Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Valjean]

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.

"I remain unconvinced" pretty much sums up my position. I'm not making any assertions. Why would I need to?

I've heard hundreds of apologists present 'evidence', but almost every apology involves clearly identifiable errors or fallacies -- usually the same dozen or so coming up over and over.

If you can come up with something new, I'd certainly be interested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, some atheists and non-relgious people don't like to have their epistemology challanged. That is a part of it. Whether you are actually one or not, I don't know, but you could be one. That is all. So if you answer, I won't answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"I remain unconvinced" pretty much sums up my position. I'm not making any assertions. Why would I need to?

I've heard hundreds of apologists present 'evidence', but almost every apology involves clearly identifiable errors or fallacies -- usually the same dozen or so coming up over and over.

If you can come up with something new, I'd certainly be interested.

Yeah, but how do you justify that you remain unconvinced?

 

[McBell]

No, some atheists and non-relgious people don't like to have their epistemology challanged. That is a part of it. Whether you are actually one or not, I don't know, but you could be one. That is all. So if you answer, I won't answer.

If you want to arm chair quarter back my epistemology, feel free.

 

[McBell]

No, some atheists and non-relgious people don't like to have their epistemology challanged. That is a part of it. Whether you are actually one or not, I don't know, but you could be one. That is all. So if you answer, I won't answer.

Seems to me that most people, regardless of atheist/theist do not like having their epistemology challenged.

I do find it curious that you are all the time adding "atheist" to your posts when it is not really applicable.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Everyone?
It's clear only to a handful of theists, in my experience. The educated or intellectual seem to grasp the distinction immediately.

Again, an unfounded claim defeats itself. It redounds to the default, blank slate position.
Why is it so difficult to grasp the difference between unevidenced and non-existent?

 

[Valjean]

@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.

??? -- clarify, SVP.

 

[Valjean]

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".

Strawman.
You repeat this personal assertion over and over. We deny it over and over, with explanations of our position. You ignore us and go on making this claim.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Not "our system," standard rules of logic.

 

[PureX]

"I remain unconvinced" pretty much sums up my position. I'm not making any assertions. Why would I need to?

You can't logically or honestly call yourself unconvinced while simultaneously being completely convinced that every proposed definition of God and personal experience of that God's existence by anyone that you've ever encountered is false. Clearly you are convinced that all those theists are wrong and that you are smarter than they are even though you are no idea what God is or how anyone would ever find out.

I've heard hundreds of apologists present 'evidence', but almost every apology involves clearly identifiable errors or fallacies -- usually the same dozen or so coming up over and over.

If you can come up with something new, I'd certainly be interested.

And you are fully convinced that every one of them is wrong.

Yet you keep trying to tell us all that you're not really atheist, you're just "unconvinced".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

??? -- clarify, SVP.

"It's the original position that things are not reasonably assumed to exist without evidence."

" there is no reason to assume that a given god without evidence exists."

What is the difference between those 2?

 

[Valjean]

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.

Mikkel, you're still mixing levels of reality; levels with different "rules."
It's like trying to assemble a working engine from half an internal combustion engine and half a steam engine. Both work, but the components are different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not "our system," standard rules of logic.

Yeah, but that is not evidence. How do you justifiy logic and how do you connect that to the rest of philosophy?

 

[shunyadragon]

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") ..."

Not really as per the subject of the thread . . .

Yes, maybe. but not generally "you cannot prove a negative." This far too selective on the what would be a situation where the negative maybe found true.

In most cases and in the case of the subject of this thread no, Neither the negative concerning the existence of God cannot be found true, Actually the positive assertion that Gods exist cannot be objectively determined to exist

You have to be more specific here as to what you consider to prove the negative to be true as per the subject of te thread..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, you're still mixing levels of reality; levels with different "rules."
It's like trying to assemble a working engine from half an internal combustion engine and half a steam engine. Both work, but the components are different.

So please explain with evidence how you know reality and logic?

 

[Valjean]

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.

OK -- Make a rational case for God, for us.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, some atheists and non-relgious people don't like to have their epistemology challanged. That is a part of it. Whether you are actually one or not, I don't know, but you could be one. That is all. So if you answer, I won't answer.

This too vague a generalization to be true, an making unrealistic assumption as to how others consider their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

OK -- Make a rational case for God, for us.

There logically has to be a 'supernatural' source for the 'nature' of existence. This source would logically surpass any natural ability we humans have of detecting or understanding it. Thus, you cannot have the "evidence" that you continue to foolishly demand. All we have is our ability to reason, and it is simply not logical, reasonable, or evidential in any way that the nature of existence that we experience somehow sourced itself. Nor is it logical, reasonable, or evidential in any way that whatever the source is, that it would be constrained by the natural realm that it sourced.

This is all quite obvious to the vast majority of humans throughout human history. But for some reason there are a few, like you, that fight to not recognize the obvious.

None of this "proves" that God exists, or defines what that would even mean. But it clearly supports the possibility, by necessity, while there is no support of any kind for the alternative of an unsourced, self-generating, highly ordered and yet totally purposeless existence.

 

[Valjean]

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.

???? -- You talk as if atheists are some sort of bloc, and when did we stop believing in democracy and human rights?
It seems to me that the liberal freethinkers who are the strongest supporters of human rights and democracy are also a demographic very likely to generate more than its share of atheists.

 

[Valjean]

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.

???? -- You talk as if atheists are some sort of bloc, and when did we stop believing in democracy and human rights?
It seems to me that the liberal freethinkers who are the strongest supporters of human rights and democracy are also a demographic very likely to generate more than its share of atheists.