Proof of God

[thaiboxerken]

But do you want to believe there is no god - something for which there is also no evidence (even accepting as fact that there cannot be evidence for a negative)?

Believing there is no god is simply the doubting position of the claim "there is a god." The burden of evidence is upon the persons making claims that there is a god because it has never been established that a god exists. Hell, most can't even give a meaningful definition of what their god is. The statement "there is no god" carries no need of evidence because it's just a statement of doubt.

 

[BillyJoe]

No, I don't have to prove that Peter Pan and Tinker Bell exist or prove that they don't exist.

We agree!

No, Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, Santa Claus, The Tooth Faerie, and The Easter Bunny were never intended as anything other than fantasy characters for the amusement of the children and, vicariously, their parents. Nobody seriously wants to discus whether or not they exist. Good Grief!


reagrds,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Believing there is no god is simply the doubting position of the claim "there is a god."

But, if you say "There is no god", you are not expressing a position of doubt.

The burden of evidence is upon the persons making claims that there is a god because it has never been established that a god exists. Hell, most can't even give a meaningful definition of what their god is. The statement "there is no god" carries no need of evidence because it's just a statement of doubt.

"There is no god" does not sound to me like a statement of doubt.

 

[kmortis]

Not quite true as far as burden of proof goes. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim that is contrary to proven fact OR is a positive assertion making claim to something that isn't factual. For example, if a person claims their god exists, it's always their burden to prove it unless they finally do prove it as fact. However, if a person claims that evolution doesn't happen, then it's their burden to prove evolution doesn't happen because it's already established scientific fact that it does. Also, proving a negative can happen and be a reasonable request given circumstances. (I can prove that I'm not 6'2") However, proving an unfalsifiable claim negative is impossible.

I disagree here. The burden of proof was on the scientists who posited evolution. At this point, however, the evidence is such that to disagree with the fact of evlution is one of incredulity. The specific form of evolution is still debated (e.g. punctuated equlibrium v. continiuum v. a mixture), but that it occured isn't in doubt except to those with an intention toward unacceptance.

A trivial claim (like you not being 6'2") would be an unremarkable claim. Many people are 6'2", and even more aren't. It's not a stretch of credulity to claim it either way. There's plenty of evidence of humans growning to that height. Now, to claim that you were 62', that would take some good evidence; whereas it's negative would not.

A deity's existance is an extraordinary claim, as such it requires good evidence. For someone to say that the evidence is lacking and thus the existance of a divine being is in doubt (or, more simply "there is no god") requires no evidence. That has to be supplied by the person claiming that there is.

Of course, I'd be happy with a half-way decent definition. Something that's more concrete than a long list of Latin words.

 

[D'rok]

But, if you say "There is no god", you are not expressing a position of doubt.

"There is no god" does not sound to me like a statement of doubt.

For my part, it's a statement of conditional belief based on the preponderance of the lack of evidence. I'm quite sure there is no god, but I could be wrong and evidence would change my mind. It's a position that is stronger than doubt but weaker than faith. The fact there is no evidence whatsoever means that doubt is unreasonable - something stronger is required. It is more reasonable to say that this magical entity for which there is no evidence does not exist.

 

[Paulhoff]

I have no trouble in not believing in any of the thousands of so-called gods created by humankind.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

I have no trouble in not believing in any of the thousands of so-called gods created by humankind.

What about the ever existing deistic god who created everything else?

 

[BillyJoe]

For my part, it's a statement of conditional belief based on the preponderance of the lack of evidence. I'm quite sure there is no god, but I could be wrong and evidence would change my mind. It's a position that is stronger than doubt but weaker than faith. The fact there is no evidence whatsoever means that doubt is unreasonable - something stronger is required. It is more reasonable to say that this magical entity for which there is no evidence does not exist.

Or you could quantify your doubt on a scale from 0 to 100 percent.

 

[Paulhoff]

What about the ever existing deistic god who created everything else?

I have a great problem with an ever existing so-called god also.

Paul

 

[thaiboxerken]

But, if you say "There is no god", you are not expressing a position of doubt.

Yes, I am. It's a very strong doubt. The statement "there is no god" would have no meaning of the concept of gods or the claims that gods exist were never invented.

"There is no god" does not sound to me like a statement of doubt.

Yet, it is. The statement carries no burden of evidence or proof.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have a great problem with an ever existing so-called god also.

Then you should also have a problem with either time without beginning or, alternatively, something out of nothing.

