Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[GoodAttention]

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 would compare the statement with Kant's antinomies about God.

There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary. I would say that statement is false, which would deny both the existence and necessity of God, or result in the conclusion "God does not exist". Equally the opposite statement, an absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause as true.

If going by a truth and a falsehood as positive and negative respectively, then "God does not exist" is a positive claim. However, it would be so because it portrays an existence not limited to, or beholden by, a being with attributes that are both absolute and necessary.

 

[firedragon]

However, it would be so because it portrays an existence not limited to, or beholden by, a being with attributes that are both absolute and necessary.

The statement does not portray anything of the sort. And the OP is not about anything but the topic discussed in it.

This is irrelevant.

 

[GoodAttention]

The statement does not portray anything of the sort. And the OP is not about anything but the topic discussed in it.

This is irrelevant.

The title of your OP is Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim.

You also said "A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false".

So I was of the opinion that taking a stance on two contradictory states, one true, one false, resulting in the positive outcome for "God does not exist" being a relevant point of discussion but I clearly don't understand your post at all.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

Applying Hitchens to the assertion adds a little confusion, I think. The positive assertion that God does exist would depend on how an individual understands God. The Atheists assertion asserts that there is no need to prove there isn't one based on the assertion that there is no God. It's a claim that the term need not apply to what is known about life.

My view is that God exists, so that burden of proof would fall on me due to that specific assertion and based on the many concepts of God, I could not prove my understanding to be the fact and therefore, I am left with a personal understanding that need not apply to anyone other than myself.

 

[firedragon]

The title of your OP is Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim.

You also said "A positive claim involves taking a stance that something is true or false".

So I was of the opinion that taking a stance on two contradictory states, one true, one false, resulting in the positive outcome for "God does not exist" being a relevant point of discussion but I clearly don't understand your post at all.

Go to an encyclopedia of philosophy. Look for positive claim.

 

[firedragon]

Applying Hitchens to the assertion adds a little confusion, I think

Hitchens is not philosophically trained.

And brother, the OP is not about the existence of God. It's only about the statement in the Title.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hitchens is not philosophically trained.

And brother, the OP is not about the existence of God. It's only about the statement in the Title.

Yeah well, I happen to like Hitchens and the positive affirmation as applied to your last point in the op, seemed relevant to the intent, so forgive my misguided contribution to your positive notion, brother.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah well, I happen to like Hitchens and the positive affirmation as applied to your last point in the op, seemed relevant to the intent, so forgive my misguided contribution to your positive notion, brother.

Positive Claim is a philosophical term that has a meaning. It's a technical term. Many misunderstand it. That's the purpose of this thread.

Cheers.

 

[Balthazzar]

Positive Claim is a philosophical term that has a meaning. It's a technical term. Many misunderstand it. That's the purpose of this thread.

Cheers.

So, a positive claim is the philosophy behind the intent of the original post. What's your point, then? Simply that it's a positive claim?

OK

Is there anything you'd like to discuss?

 

[GoodAttention]

Go to an encyclopedia of philosophy. Look for positive claim.

Irrelevant to general religious debate.

 

[McBell]

Irrelevant to general religious debate.

I agree.
however this thread is not a "general" debate, religious or otherwise.

This thread is a specific debate on the OP topic that happens to be in the General Religious Debates sub-forum.

 

[GoodAttention]

I agree.
however this thread is not a "general" debate, religious or otherwise.

This thread is a specific debate on the OP topic that happens to be in the General Religious Debates sub-forum.

Specific or general, it is a debate about semantics at best.

The sub-forum should be philosophical concept examples

 

[McBell]

Specific or general, where is the "debate"?

The thread should be philosophical concept examples

there is all manner of debate in this thread.
Some of which is actually relevant to the OP...

 

[GoodAttention]

there is all manner of debate in this thread.
Some of which is actually relevant to the OP...

