Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

???? -- 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.

Yeah. But not all non-relgious people are like you or me in being in effect with that world view.

And not all relgious people are theists. That is all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

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

This thread is about how "god does NOT exist" is supposedly not a negative claim.
So I consider it rather relevant. Yes, the link is about making wiki pages. More specifically, how wikipedia wants people to refrain from negative claims and then defines what negative claims are, which is the part I quoted.

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") ..."

I already covered that in my post in post 74, where I first explained how "god does not exist" most definitely IS a negative claim (and not a positive one like the OP asserts) and where I also explain where it isn't necessarily true that negative claims can't be proven / demonstrated / supported, although there are difficulties and things that complex matters with that, depending on context.

Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

Okay, I have never seem proof for that or even evidence. So me that is a belief system just like a supernatural one. You have never seem evidence for ontological naturalism?

www.religiousforums.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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. I do not claim that no god exists.

This will become you claiming that no gods exist.

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

And this just became "I insist that gods don't 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.

This is still wrong, but you know that.

The atheist is saying "no gods unless I say so".

And wrong again

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 yet again. One straw man after another.

There logically has to be a 'supernatural' source for the 'nature' of existence.

Also incorrect. There is no need that anything but nature exists, and no evidence that there is any type of existence that isn't nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

You can't just assert statements into being logical or illogical. There is not one line of logic in all this, it's just assertion after assertion. You need to show your working.

This is all quite obvious to the vast majority of humans throughout human history.

"It's obvious, innit?" is not an argument, and neither is an argumentum ad populum.

Edited for typo.

 

[shunyadragon]

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).

This is a false generalization of what and how atheists believe. Simply atheists believe there is no objective evidence exists for any kind or variety of Gods exist,

It is more valid that Theists presume to know what would be evidence for the existence of Gods that you cannot coherently define consistently an argument for the existence of Gods other than simply they believe God exist.

It must be understood that the belief in Gods is based on the testimony of various diverse cultural ancient tribal texts without provenance. The weakest possible argument for the existence of Gods.

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.

The problem of "idiocy" and the lack of "critical thinking" is the problem of traditional Theists that blindly accept the testimony of ancient cultural texts without provenance or relevance as to what a "Universal God" would be beyond the narrow perspective of one of many diverse and conflicting ancient cultures,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This thread is about how "god does NOT exist" is supposedly not a negative claim.
So I consider it rather relevant. Yes, the link is about making wiki pages. More specifically, how wikipedia wants people to refrain from negative claims and then defines what negative claims are, which is the part I quoted.




I already covered that in my post in post 74, where I first explained how "god does not exist" most definitely IS a negative claim (and not a positive one like the OP asserts) and where I also explain where it isn't necessarily true that negative claims can't be proven / demonstrated / supported, although there are difficulties and things that complex matters with that, depending on context.

Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

Okay, I have never seem proof for that or even evidence. So me that is a belief system just like a supernatural one. You have never seem evidence for ontological naturalism?

www.religiousforums.com

Well, the page I linked explained how to do it.
There are no gods. That is as a postive - everything is natural. Now there is burden of proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

"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?.

Both may be true

 

[Valjean]

So it is in effect a belief without evidence.

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

If I claim "I like blue" it's an unevidenced belief. It's also an intangible and unverifiable claim; but inasmuch as it's a mundane, subjective preference, to demand objective supporting evidence would be pointless.

If I claim there's an elephant in my garage, that's an extraordinary and potentially verifiable claim of objective reality. Asking for verifying evidence in this case would be reasonable and feasible.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Lack of objective evidence and weak justification based on ancient tribal cultures.

Being unconvinced is good option.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I claim "I like blue" it's an unevidenced belief. It's also an intangible and unverifiable claim; but inasmuch as it's a mundane, subjective preference, to demand objective supporting evidence would be pointless.

If I claim there's an elephant in my garage, that's an extraordinary and potentially verifiable claim of objective reality. Asking for verifying evidence in this case would be reasonable and feasible.

Yeah, objective reality. Now if you have solved the problem of Descartes' evil demon, I am willing to listen. But otherwise I will treat you as in effect a believer without evidence in that the universe is natural.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, the page I linked explained how to do it.

I do not believe your biased use of a link explained anything,

There are no gods. That is as a postive - everything is natural. Now there is burden of proof.

Too simplistic a statement in bold that does not reflect in context what atheists believe, and no as referenced several times that you did not respond to concerning "burden of proof."

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, objective reality. Now if you have solved the problem of Descartes' evil demon, I am willing to listen. But otherwise I will treat you as in effect a believer without evidence in that the universe is natural.

Solipsism continues unabated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, the page I linked explained how to do it.

Sounds like you didn't read the original post of mine either. Also sounds like you didn't click the link to it I provided to read up.

I linked the exact same article.
Stop being so argumentative.

There are no gods. That is as a postive - everything is natural.

This is wrong.

Saying that "there are no gods" is not the equivalent of "everything is natural"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like you didn't read the original post of mine either. Also sounds like you didn't click the link to it I provided to read up.

I linked the exact same article.
Stop being so argumentative.


This is wrong.

Saying that "there are no gods" is not the equivalent of "everything is natural"

Well, yes, if it is assumed that gods are supernatural as some people do. Then for the broad claim that there is nothing supernatural, it follows everything is natural.

 

[Valjean]

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

The arguments contain easily identifiable factual or logical fallacies, so aren't sound.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, yes, if it is assumed that gods are supernatural as some people do. Then for the broad claim that there is nothing supernatural, it follows everything is natural.

This, of course, is the belief in Metaphysical Naturalism, which is a positive argument for Naturalism, and a negative argument for the supernatural, miracles and God.

Again, again and again as referenced in sound academic sources the belief that Gods do not exist is NOT a positive belief when it comes to the "Burden of Proof."

 

[Valjean]

This thread is about how "god does NOT exist" is supposedly not a negative claim.
So I consider it rather relevant. Yes, the link is about making wiki pages. More specifically, how wikipedia wants people to refrain from negative claims and then defines what negative claims are, which is the part I quoted.




I already covered that in my post in post 74, where I first explained how "god does not exist" most definitely IS a negative claim (and not a positive one like the OP asserts) and where I also explain where it isn't necessarily true that negative claims can't be proven / demonstrated / supported, although there are difficulties and things that complex matters with that, depending on context.

Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

Okay, I have never seem proof for that or even evidence. So me that is a belief system just like a supernatural one. You have never seem evidence for ontological naturalism?

www.religiousforums.com

"God does not exist" is a negative claim grammatically, but can be a positive syllogistic or epistemic claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

In terms of

"God does not exist" is a negative claim grammatically, but can be a positive syllogistic or epistemic claim.

Can be?!?!?! Concerning the "Burden of Proof" it is a negative belief. The "Burden of Proof" is the responsibility off those that make the positive claims of belief in Gods. See post #574 and #583.

 

[Valjean]

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.

You're strawmanning again! I don't make any such claim.
I often make claims about relevance, validity, or soundness, but falsehood is a different thing.

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.

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".

Hogwash.
... and why would "unconvinced" exclude atheism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The arguments contain easily identifiable factual or logical fallacies, so aren't sound.

And how do you know facts or logic?

Here is a trick I leaned over 25 years ago by a skeptic.
You make a claim in effect. I ask how you know that or what are you assuming with that claim. You make a new claim and I ask again. Unless you are unique, you will hit the limit of epistemology like everybody else and thus end in a belief system. And yes, that also includes me.