Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

I think ‘there is no reason to believe gods, fictional human creations,

It's an irrelevant comment.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Two possibilities to start with.

On a forum like this, people, like the OP, write things with the express purpose of generating debate. Those that disagree, well, post disagreement. Mostly it's a kind of game that people enjoy and is generally harmless.

Much more seriously, people want to control others and use theological claims to support their claims of legitimacy. Now, in cases where the control is seen as harmful, challenging the claims becomes close to a necessity.

To get ahead of the inevitable misunderstanding, I'm not suggesting that any given person falls into in either or both of these categories.

 

[Quintessence]

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

It's worth noting that any functional worldview/philosophy/religion must reject skepticism on some level because skepticism is paralytic and prevents one from building any sort of foundation for a worldview/philosophy/religion. In some regards, the key role of both philosophy and religion is defeating skepticism so one can live the good life and find meaning. How this is gone about varies.

 

[ratiocinator]

Methodological naturalism. It's an axiom. So looking for the supernatural using the scientific method is ignorant.

Methodological naturalism and the scientific method are not the issues. If there is literally nothing that could persuade you that a belief you hold is mistaken, then it is blind faith.

 

[firedragon]

Methodological naturalism and the scientific method are not the issues.

That's exactly the issue you are getting into with a category error.

If there is literally nothing that could persuade you that a belief you hold is mistaken, then it is blind faith.

That's an irrelevant topic.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

To add a few thoughts here:

To me one of the issues too is the assumption that X belief always and necessarily produces Y behavior when this is simply not the case. Thus, even if one can change beliefs (which is quite possible, contrary to what you assert here - it's the entire point of marketing for example) it's a leap of logic to assume that eradication of X belief will result in elimination of Y behavior. That's not how it works.

 

[PureX]

As we see in believers who are very liberal at claiming their Gods exist, but then don't bother showing how they are correct, all while suggesting the critical thinker "just doesn't get it". How can we "get" anything when believers can't explain that their beliefs are true and correct?

That sounds like a limitation on your part. How indeed? Perhaps if you weren't so biased in favor of "evidence" (so you can play the Kangaroo Judge game) you woud be better able to see how and why faith is an effective way forward through the great unknown.

If a person isn't open to being corrected then they have bad faith and shouldn't bother debating. Critical thinkers are open to being corrected, but believers have no argument that demonstrates their claims are true, so they are rejected by logical default.

I haven't seen an "atheist" here, yet, that was "open to being corrected".

 

[ratiocinator]

That's exactly the issue you are getting into with a category error.

You brought up those subjects, not me.

That's an irrelevant topic.

It's my entire point. This is basic critical thinking. If you hold a belief and nothing can possibly persuade you that it is wrong, then it is nothing but blind faith. That, and the lack of any sound reasons to accept god-claims, are exactly why I don't believe in any God or gods, while not being able to say with certainty that they don't exist (in most cases).

And, of course, the fact at the very least most god-claims must be false because they contradict each other. It is simple logic that most people who believe in a God or gods are wrong.

 

[PureX]

Two possibilities to start with.

On a forum like this, people, like the OP, write things with the express purpose of generating debate. Those that disagree, well, post disagreement. Mostly it's a kind of game that people enjoy and is generally harmless.

Much more seriously, people want to control others and use theological claims to support their claims of legitimacy. Now, in cases where the control is seen as harmful, challenging the claims becomes close to a necessity.

Actually, all it does is become an enormous waste of time. And a huge distraction. What we need to be addressing is how a proposed human behavior will effect the well-being of our social collective. And, therefor, whether or not it can be tolerated by the collective.

 

[firedragon]

You brought up those subjects, not me.

I was responding to you. And you should read about the epistemic issues you encounter when trying to apply scientific methods in the subjects of the metaphysical being(s). Just read up.

And I must tell you, I never "brought up these issues". It was always someone like you making the same kind of comment.

It's my entire point.

Nope. This blind faith, proof of God, etc etc etc are all strawman attempts. They are rampant in this thread. So of course, I will not engage with that.

 

[HonestJoe]

One part at a time: Please explain how come we have cosmological principle and how come it is a principle...

