Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Koldo]

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have never seem evidence for ontological naturalism?

That holds as evidence? No!

 

[Koldo]

That holds as evidence? No!

What are you looking at right now?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you looking at right now?

Well, I am having a series of experiences but from that doesn't follow ontological naturalism.

 

[PureX]

There's no doubt that both statements, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are positive claims. But most people usually don't make either. For the most part, they frame it as a belief statement, such as "I believe in God," and "I don't believe in any gods." Those are also both positive statements, but they are NOT statements about God/god at all -- merely statements about what the speaker himself believes.

I think you'll find that not only do most atheists frame it thus, but so do most theists. Go into any Christian church, and sometime during the service you'll here the congregation reciting their "creed," which just comes from the Latin word credo, which is the first person, singular form of the verb to believe. Here's the Catholic version, in Latin:

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem,
factorem caeli et terrae,
visibilium omnium et invisibilium,
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei unigenitum,
et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula,
Deum de Deo, lumen de Lumine,
Deum verum de Deo vero,
genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri:
per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.

Here's the Protestant one in English:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

As you can see, all framed as statements about the congregants' beliefs, not as statements about deities.

So, why don't we allow other people to believe as they wish? Why must we argue with them about it just because we don't share it? Especiallt when it's about an issue that none of us can resolve? (God)

Does saying "I believe" mean I think you should believe as I do? I think a lot of people think it does. Mostly because they think it, themselves.

 

[Heyo]

I find that intriguing. Why do you hold this position?

I have studied arguments for and against the existence of gods and found that they rest on (usually unstated) assumption about the nature of god. That usually results in theists and atheists talking past each other.
When I ask them which definition of god they are using and how they justify that definition, the theists usually stumble, and the atheists use textbook definitions that mostly don't fit the claims of theists.
More than this would derail the thread, but I'd be happy to explain more in a more appropriate thread.

 

[HonestJoe]

Relevant part:
"... Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. ..."

I don't deny that in principle (on the assumption that the concept of "beyond nature" is valid, which I do question). My point is two-fold though.

The first is that if something is proposed to have created a physical effect, the effect can be tested. For example, if someone claims God cured their cancer, we could look at evidence for if they actually had cancer and whether it had indeed been cured. If someone claims that God created the universe a few thousand years ago, we could look at evidence for the actual age of the universe (via things within it). None of these can prove the God caused the effect or not, but if it is established that the claimed effect didn't even happen as claimed, the cause becomes moot.

The second (if related) point is that believers do routinely claimed that their gods are supernatural or metaphysical and therefore beyond the scope of our senses or understanding but then go on to assert interventions by, observations of and understand about their gods themselves. It'd be like me claiming to have an invisible pink elephant but say you can't challenge me because it's invisible so you can't see it.

The bottom line is believers seeking to apply restrictions on non-believers (or "science") without accepting those same restrictions would apply equally to them.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I am having a series of experiences but from that doesn't follow ontological naturalism.

Do you agree that you are experiencing natural phenomena right now?

 

[Koldo]

I have studied arguments for and against the existence of gods and found that they rest on (usually unstated) assumption about the nature of god. That usually results in theists and atheists talking past each other.
When I ask them which definition of god they are using and how they justify that definition, the theists usually stumble, and the atheists use textbook definitions that mostly don't fit the claims of theists.
More than this would derail the thread, but I'd be happy to explain more in a more appropriate thread.

Like nearly every word, the definitions are not precise, but there is more or less a general idea of what stands for 'god', and absolutely no need to justify it other than pointing to common usage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, why don't we allow other people to believe as they wish? Why must we argue with them about it just because we don't share it? Especiallt when it's about an issue that none of us can resolve? (God)

Does saying "I believe" mean I think you should believe as I do? I think a lot of people think it does. Mostly because they think it, themselves.

Very simply -- because far too often they want their beliefs to apply to everybody else. Those who, for Biblical reasons, think same-sex marriage is against God's wishes, want it banned even for those who hold no such beliefs. Those who think the Sabbath falls on Friday, Saturday or Sunday want everybody else to stop working on whichever one it is. Christian Nationalists are more interested in forcing every other American to conform than in actually worshipping themselves -- quite like Muslims in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Even members of RF have too often told other members that they are doomed to Hell. We're not, you know.

With people who believe as they wish -- and are happy to let others do the same -- I have no problem at all.

 

[Koldo]

So, why don't we allow other people to believe as they wish?

How can one even prohibit someone else from believing as they do?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't deny that in principle (on the assumption that the concept of "beyond nature" is valid, which I do question). My point is two-fold though.

The first is that if something is proposed to have created a physical effect, the effect can be tested. ...

One part at a time: Please explain how come we have cosmological principle and how come it is a principle -
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists. Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3"

As a bonus relate that to knowing if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe. And then come back and explain methodological naturalism and the axiomatic assumptions behind methodological naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you agree that you are experiencing natural phenomena right now?

No, not natural as known. I do believe with faith that it is natural but that is not knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You are actually quite wrong.

Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something

If you think "god does not exist" is not a negative claim, then I wonder what example you can give of a claim that IS a negative claim.
Sure, it is an assertion, absolutely. But it IS a negative claim.

What is not true is that negative claims necessarily don't have a burden of proof. However, there are difficulties there

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In general, I would say that negative claims are more useless then anything else. But for specifics, it kind of depends on context.

In any case, "god does not exist", most certainly is a negative claim.

 

[Koldo]

No, not natural as known. I do believe with faith that it is natural but that is not knowledge.

That's enough. Add lack of strong evidence for the supernatural, and there we have a solid ground for ontological naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's enough. Add lack of strong evidence for the supernatural, and there we have a solid ground for ontological naturalism.

Well, I am not a part of your we and no, I still don't do philosophy like you do.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I am not a part of your we and no, I still don't do philosophy like you do.

You don't have to. I am just showing what supports ontological naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't have to. I am just showing what supports ontological naturalism.

Well, here is an example of objective as general used by our kind of non-religious.
If I jump out from a cliff by high enough up and hit solid ground with a high enough speed I will die. In general terms there are assumed objective features of the everyday world that can get us killed.
So now I deny ontological naturalism and now I am dead, because that is how objective your claim is or not, right?!!!

 

[Quintessence]

Just for the fun of it. As far as I can tell @Quintessence is not a theist.

I am a theist, but probably not at all the type of theist the prejudiced statements are assuming. Which still makes it incredibly hilarious and ironic. I mean, pretty much no one goes "theist!" and then thinks a polytheistic pantheistic animist for whom gods are literally the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am a theist, but probably not at all the type of theist the prejudiced statements are assuming. Which still makes it incredibly hilarious and ironic. I mean, pretty much no one goes "theist!" and then thinks a polytheistic pantheistic animist for whom gods are literally the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing.

Okay, that makes sense. And yes, that is not a "standard" theist.