near as much as some other members would like to claim.

interestingly enough, the label "theist" does not tell anyone anything of much use either.

Yeah, in effect in at least one case I would choose a theist over an atheist in regards to morality, Namely for folk Christians, which are in effect believers in democrcy and human rights over an atheist, who don't believe in that.

 

[McBell]

And yet you presume to know what would be evidence for the existence of this thing that you don't know if, or how, could exist.

*yawn*
Your kangaroo is showing.

When have I stated that I know what the convincing evidence would be?
Oh, that's right, I never did.
Thus, this is nothing more than an assumption you require in order to maintain your agenda.

AND you then presume that when no such "evidence" is being given to you, that no gods exist (by any definition anyone has ever given you).

I do not claim that no god exists.
I do not claim that god does not exist.
I do not claim that any god does exist.
I flat out state I do not know.

AND I have done so for a rather large number of YEARS on RF.

So you either got me mixed up with a different member or you are simply painting with a brush so broad it is worthless.
Of course, it is also possible you are merely ranting and raving with complete disregard of what anyone you rant and rave at actually thinks and or believes.

I am pretty sure the list goes on an on.

But let me guess?
You will claim to not care about it, right?

So you really should stop making false accusations of presumptions while presuming yourself.1111

Thus is the idiocy of most atheists we encounter these days.

Is it really?
Or do you just slap everyone who disagrees with you into the same box?

I most definitely do not fit in the box you slapped me in.
And I find it rather insulting that you are not willing or able to reply to me without your cookie cutter nonsense.

Especially the ones that fancy themselves to be "critical thinkers".

I am not saying that there are not people who fit your little mold.

I am saying that I am not one of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I flat out state I do not know.
...

Do you know that you don't know? Or do you believe that you don't know?

If you in any sense claim knowledge as to the universe as such for I do not know, you are in effect on the hook for exlaining your epistemlogy.