Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[PureX]

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.

It tells us that trusting in it works for us. Just as trusting in science works for us. Neither will tell us anything about God. The nature or character of God is beyond our comprehension. It transcends existence, and therefor us, and all we will ever know.

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.

Faith Is a method of nevaigating the mystery of reality. Not unlike science, intuition, practice, and even chance. Belief is not faith, and faith is not belief. Belief is a subset of practice. Stupid people often confuse and conflate belief with faith, and the really stupid ones refuse to stop doing it even when it's explained to them why and how these are not at all the same cognitive methodologies. I hope you're not one of those.

 

[PureX]

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.

This made no sense at all in response to what I posted, but I guess you just had to post some kind of antithetical response, and this is all you could come up with.

 

[ratiocinator]

It tells us that trusting in it works for us. Just as trusting in science works for us.

Science works for everybody. Faith sometimes works for some people.

Neither will tell us anything about God. The nature or character of God is beyond our comprehension. It transcends existence, and therefor us, and all we will ever know.

So you keep asserting. You haven't actually established that 'God' refers to anything real.

Faith Is a method of nevaigating the mystery of reality. Not unlike science, intuition, practice, and even chance.

Except these things are entirely different. Science is actually the only one that can be objectively tested and that allows us to make reliably accurate predictions. Intuition is very limited and provably wrong in many cases. Faith seems to be a powerful motivator and seems to have other uses, but a 'loose cannon' at best; motivating some to great good and some to great evil.

The rest is just more insults and ranting.

 

[PureX]

Science works for everybody. Faith sometimes works for some people.

Faith works for everyone. Just like science. But not all the time, and not always the same way; unlike science.

So you keep asserting. You haven't actually established that 'God' refers to anything real.

"Real compared to what"? God is the source of all that is real and unreal.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion. Maybe this is not a big topic but I thought it should be brought out and some feedback is nice.

In some discussions, people claim that it's not a positive claim and that it's a negative claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim because it asserts a specific proposition about the nature of reality, akin to other existential claims. The confusion often arises from a superficial reading of the grammatical negation rather than understanding the nature of ontological assertions. With this understanding I believe some Atheists unintentionally commit the burden of proof fallacy. While grammatically, it might appear to be a negation because of the word "not," philosophically it is an assertion. Philosophically, a claim's positivity or negativity is about whether it asserts something about the world, not just its grammatical structure. The statement is about the state of reality, not about avoiding a claim. It posits that the world lacks a particular entity (God), which is a substantive assertion. Thus, it's not a negative claim.

When someone says "God does not exist," they are making a claim about the state of the world. This is in contrast to a merely skeptical position or a lack of belief. A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false, rather than simply withholding judgment or being uncertain.

• Assertion of Reality: It affirms a particular view of the world, similar to how saying "Unicorns do not exist" is making a positive assertion about the nature of reality.
• Burden of Proof: Just like with any other claim about existence or non-existence, it carries a burden of proof. The person making this claim must provide arguments or evidence to support why they believe this to be the case.

Cheers.

I have told Atheists, if God does not exist, the topic would never come up

 

[firedragon]

I have told Atheists, if God does not exist, the topic would never come up

Hmm. Thinking about your statement here, I think it has a very deep meaning. Interesting. I don't know if you actually thought what I gathered from your statement. But this one goes a very very long way.

Nice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Faith works for everyone.

No, it does not (from first-hand experience).

But not all the time, and not always the same way; unlike science.

So it's, at best, unpredictable and unreliable. And, for the reasons already given, it tells us nothing about the reality of the objects of faith. It cannot tell you that a God exists, for example.

"Real compared to what"? God is the source of all that is real and unreal.

Another question begging assertion.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

You have history of aggressive pejorative anti-science accusation of science and atheism. You falsely associated atheism with science. You frequently rant against atheism and make negative generalizations of atheists. example as responded to you in post #707

What is missing here is any critical thinking concerning science and what others believe differently.

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.

No you have not. The following vague justification is a clear failure

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.

