Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

But I do. Don't you?



What does one thing has to do with the other?

You can't observe say that the leaves on the tree are green in the same way as you can observe that the universe is natural.
The former for the tree is a concrete observation where as for the universe is an abstract cognition for the concept of natural.

 

[1137]

Surely.

Care to share?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was referring to extreme skepticism.

And what is that?

 

[firedragon]

Everything humans do are impacted by human limitations by definition. The point is that those are essentially the same limitations for all of us.

We are not discussing us when speaking about science. It's science, it's philosophical presuppositions, and axioms.

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.

Alright. Lets say you claim is entertained. How would you go about understanding the "claimed effects of the metaphysical being"? How would you do that through the scientific method. could you explain in scientific terms?

Mind you. Not rhetoric.

 

[Koldo]

You can't observe say that the leaves on the tree are green in the same way as you can observe that the universe is natural.
The former for the tree is a concrete observation where as for the universe is an abstract cognition for the concept of natural.

The words "green", "leaves" and "trees" all refer to categories/ideas. By the moment you label/interpret a direct observation as green leaves on a tree, you are doing the same as interpreting/labeling it as "natural".

 

[Koldo]

Care to share?

The defense? Where's the attack?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The words "green", "leaves" and "trees" all refer to categories/ideas. By the moment you label/interpret a direct observation as green leaves on a tree, you are doing the same as interpreting/labeling it as "natural".

That is as it stands an invalid deduction.
P1: There is a tree with green leaves.
C: Therefore it is natural.
That is invalid.

How do you know that it is natural?

 

[Quintessence]

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

That can happen. It does for me, in spite of my best efforts haha. Probably because I was that kid who constantly asked "why" and questioned everything. It's like the critical thinking switch in my brain doesn't have an off position sometimes. It's kind of annoying at times.

 

[stvdv]

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

Hard, obviously not Smart

 

[Alien826]

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.

Yes.

The next step is discussing how a particular belief either amplifies or reduces that behavior. It's all connected.

 

[1137]

The defense? Where's the attack?

Yet another atheist asking us to please believe their position is fully defensable, even though you'll do anything to avoid defending it.

 

[Alien826]

That is as it stands an invalid deduction.
P1: There is a tree with green leaves.
C: Therefore it is natural.
That is invalid.

How do you know that it is natural?

I define "natural" as anything that exists. If something exists, then it has to have some substance, or maybe mode of existence would be better. So, if ghosts exist, they need to have something that supports that existence, like a vibration in some form of energy or ... whatever. Likewise gods. It doesn't have to be a substance that we currently know about or can detect, but it has to be something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I define "natural" as anything that exists. If something exists, then it has to have some substance, or maybe mode of existence would be better. So, if ghosts exist, they need to have something that supports that existence, like a vibration in some form of energy or ... whatever. Likewise gods. It doesn't have to be a substance that we currently know about or can detect, but it has to be something.

Yeah, but a definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then God is a fact as this is one defintion of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

How is it that you don't know how defintions are not facts?
I know it! And yes, I am not religious and an atheist.

 

[Koldo]

That is as it stands an invalid deduction.
P1: There is a tree with green leaves.
C: Therefore it is natural.
That is invalid.

How do you know that it is natural?

That's not what I am saying.
Let me put it this way: How do you know that what you are looking at it is a tree with green leaves?

 

[Koldo]

Yet another atheist asking us to please believe their position is fully defensable, even though you'll do anything to avoid defending it.

I am ready to defend it. Now, where's the attack? What am I supposed to defend it from?

 

[HonestJoe]

We are not discussing us when speaking about science. It's science, it's philosophical presuppositions, and axioms.

Science is just a set of tools, and though it could be used by any hypothetical intelligent beings, we're obviously only aware of it being used by humans. Fundamental limitations of science exist, but limitations of humans exist too, and both apply when humans are using science. Significantly though, when humans seek to understand the universe via other means (such as philosophy or faith), the human limitations still apply.

Alright. Lets say you claim is entertained. How would you go about understanding the "claimed effects of the metaphysical being"? How would you do that through the scientific method. could you explain in scientific terms?

I did literally give a hypothetical example in the post you quoted. The specific methods would be exactly the same as understanding the same effects with a different proposed cause.

 

[PureX]

Yes.

The next step is discussing how a particular belief either amplifies or reduces that behavior. It's all connected.

Discussing belief is a waste of time. Focus on the actions and their effect on the social collective. And use that criteria to control behavior through the law.

 

[F1fan]

That sounds like a limitation on your part. How indeed?

Explain how not going along with the crowd of indocrinated believers has a limitation. Explain. Use evidence.

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.

Oh, so evidence is a bias? I would ask you to explain but you would need evidence. See how your own words sabotage what you assert is true?

BTW tell the police that evidence is a bias. Tell scientists that evidence is a bias. Evidence is how rational minds can make sound decisions and judgments. Notice you offer no better alternative.

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

That's because believers don't provide evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Hard, obviously not Smart

It's a philosophical term that has a meaning.

 

[firedragon]

The specific methods would be exactly the same as understanding the same effects with a different proposed cause.

Give me the exact method. Look for it.

There is too much preaching like in a church.