Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

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!

Then please learn the limit of your belief system and that it is a belief system.
You and I can agree that it makes sense. but that doesn't mean that it stops being a belief system.
One way to understand skepticism is that it is about being honest about the limit of epistemology.

So since you are about burden of proof, I am the same. And for " science and methodological naturalism still work for the illusion" if the illusion is that you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe for certain variants, then there is no we, as per "we are forced to behave according to its rules". That would not be a we but an illusion of a we and it wouldn't work in the same way. Unless you as you are an actual solipsist. But I am not a solipsist, so it doesn't work in the same way for me.

So in evey thread where someone like you for in effect the burden of proof for what objective reality is, doesn't admit that naturalism is a belief system, I will do this.
Just as you obsess with theism and the burden of proof, I obsess with the burden of proff. I am just honest and apply it in effect to naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, yes. You are right.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then please learn the limit of your belief system and that it is a belief system.

I know my position, and I've explained it to you multiple times. I'm not going to put it in every post, because putting qualifications about the possibility that reality is somehow an illusion, the "brain-in-a-vat" level of scepticism, would make every post way too long-winded. Anybody who's thought much about these things will know this anyway. It's literally philosophy 101. Even the simplest online intro would cover it.

Your constant references to it are tedious and risk derailing every thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know my position, and I've explained it to you multiple times. I'm not going to put it in every post, because putting qualifications about the possibility that reality is somehow an illusion, the "brain-in-a-vat" level of scepticism, would make every post way too long-winded. Anybody who's thought much about these things will know this anyway. It's literally philosophy 101. Even the simplest online intro would cover it.

Your constant references to it are tedious and risk derailing every thread.

Yeah, we are both obsessed with evidence and burden of proof. You just concentrate on religious people. I do both religious and non-religious.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, we are both obsessed with evidence and burden of proof. You just concentrate on religious people. I do both religious and non-religious.

No, you keep bringing up an entirely unrelated issue about a simple philosophical point about whether 'reality' is real. You've done it to death, and it's been endlessly addressed. Your extreme solipsism is not relevant to most subjects.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you keep bringing up an entirely unrelated issue about a simple philosophical point about whether 'reality' is real. You've done it to death, and it's been endlessly addressed. Your extreme solipsism is not relevant to most subjects.

Well, as per burden of proof, what kind of solipsism do I do?

As you still have to answer if "we" are the same for real and unreal "reality". Remember burden of proof.

 

[PureX]

Does your God exist? Did God spontaneously emerge from non-existence?

As the source of all that exists, logically, God must transcend existence in any way that we would conceive of it.

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.

Set the phony me up, knock the phony me down. There, feel better now?

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.

Since we are talking about unknowns, how are you calculating the probabilities?

Why don't you ever ask yourself these questions before you post? Being such a skeptic and critical thinker an all.

 

[ratiocinator]

As the source of all that exists, logically, God must transcend existence in any way that we would conceive of it.

Begging the question.

Set the phony me up, knock the phony me down. There, fell better now?

That's rather funny, as it's exactly what you keep doing to atheists. However, I asked a question and made a point that you didn't answer.

Since we are talking about unknowns, how are you calculating the probabilities?

I don't need to calculate them, it's a simple inequality that results from a conjunction: Prod(X and Y) ≤ Prob(X).

 

[PureX]

The evidence is that it works.

So does choosing faith in God. It's why most humans throughout time have chosen to employ it. AND it doesn't conflict with the predictability of applying logic to natural observation.

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.

If functionality is evidence, and it is, then it is eveidence for the validity of faith, and of intuition, and of chance, too, not just of scientific methodology.

Science and methodological naturalism aren't what's 'out there', they are an approach to studying it and predicting it.

One of many. And you seem to be somewhat over-estimating the value of predictability.

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.

Well, unfortunately you have fallen into the bias pit, here. As any methodology that "works" for us as we negotiate our experience of existing can stand as a representation of existence in our minds. But representations are not reality. And we become fools if we allow ourselves to fall for this deception.

This is as true of those falling for the deception that their religion = realty as it is true for those who fall for the deception that science = reality. The methodologies we use to negotiate with the mystery of 'what is', are not 'what is'. And they do not define or represent it.

 

[PureX]

Unsound.

Is "unconvinced" a conviction?

No, in this instance it's just a lie. The atheists that keep telling it are fully convinced that there are no gods. They just can't defend that conviction, and they know it, so they lie about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

So does choosing faith in God.

Either you're using the word 'works' in an entirely different sense, or you can tell us what testable predictions "choosing faith in God" makes....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Either you're using the word 'works' in an entirely different sense, or you can tell us what testable predictions "choosing faith in God" makes....

Well, as a form of psychology faith in God can have postive subjective results.
As for in effect the big one for what really works?!! Well, we can observe that there are theists and they don't just die, but have lives. So in some sense it works.
So as in practice for how the world works, religion as per humans is a part of how the world works.
See, it depends on how "we" understand works.

 

[PureX]

Either you're using the word 'works' in an entirely different sense, or you can tell us what testable predictions "choosing faith in God" makes....

Testable prediction is not the only way things "work" for us in this world. Please at least try to pull your head out of the behind of scientism, huh?

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I go by the three references that I cited that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the atheist claim is not a positive claim. I can cite more, but I doubt it will help your stoic denial. The fact that it is a negative position confirms that the burden of proof lies with the positive claim Theists do shift the burden of proof on atheists, but to some extent the argument is mute, because neither position can be conclusively proven or demonstrated,

There are sound logical reasons described in the references to consider the atheist position a negative argument that go beyond this particular debate.

You have a problem of ignoring my references and failing to present anything in response, but a personal assertion.

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.

True, I have challenged Theists like @PureX for strawman generalizations concerning what atheists believe, and by the way misinformation and misrepresentation of science in their argument..

 

[shunyadragon]

Testable prediction is not the only way things "work" for us in this world. Please at least try to pull your head out of the behind of scientism, huh?

Pejorative name calling and strawman generalizations do not negate your failure to present a coherent argument.

Tell us how "other ways things work for us in the world" that would amount to a coherent argument for the existence of Gods.

I specifically challenged your misuse and misinformation concerning science in post #708 and you have failed to respond.

 

[PureX]

Pejorative name calling and strawman generalizations do not negate your failure to present a coherent argument.

There was no pejorative name-calling or straw man generalizations. So please stop making these false accusations.

Tell us how "other ways things work for us in the world" that would amount to a coherent argument for the existence of Gods.

I have explained how faith works for us in life many, many, many times on these threads. And in fact even you could figure it out on your own if you were willing to give it some thought. But you aren't, and you haven't, so I'd just be wasting my time yet again.

 

[Valjean]

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.

It's also a false dilemma.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's also a false dilemma.

Yeah, for the broad version of gods. I understand that now.

 

[ratiocinator]

Testable prediction is not the only way things "work" for us in this world.

Then you're using the word in a different sense. I know faith 'works' in many ways for individuals, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the object of faith involved. In fact, since it 'works' for different, and mutually exclusive, 'Gods', as well as in other things, it tells us that it's the faith itself that 'works', not the reality of what is believed.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is as true of those falling for the deception that their religion = realty as it is true for those who fall for the deception that science = reality. The methodologies we use to negotiate with the mystery of 'what is', are not 'what is'. And they do not define or represent it.

And yet, just a few posts back, you confidently told us that there were no "non-God possibilities". Self-consistency isn't your strong suit, clearly.