Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[McBell]

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.

It has been my experience that atheist/theist makes no difference when it comes to someone's morality.
And in fact, I will flat out state that thinking atheist/theist does make some difference will in fact skew your own perceptions of morality.

 

[McBell]

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

Yes

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.

ONLY if I give a crickets fart.
Which I don't.

I have no intention, inclination, desire, wish, need, want, etc. to convince anyone that I do not know.
So if you are waiting for me to support my claim of not knowing, you gonna need a rather large lunch.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes


ONLY if I give a crickets fart.
Which I don't.

I have no intention, inclination, desire, wish, need, want, etc. to convince anyone that I do not know.
So if you are waiting for me to support my claim of not knowing, you gonna need a rather large lunch.

So it is in effect a belief without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@McBell Double post, see above.

 

[McBell]

So it is in effect a belief without evidence.

For you perhaps.
Not for me.
For me, I do not know.

Why you would think that I do know and am in denial is anyone's guess.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For you perhaps.
Not for me.
For me, I do not know.

Why you would think that I do know and am in denial is anyone's guess.

No, how do you know that you don't know when it comes to gods? That is my question.

 

[McBell]

No, how do you know that you don't know when it comes to gods? That is my question.

When I inspect my internal database for the knowing part, it is not found.
Thus the conclusion, I do not know

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I inspect my internal database for the knowing part, it is not found.
Thus the conclusion, I do not know

So what is in general knowledge as a methodlogy to you or if you like that knowing part? If you claim you have a way to know, you have a burden of proof. That is my point.

 

[McBell]

So what is in general knowledge as a methodlogy to you or if you like that knowing part? If you claim you have a way to know, you have a burden of proof. That is my point.

As I already stated, I have no intention, inclination, desire, wish, need, want, etc. to convince anyone that I do not know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I already stated, I have no intention, inclination, desire, wish, need, want, etc. to convince anyone that I do not know.

No, do you know anything at all? Or do you only have beliefs without evidence or knowledge?

 

[McBell]

No, do you know anything at all? Or do you only have beliefs without evidence or knowledge?

yes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why, you all post about it all the time.

Yeah. We correct your strawmen all the time also.
But it's not making much difference it seems.

The weird thing is that you all can't see the constant contradictions you keep putting out. It's all negation and no substance.

These supposed contradictions are of your own making. Those are your strawmen arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dude you’re obsessed! When someone starts a conversation with me, I expect it to be about whatever it was I said that they responded to. Every time I get a response from you, though, you go off on the same tangent about ‘methodological naturalism’. You just seem to be high-jacking anything remotely related I say in order to talk about some barely relevant thing that happens to interest you.

Annoying, isn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely sure it's a positive claim.

You are absolutely wrong about that, as I have clearly explained in my post and which you completely ignored.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep. Both are positive claims.

They are not.

In your world, a negative claim doesn't even exist.
This is nonsense

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

yes

But you are not going to answer how you know something as such as per burden of proof. Okay.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something.

 

[McBell]

But you are not going to answer how you know something as such as per burden of proof. Okay.

I do not know.

Sorry if that is not good enough for you.

But the fact remains, that is all I am interested in providing.

However, if you wish to pad your post count, I have no problems merely repeating my self.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Solipsism par excellence

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something.

The wiki page you link to, is about making wiki pages.

As per the thread, this page might be more relevant:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And for negative there is this text in part:
"... Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims.[11][12][13][14][15][10][16][17] Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.[10][18] Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile") ..."