Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

What "non-God" possibilities are there? That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence? There is no logical way that could happen. It is not even a possibility by any definition of a possibility that any human could muster. And even if it did, how could any existential properties emerge from within a property-less existence? Again, this is not a logical possibility by any form of logic that any reasoning human could respect.

I can see NO logical non-God possibilities. So please feel free to list them for me.

That makes sense in a certain way. But to me, it is not logical that God/objective reality is fair. So I have to do that on faith and believe that God/objective reality is fair.

 

[McBell]

What "non-God" possibilities are there? That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence? There is no logical way that could happen. It is not even a possibility by any definition of a possibility that any human could muster. And even if it did, how could any existential properties emerge from within a property-less existence? Again, this is not a logical possibility by any form of logic that any reasoning human could respect.

I can see NO logical non-God possibilities. So please feel free to list them for me.

Please explain how "GodDidIt" is logical.

 

[PureX]

You believe all manner of nonsense.
ESCPECIALLY when it comes to your "knowledge" of atheists/atheism.

You have no idea what I believe, nor have you ever asked. You foolishly presume that just because I post something that "I believe it". When in fact I simply post the logical observation and/or inference from whatever I see you post. I am here to help you think outside of your own box.

You got you arse handed to you repeatedly in this thread because you are just flat out wrong and you completely ignored it and continue on as though no one has pointed out to you your blatant wrongness.

I simply stopped wasting time conversing with idiots that clearly have no desire to converse with me. That you took this as some sort of "big win" just shows how childish your participation here is. And why I stopped responding.

 

[ratiocinator]

What "non-God" possibilities are there? That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence?

Does your God exist? Did God spontaneously emerge from non-existence? Are you stuck in a Newtonian view of time and think the space-time needs a cause at "t=0"? If so, drag yourself into the last century. If not, your God has the same problem of being unexplained as the universe, but we have good evidence that the universe exists.

Replacing the universe existing for no known reason with a universe and a God that created it existing for no known reason must, by the basic mathematics of probabilities, be less probable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does your God exist? Did God spontaneously emerge from non-existence? Are you stuck in a Newtonian view of time and think the space-time needs a cause at "t=0"? If so, drag yourself into the last century. If not, your God has the same problem of being unexplained as the universe, but we have good evidence that the universe exists.

...

So you are one of those! Well, I guess the reason how come there is methodological naturalism and science is in effect based on axiomatic assumptions without evidence, is irrelevant, is because of reasons.

 

[McBell]

You have no idea what I believe, nor have you ever asked.

You believe all manner of nonsense about atheists/atheism.
All one has to do is look at your posts.
Hardly a post of yours happens without you spewing your nonsensical atheist/atheism beliefs.

You foolishly presume that just because I post something that "I believe it".

And here is yet another belief of yours based on your bias assumptions.

When in fact I simply post the logical observation and/or inference from whatever I see you post.

Sad that you actually believe this.
bloody hell!
ANOTHER belief of yours....

I am here to help you think outside of your own box.

I call bovine feces.
You are merely here preaching your snake oil sermons in hopes that someone might buy into it.

I simply stopped wasting time conversing with idiots that clearly have no desire to converse with me.

huh?
You have to stop conversing with people who have no desire to converse you all the while conversing?
Do you hear yourself?

That you took this as some sort of "big win"

"big win"?
What are you talking about?
Or is this merely BS filler to soothe your bruised ego?

just shows how childish your participation here is.

Ah yes, more beliefs of yours revealed.
Yet you claim that no one knows what you believe.

You really need to work on your back peddling.

And why I stopped responding.

And yet here we are, you replying to someone you believe does not want to converse with you.....

 

[shunyadragon]

Every time they claim they are undecided they deny their atheism.

You are asserting that you stereotype ALL atheists as you believe atheists believe. No, not all atheist believe they are undecided. Many atheists are atheist because there is no objective evidence for the existences of Gods, and the ancient anthropomorphic hands on miracle working Gods are too outrageous in their view, Atheism grades into agnosticism in requiring evidence for belief, and yes some are undecided, but see no reason to beleive.

I don't blindly believe anything. I don't believe much of anything any other way, either. And what you think ancient tribal texts have to do with anything is a complete mystery. All I suggested is that it would be a lot easier to just accept the possibility that God/gods exists and that none of us knows if, what, or how.

Easy is the problem of an easy way out avoiding the hard questions concerning ancient cultural religions,

You are often evasive as to what you believe, and relentlessly attack others with course language,

Are you a Christian?

 

[shunyadragon]

What "non-God" possibilities are there? That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence? There is no logical way that could happen. It is not even a possibility by any definition of a possibility that any human could muster. And even if it did, how could any existential properties emerge from within a property-less existence? Again, this is not a logical possibility by any form of logic that any reasoning human could respect.

I can see NO logical non-God possibilities. So please feel free to list them for me.

The scientific evidence does not propose any sort of spontaneous emergent from non-existence. This is a Theological belief of Creation from absolute nothing, There is no evidence that absolute nothing ever existed based on Quantum Mechanics, At present Natural Laws and natural processes down to the smallest Quantum scale of our existence provides an adequate explanation. In the scientific knowledge there never was any such thing as non-existence, There is no known evidence of a beginning of our physical existence. The only possible beginning is our universe beginning from a preexisting singularity in a non boundary Quantum World based on Quantum Mechanics. There is also the possibility of a Multiverse and our universe may be cyclic without beginning.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you are one of those!

