Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Watchmen]

Evident to you, perhaps. On the other hand, there are no shortage of people who claim to have first hand experience of divine power working in their lives. So why should they believe in your reasoning over their own lived experience?

The quality of the evidence.

 

[Koldo]

Guys, if you don't think gods exist, what kind of universe do you believe we live in?

Probably the same universe you believe in, except for the gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you reach the conclusion it is not supposed to be the case?

Well, for all of reality to be natural, you have to observe that as per evidence. But natural is an abstract concept and not based on direct sensory experience as per empirical evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion.

It is an assertion and a positive claim (although you'd need a definition of 'God') but it's not one that many atheists (myself included) would make because we are agnostic atheists.

I'd make the claim about some versions of 'God', like any that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal days, because they are falsified by vast amounts of evidence. Some others are logically self-contradictory, but generally speaking many versions are simply unfalsifiable, so nobody can be sure that they don't exist. I don't believe in them simply because I see no sound reasons to accept the claims made by theists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is an assertion and a positive claim (although you'd need a definition of 'God') but it's not one that many atheists (myself included) would make because we are agnostic atheists.

I'd make the claim about some versions of 'God', like any that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal days, because they are falsified by vast amounts of evidence. Some others are logically self-contradictory, but generally speaking many versions are simply unfalsifiable, so nobody can be sure that they don't exist. I don't believe in them simply because I see no sound reasons to accept the claims made by theists.

Well, do you do methodological or philosophical naturalism? And what is the ontological status of logic?

 

[firedragon]

It is an assertion and a positive claim

Absolutely.

(although you'd need a definition of 'God') but it's not one that many atheists (myself included) would make because we are agnostic atheists.

I know. Some do. And for definitions of God, it's for another thread.

I'd make the claim about some versions of 'God', like any that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal days, because they are falsified by vast amounts of evidence.

That's not the topic.

Some others are logically self-contradictory, but generally speaking many versions are simply unfalsifiable, so nobody can be sure that they don't exist.

That's a category error. You are trying to use the scientific method for a metaphysical being.

I don't believe in them simply because I see no sound reasons to accept the claims made by theists.

For another topic.

 

[1137]

I don't know, since I don't do postive metaphysics or ontology.

I didn't ask what you know.

Probably the same universe you believe in, except for the gods.

Precisely. And can you defend this belief in a godless universe?

(Reworded)

 

[ratiocinator]

That's a category error. You are trying to use the scientific method for a metaphysical being.

How so? "God exists" is a claim about objective reality (at least in many cases), so what exactly is wrong with applying the criterion of falsifiability?

 

[1137]

If that is how you treat every evidence, sure. I see no reason to be that skeptic though.

Rejecting Skepticism seems to be common among a certain type of atheist (and theist, to be fair).

 

[1137]

How so? "God exists" is a claim about objective reality (at least in many cases), so what exactly is wrong with applying the criterion of falsifiability?

The existence of gods is absolutely falsifiable. I've noticed people tend to confuse "i have failed to falsify it" with "it cannot be falsified."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't ask what you know.

Precisely. And can you defend this believe that the universe is godless?

I don't know what the universe is, so I can't defend any belief as such.
The universe as it appears seems to work both with God and without, so I really don't know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The quality of the evidence.

But you have no empirical evidence.

Whereas those who claim first hand knowledge of God, do have evidence. Evidence good enough for them, regardless of whether it convinces you.

Your problem it seems to me, is in thinking that your experience and understanding, or lack thereof, is universal.

 

[firedragon]

"God exists" is a claim about objective reality (at least in many cases), so what exactly is wrong with applying the criterion of falsifiability?

Hmm. In the philosophy of science, what some fundamental axioms that precedes the scientific method?

 

[ratiocinator]

The existence of gods is absolutely falsifiable.

What gods and how?

 

[1137]

What gods and how?

Literally any gods, and I'd say the route most in line with most atheistic metaphysics would be to prove material/physical reductionism. Not sure why I'm telling you how you can attempt to falsify a position you've rejected without even knowing how to falsify it...

 

[ratiocinator]

Hmm. In the philosophy of science, what some fundamental axioms that precedes the scientific method?

Do you need help looking things up? You didn't answer my question.

 

[firedragon]

Do you need help looking things up? You didn't answer my question.

I will. I just wish to understand your knowledge on the topic. If you are far too superior to think others need help looking things up, that's fine. Let me spell it out.

Methodological naturalism. It's an axiom. So looking for the supernatural using the scientific method is ignorant. It's of course practiced by many militantly evangelical atheists but is an ignorant cliche thrown out all the time. It's like looking for plastic on the ground using a metal detector.

Cheers.

 

[PureX]

The problem with that, is that beliefs inform actions.

But it's the actions that matter. The beliefs are irrelevant. There is no question that human behavior has to be controlled. There is no question that we cannot control what people tihnk or choose to believe. So why on Earth are you so insistant on wasting time trying to control the latter? Why is anyone?

So I wouldn't say that what people believe is irrelevant in that context.

What people choose to believe is completely irrelevant in terms of controlling human behavior. The determining factor is how a given behavior effects the well-being of that human's social collective. What they believe and why they believe it isn't going to change the logic of that criteria. Laws governing behavior based on that criteria are the only solution because it's the only action that can be effective.

Because what they believe, will inform their actions. And thus what they do.

And there is absolutely NOTHING you or anyone else can do about that.

What we can do is impose laws that control our behavior based on how our behavior effects the well-being of our social collective. We are just wasting time and energy, and muddying up the issue by arguing with each other about what we choose to believe.

If you want to argue about something, argue about what behaviors support the well-being of your social collective, and what laws we should impose as a result.

 

[Tomef]

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 think ‘there is no reason to believe gods, fictional human creations, have any actual existence beyond the imagination’ is better. Going straight to the existence of a god bypasses the fact that all the gods most of us know about, in the commonly known religions, are based on characters created by other people, in books. The question then would be, is there any reason to think that these fictional characters somehow came out of the writings to be part of the world, in some sort of ‘spiritual’ sense? That puts things in the proper order.

 

[ratiocinator]

Literally any gods, and I'd say the route most in line with most atheistic metaphysics would be to prove material/physical reductionism.

How would that help? Why would I bother to even try?

Give a god definition (other than the sorts I already mentioned) and show me some way to falsify it, and I'd be proved wrong.

Simple.