In post #699 you made false statement lacking in a basic knowledge of science. which has been explained to you in detail before

"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.

Actually it is true that "That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence?" is likely impossible, but science claims no such origin for the nature of the origin of our physical existence.

Still waiting for a response,

 

[shunyadragon]

Faith works for everyone. Just like science. But not all the time, and not always the same way; unlike science.

"Real compared to what"? God is the source of all that is real and unreal.

First problem: In the English language faith is synonym for belief.

 

[PureX]

No, it does not (from first-hand experience).

As always, you are confusing faith with religion. You engage in acts of faith all the time. Just not religious faith. And it works for you just as it works for everyone. Though not all thew time or always in the same way.

And even regarding faith in God, when it's reasoned and applied properly it works very well. And it would have worked well for you, too, had this been the case.

So it's, at best, unpredictable and unreliable.

It's as reliable as the one engaged in it is honest and intelligent. Same as science, intuition, practice, and even chance.

And, for the reasons already given, it tells us nothing about the reality of the objects of faith.

This is just silly gibberish. You can't even tell me what the phrase "the reality of objects of faith" means.

It cannot tell you that a God exists, for example.

So what? The magnitude of things that none of we humans know is incalculable. What makes you think you could ever determine such a thing? What would "existence" even mean in relation to the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is?

 

[PureX]

First problem: In the English language faith is synonym for belief.

And "Gay" is a synonym for "homosexual". Even though the two wards have nothing whatever to do with each other logically, reasonably, or via common sense. So running to the dictionary to try and make a point is like running to a gay club to avoid homosexuals.

"Faith" is only synonymous with "religious belief" in the minds of idiots that don't bother to consider what the terms actually mean. So the question is, are you going to be one of those idiots? Or are you going to stop and actually consider the difference between what faith and religious belief are? AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING TODAY?

 

[PureX]

You have history of aggressive pejorative anti-science accusation of science and atheism.

I have no problem with science or atheism. I just call out dishonesty and stupidity when I see it. And around here that most often happens when the atheist-scientism crowd shows up.

You falsely associated atheism with science.

No, the atheist-scientism crowd is constantly trying to use science as their justification for being atheist, because they are otherwise incapable of offering any sound reasoning for it.

You frequently rant against atheism and make negative generalizations of atheists. example as responded to you in post #707

Atheism is a rather silly philosophical position, I think, but as a personal choice it's as valid as any other we might make regarding God. What I "rant" against is the stupidity and dishonesty being pushed by so many two-faced "atheists" pretending that they aren't really atheists all the while pushing their atheist scientism idiocy at anyone that dares to mention God.

What is missing here is any critical thinking concerning science and what others believe differently.

The moment you felt you had to use the term "believe" here, you forfeited any credibility regarding critical thought.

No you have not. The following vague justification is a clear failure

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

Why, we both know you have no interest in considering anything I would post in response to this silly question, and you will immediately fight with whatever information you would be given as a response. You are in full on, knee-jerk, "auto-defend" mode at this point and that's going to determine everything you post for the forseeable future.

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

And you foolishly imagine that I should care? You don't have the foggiest idea what my post are about. And you are clearly not going to try to understand. Your "challenge" is just an excuse for a pointless fight.

In post #699 you made false statement lacking in a basic knowledge of science. which has been explained to you in detail before

Get back to me someday when you finally realize that scientism is not science. And science is not scientism.

"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.

Actually it is true that "That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence?" is likely impossible, but science claims no such origin for the nature of the origin of our physical existence.

True, science has nothing to say about it because it knows nothing about it and has no capacity to investigate it. But the scientism crowd sure does. They think science has all but proven that existence just spontaneously happened, from nothing. And they even think "quantum physics" has somehow provided them with the answers. It's completely absurd, but there it is. Read back through the posts and see for yourself.

Still waiting for a response,

You wouldn't know a response if I gave you one.

 

[McBell]

I have no problem with science or atheism. I just call out dishonesty and stupidity when I see it.

I call bovine feces.
The evidence it is a huge steaming pile of bovine feces is every post of yours in this thread.

