Saying that they are not is apparently a positive claim.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
What claim and how? Please explain how. Then I would like an answer to the question I asked. Let me cut and paste it so that you could read again.
"So, how does he go against the scientific method by saying the metaphysical interactions with the physical can be tested by science to be metaphysical? What's the method he had developed? Could you explain?" referring to Victor J. Stenger
He did not. As you pointed out previously and are now countersaying, physical consequences can be tested.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You are making a positive claim. What evidence do you have? Please do provide evidence sticking to your epistemology.
Looking forward.
firedragon
Veteran Member
In that case, you have not understood the conversation. Please go back and read what I said clearly.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, it is not certain that there is a meaningful we as such. So to me it is off course interesting that there is a "we", but it is as much them as those who do it differently that apperently is a part of reality and not just we.
Surely you understand that positive claims need support and that the claim for existence of supernatural entities is the positive one?
Not doing that. I warned you that you are holding contradictory premises. I will not protect you further from the consequences.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then we just have different belief systems in effect.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh I do. But I didn't make that claim. So you are building a strawman here.
Good for you. Ciao.
Ciao. My time is not unlimited.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't know, since I don't do postive metaphysics or ontology.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
That much is obvious. I was just stating there is evidence for ontological naturalism.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, and I am pointing out that there is no objective evidence for it, since it in effect is a belief in your mind.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Congrats.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If that is how you treat every evidence, sure. I see no reason to be that skeptic though.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes, that is the point in part. We indiviudally have different thinking, but somehow it is supposed not to be the case, since ontological naturalism is in effect objective.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How did you reach the conclusion it is not supposed to be the case?