Those?

Well, I guess the reason how come there is methodological naturalism and science is in effect based on axiomatic assumptions without evidence, is irrelevant, is because of reasons.

Methodological naturalism and science exist because they work (make accurate predictions).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those?


Methodological naturalism and science exist because they work (make accurate predictions).

Yeah, you are of those who think that because it makes sense in your mind, then it is so independent of your mind.
You haven't solved the reason for methodological naturalism and how science is based on axiomatic assumptions without evidence.
You just believe so, but you won't admit it. Thus one of those believers.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven't solved the reason for methodological naturalism and how science is based on axiomatic assumptions without evidence.

The evidence is that it works. Methodological naturalism and science are human-made techniques to build theories that make predictions, which is how we make technology. You are using part of the evidence that they work to tell me that there is no evidence.

Science and methodological naturalism aren't what's 'out there', they are an approach to studying it and predicting it. Obviously the models produced by these techniques are reasonably good representations of whatever is 'out there', otherwise they wouldn't work so well, but you seem to be confusing techniques with models or even with reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The evidence is that it works. Methodological naturalism and science are human-made techniques to build theories that make predictions, which is how we make technology. You are using part of the evidence that they work to tell me that there is no evidence.

Science and methodological naturalism aren't what's 'out there', they are an approach to studying it and predicting it. Obviously the models produced by these techniques are reasonably good representations of whatever is 'out there', otherwise they wouldn't work so well, but you seem to be confusing techniques with models or even with reality.

No, they are results of philosophy of science in regards to the limits of epistemology.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Try understand how come it is Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, they are results of philosophy of science in regards to the limits of epistemology.

So what? The evidence is still that they work.

The axioms are just like a specific hypothesis, in many ways. You assume it's true, make predictions based on it, and compare them to what you observe. If the axioms/hypothesis continue to make accurate predictions, that is the evidence.

Science is used because it works and allows us to make technology, so people like you can tell everyone that it is just an assumption with no evidence. The irony is strong here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what? The evidence is still that they work.

The axioms are just like a specific hypothesis, in many ways. You assume it's true, make predictions based on it, and compare them to what you observe. If the axioms/hypothesis continue to make accurate predictions, that is the evidence.

Science is used because it works and allows us to make technology, so people like you can tell everyone that it is just an assumption with no evidence. The irony is strong here.

You don't observe anything. You assume you observe as per the axioms. The axioms don't magically make it so that you observe.

You have experinces and you axiomatically assume they correspond to the true and real objective natural universe. That is how it works.

It would be the same in this assumed universe or if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe.

So here are my individual versions of the axioms as to what I in effect have faith in and believe in. The universe is real, epistemolgocally fair and knowable, and orderly.
So yes, I act as if this is real, but me acting like that, doesn't cause it to be real. That would be a case of actual magic, that something is real, because I think it is real.

 

[ratiocinator]

You have experinces and you axiomatically assume they correspond to the true and real objective natural universe. That is how it works.

Here we go again with your obsessive and boring solipsism.

As I said before, many, many times, if the real world isn't real, it might as well be. It is shared, inescapable, and we are forced to behave according to its rules. If it's an illusion then science and methodological naturalism still work for the illusion.

Please stop spamming every single topic with this obsession!

 

[Valjean]

I disagree with this based on the reference I provided in posts #574 and #583.

Rewording the negative claim of the belief that their are no Gods does not make it a positive claim as referenced,

This must take into consideration the fact that both side represent subjective claims without resolution.

There is a God and There is no god are both positive (real) claims of ontologic fact. Only the former, though, might practically be demonstrated. Demanding evidence for the latter would be impracticable and fruitless.
"I don't believe" or "I'm unconvinced" -- the usual position of atheists -- cannot be objectively demonstrated, either, so expecting evidence, ie: a burden of proof, would make no sense.

Pretending that most atheists claim that no god exists is simply constructing a strawman. Assigning the strawman a burden of proof just compounds the absurdity.

 

[Valjean]

That's just semantics. You've rejected every conception of God, every experience of God, and every assertion you've ever heard about God as being untrue.

Unsound.

Because atheism is a conviction. One that you express constantly because you are fully convinced of it's validity.

Is "unconvinced" a conviction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I can only repeat myself.
Saying "there are no gods" is not synonymous with "everything is natural".
Additionally, saying "there are no gods" is not synonymous with "there is no supernatural" either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if you "believe" everything logically possible, how could you have a bunch of contradictions? A contradiction in logic is by itself logically impossible. Like a squared circle.

Thus, logically possible things or matters cannot be contradictions.

That's so incredibly short sighted and unimaginative that I am surprised that you don't seem to see the flaw in it.

Say there is a fact to explain. For example, a chocolate cake is missing from my kitchen.
I can very easily come up with multiple logically possible explanations for the missing cake, which are mutually exclusive. Meaning that they would contradict eachother.
As in: if one is correct, the other is necessarily incorrect.

Just because something is logically possible, doesn't mean that it is accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But for the belief that all gods are supernatural, then there are no gods, if everything is natural.

You just turned it around and also added additional qualifiers. The original statement was that "there are no gods" is supposedly the equivalent of "all things are natural".

Now, you are saying that IF gods are supernatural and IF all things are natural, then there are no gods.

You should think things through a bit more.