 

[Viker]

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

It's just that simple.

 

[ratiocinator]

As always, you are confusing faith with religion. You engage in acts of faith all the time. Just not religious faith. And it works for you just as it works for everyone. Though not all thew time or always in the same way.

Now you're trying to conflate different meanings of the word 'faith', which is a something believers often try to do. It doesn't work.

And even regarding faith in God, when it's reasoned and applied properly it works very well. And it would have worked well for you, too, had this been the case.

"If it didn't work, you didn't do it right." You really are comically arrogant, and the irony of you accusing atheists of your own faults is off the scale.

It's as reliable as the one engaged in it is honest and intelligent. Same as science, intuition, practice, and even chance.

See above.

This is just silly gibberish. You can't even tell me what the phrase "the reality of objects of faith" means.

Can't I? How would you know, since you didn't even ask? Comical arrogance again.

The magnitude of things that none of we humans know is incalculable. What makes you think you could ever determine such a thing? What would "existence" even mean in relation to the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is?

More question begging.

 

[shunyadragon]

True, science has nothing to say about it because it knows nothing about it and has no capacity to investigate it. But the scientism crowd sure does. They think science has all but proven that existence just spontaneously happened, from nothing. And they even think "quantum physics" has somehow provided them with the answers. It's completely absurd, but there it is. Read back through the posts and see for yourself.

You wouldn't know a response if I gave you one.

This post unfortunately completely absurd and demonstrates your intentional ignorance of science.

Scientists of all faiths are almost entirely in agreement, 97%+, with all basic science including, Evolution, Cosmology, and Physics. None remotely propose that our physical existence emerged from non-existence.

No, scientists regardless of belief do not propose any branch of science answers all questions including Quantum Mechanics.

 

[shunyadragon]

And "Gay" is a synonym for "homosexual". Even though the two wards have nothing whatever to do with each other logically, reasonably, or via common sense. So running to the dictionary to try and make a point is like running to a gay club to avoid homosexuals.

"Faith" is only synonymous with "religious belief" in the minds of idiots that don't bother to consider what the terms actually mean. So the question is, are you going to be one of those idiots? Or are you going to stop and actually consider the difference between what faith and religious belief are? AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING TODAY?

First problem: In the English language faith is synonym for belief without qualifications in the English language,

You are making up your own language to justify your agenda this includes nonsense science.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, the atheist-scientism crowd is constantly trying to use science as their justification for being atheist, because they are otherwise incapable of offering any sound reasoning for it.

Science has very little to say with respect to God. It can rule out certain God-claims and some of the arguments for God, but that's all. The basis of (agnostic) atheism is simply the total lack of any reason to believe in such a being.

You do love your straw men, though.

They think science has all but proven that existence just spontaneously happened, from nothing. And they even think "quantum physics" has somehow provided them with the answers.

Who is 'they', and can you reference any posts that suggest this? "Spontaneously happened from nothing" doesn't even make much sense. Happenings require time.

There are endless hypotheses that can go deeper than any currently accepted theory, but you still have to assume some physical laws, and not literal nothingness (if that even makes sense).

There is a mystery about existence that science cannot address (at least as far as I can see) but making up magic beings and an imaginary purpose to it all, doesn't really help either. In fact, it just gives us more to explain.

But all this doesn't stop you ranting and raving against a largely imaginary position that hardly anybody is suggesting, and then calling us all liars for not fitting in the box you want to rail against. Ho-hum...

 

[Redneck Mystic]

Hmm. Thinking about your statement here, I think it has a very deep meaning. Interesting. I don't know if you actually thought what I gathered from your statement. But this one goes a very very long way.

Nice.

I also have told Atheists, and Christians, if they lived in my skin a little while, they would know for a fact that God exists, and they very well might wish God did not exist.

 

[firedragon]

I also have told Atheists, and Christians, if they lived in my skin a little while, they would know for a fact that God exists, and they very well might wish God did not exist.

There are some who wish God does not exist. There are those who believe God exists but hates God. Distheists. Oh and even misotheists.