There is some manner of verbal jousting in this thread
Nonne of which compares to the paucity of the OP

 

[McBell]

There is some manner of verbal jousting in this thread
Nonne of which compares to the paucity of the OP

You do know you are not required to post, right?

Meaning if a thread does not meet your standards/expectations you are free to skip past it.

 

[firedragon]

Irrelevant to general religious debate.

I just gave you a clue to understand what that means. It's absolutely relevant. If you don't intend to do that simple research about philosophical terms, and you stick to usual speaking language and go on making conjecture, that's what is irrelevant. Your prerogative.

 

[wellwisher]

I have used this back in my more naive and idealistic days. It was an uber independent framework where I was the arbiter of truth. The one flaw is that if I'm not trusting that England exists, how would I trust people that I have landed in England after the plane lands? It could be France and everyone is lying. How would I know? It's inevitable that we have to trust others, and this is why integrity and reputation is crucial. If you ruin your intergity and reputation you won't be trusted.

There is a trust we all share and accept without having to go to extremes of skepticism.

The irony of your views here is that you trust and accept far rght wing disinformation media, and feel confident in it to post on an open forum where you get criticism for your media choices, and political beliefs.

That's because science has an integrity by showing its work. It has an excellent reputation that many believers envy. Religion doesn't. Religion is a social tradition that has ideas spread via social learning, and requires no standard of truth. So critical thinkers understand that science follows a high standard, and that religions don't.

They will have experiences like anyone has experiences. It's how they frame, define, and interpret the experiences they create for themselves that gives them what they believe happens.

What I like to do is let time go by until we have 20/20 hind sight, to see who got things right and who lied. Lies come out fast and can out run the truth in the beginning. But truth, although slower at first eventually catches up. Then we have 20/20 hindsight.

Do you remember the Russian Collusion scam. I figure that out within weeks as being a sore loser and get Trump scam. It never made sense beyond that other than those in power trying to hang onto power with slimy tactics. And there was too much coordination; conspiracy.Right wing media did a better job framing the scam, while Left wing was way out ahead running with the lie. If the Left wing media did not double down and had they apologized, I would have given them another try, but all they did was other scams.

Now we have 20/20 hindsight to compare many of these scams and the even people who were involved doing internet sales. How about the Hunter Biden laptop and the 51 Lefty intel con artists, going back to a variation of the Russia scam, to frame the truth of the Laptop as Russian Disinformation and not as the Left wing disinformation that it was? What about using government to censor social media and only Conservatives ahead of the 2020 election? That was denied until Elon Musk bought Twitter and open the books. How about COVID and all those connected scams there such as covering up the China lab and the CDC involvement? We have 20/20 hindsight like mask wearing was not as effective as the was being pushed by force and claimed as science.

After enough debunked scams you start to see a pattern of behavior, such as like the Left pretending none of this ever happened, as cover for the next scam with new smoke. You are talking of trust, while supporting each scam; trust me is a con artist motto.

One good exercise is to go back into time and read what everyone wrote, when the various scams first came out, to see who saw the truth and who carried the water of deception. There are plenty of 20/20 hindsight scams we can relive since we have content records. I batted way up there on the truth meter, in terms of being able to seen and outline scams quite early. The disinformation crowd on this and other web sites has a pattern. They try to flood the zone saying the same script. If enough people repeat the same disinformation it can appear to be information. That is extremely dangerous to our Democracy.

I remember how Rush Limbaugh was the first to make collages of audio, when the entire Left wing media and propaganda machine was given marching orders. They would all say the same things the same way on the same day. How do you trust propaganda teams? The new jingle, Extremely Dangerous to our Democracy, was about Trump bashing, since he was pointing out truth which is now in 20/20 hindsight. I believe in freedom of speech even for the propaganda teams. You have to do some 20/20 hindsight research and find who got it right and who made it wrong and deceptive. This is why FOX had increase audience share being shed by CNN and others.