With respect, no. I don't see the point of delving in to that much detail. I totally accept that there are a whole set of assumptions we all make in our observation and understanding of the universe. The key point remains that this is exactly as much a problem if you're saying "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist", or indeed any other statement.

I'm not really disagreeing with the specifics of the OP, I am just challenging the thinly veiled implications behind it.

 

[HonestJoe]

We were talking about science. It's not like human limitations or anything of the sort. It's a technical field and has its philosophical underpinnings.

Everything humans do are impacted by human limitations by definition. The point is that those are essentially the same limitations for all of us. Everything you've said about the statement "God does not exist" applies equally to the statement "God does exist". If you accept that, we'll be pretty much in complete agreement on this.

Even if a metaphysical being has influence on the physical world, science will test and hypothesize about the physical process, not the metaphysical influence.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Most proposed gods (including your own) are interventionist ones. Nobody can prove or disprove that any interventions were actually caused by a proposed metaphysical god, but we can seek to understand if the claimed effects actually occurred as described or predicted.

If I claimed my god has made me unconditionally immortal but I then die, my naturalistic claim of immortality would come under significant question but the metaphysical claim about my god would too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

With respect, no. I don't see the point of delving in to that much detail. I totally accept that there are a whole set of assumptions we all make in our observation and understanding of the universe. The key point remains that this is exactly as much a problem if you're saying "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist", or indeed any other statement.

I'm not really disagreeing with the specifics of the OP, I am just challenging the thinly veiled implications behind it.

Yeah, I understand the point differently.

 

[1137]

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.

Gods are immaterial beings, so proving the immaterial does not exist would pretty quickly prove atheism, without even getting into deeper specifics. But you're right that I wouldn't bother, the faith of physicalism has been all but dismantled.

It's worth noting that any functional worldview/philosophy/religion must reject skepticism on some level because skepticism is paralytic and prevents one from building any sort of foundation for a worldview/philosophy/religion. In some regards, the key role of both philosophy and religion is defeating skepticism so one can live the good life and find meaning. How this is gone about varies.

Sure, but that isn't generally what Skepticism means since nobody lives that way. What I mean is there's a commonality in people outright refusing to doubt or question anything they assume to be true at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's worth noting that any functional worldview/philosophy/religion must reject skepticism on some level because skepticism is paralytic and prevents one from building any sort of foundation for a worldview/philosophy/religion. In some regards, the key role of both philosophy and religion is defeating skepticism so one can live the good life and find meaning. How this is gone about varies.

Yeah, I had to learn that myself. So now I am a skeptic, who believes in positvie values/beliefs so I in effect can have a good life.

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, but that isn't generally what Skepticism means since nobody lives that way. What I mean is there's a commonality in people outright refusing to doubt or question anything they assume to be true at all.

Yeah, I suppose. I guess I'm not that fussed by that. I'm really not that interested in doubting or questioning the fundamentals of who and what I am either. There's no point to doing it - I'm old and just beyond needing to do that. I know who I am and I know whose I am. Others do too, and their who and whose is almost invariably going to be different than mine. They do their ways, I do mine. And we'll navigate the relationships that occur between different lifeways - conflict and cooperation, virtues and vices - as life unfolds.

 

[1137]

Yeah, I suppose. I guess I'm not that fussed by that. I'm really not that interested in doubting or questioning the fundamentals of who and what I am either. There's no point to doing it - I'm old and just beyond needing to do that. I know who I am and I know whose I am. Others do too, and their who and whose is almost invariably going to be different than mine. They do their ways, I do mine. And we'll navigate the relationships that occur between different lifeways - conflict and cooperation, virtues and vices - as life unfolds.

I definitely understand this perspective more as I age. Idk though I think I'll always apply some doubt.

 

[Koldo]

Well, for all of reality to be natural, you have to observe that as per evidence.

But I do. Don't you?

But natural is an abstract concept and not based on direct sensory experience as per empirical evidence.

What does one thing has to do with the other?

 

[Koldo]

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

(Reworded)

Surely.

 

[Koldo]

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

I was referring to extreme skepticism.