Unfortunately, one of these has to be true.

 

[D'rok]

Or you could quantify your doubt on a scale from 0 to 100 percent.

God exists: Doubt = 100%
God does not exist: Doubt = 0%

In other words, certainty. But it is still possible that my certainty is mistaken. Allowing that possibility is not the same thing as doubt.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, I am [expressing doubt with the statement "There is no god"]
Yet, it is ["There is no god" is a statement of doubt].

I dont see it.

There is NO god.
There IS no god.
There IS NO god.
There IS NO GOD.
THERE IS NO GOD.

Whatever way I say it, it is the same - no expression or admission of doubt.

It's a very strong doubt.

Which of the following words express that doubt:
- there
- is
- no
- god

The statement carries no burden of evidence or proof.

Unless you can show that your statement expresses doubt, I disagree.
You say "There is no god". Where is your evidence?

The statement "there is no god" would have no meaning if the concept of gods or the claims that gods exist were never invented.

That still doesn't allow you to bend the rules and say "there is no god" without evidence.
I would have no problem with the statement: "There is no evidence that god exists", and I see no need or legitimacy in going further.

 

[BillyJoe]

But it is still possible that my certainty is mistaken. Allowing that possibility is not the same thing as doubt.

I don't see it.

Allowing the possibility that your certainty is mistaken sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

[Herzblut]

A deity's existance is an extraordinary claim,

No, it isn't. It's a very ordinary claim sustained by 80% or so of all humans. To argue the converse is extraordinary.

For someone to say that the evidence is lacking and thus the existance of a divine being is in doubt (or, more simply "there is no god") requires no evidence.

Firstly, the statement "not-G" is unequal to "G is being in doubt". And the latter one is worthless due to its vagueness. Would you clarify?

Of course, I'd be happy with a half-way decent definition. Something that's more concrete than a long list of Latin words.

Thus, your notion is to decline a priori any statement "X" where you don't understand "X"?

I do not necessarily regard this intellectual honesty.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

I dont see it.

There is NO god.
There IS no god.
There IS NO god.
There IS NO GOD.
THERE IS NO GOD.

Whatever way I say it, it is the same - no expression or admission of doubt.

Maybe cause it's a statement of facts?

But an extremely vague one such that it's basically worthless. It needs to be
substanciated, maybe like this:

- My naturalistic worldview is absolute true. I know that the world is made up of physical particles and their attributes and nothing else.

or

- All weird sounding crap brought forward by theists is per se false and in my intelectual lazyness I call all this nonsense "God".

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Then you should also have a problem with either time without beginning or, alternatively, something out of nothing.

Unfortunately, one of these has to be true.

No it doesn't. I have a great problem with something that is a super-complex so-called god always being that way. This universe did not start out as being super-complex, complexity came over time, not all at once.

Also a so-called god explains nothing, seeing that a so-called all-knowing all-powerful god as no bonds, it can be anything someone wants it to be. So Peter Pan flies because Tinker Bell has fairy dust etc etc etc.

So a so-called god does not explain why time may have had a beginning and the universe came out of nothing. Because it would then mean that a so-called god would have to make a so-called god that would have to make a so-called god that would have to make etc and once again a so-called god explains nothing.

Paul

 

[thaiboxerken]

I dont see it.

Then you're not paying attention. There is no god = I very much doubt your claim god exists.

That still doesn't allow you to bend the rules and say "there is no god" without evidence.

There is no bending of rules here. It's perfectly legitimate to say there is no god without any worry of evidence, just like it's perfectly legitimate to say that there are no pixies, fairies, FSM's, IPU's and Sasquatch.

The burden is always on the positive assertion that is not established fact.

There is no god is a negative assertion, a reaction to the claim that there is a god.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, it isn't. It's a very ordinary claim sustained by 80% or so of all humans. To argue the converse is extraordinary.

Sustained by? It's the people that make supreratural claims that are sustained, enriched even, by the proles they impress. Their claims are extraordinary where the rest of us are concerned.

 

[D'rok]

I don't see it.

Allowing the possibility that your certainty is mistaken sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Nope:

One can, of course, know something falsely. To know something falsely means that there is a disparity between knowledge and its Substance.

It's a result of holding evidence based beliefs. Pre-heliocentrism, I know that the sun revolves around the earth. New evidence comes to light that shows that there is a disparity between my knowledge and the way things really are. As a result of this new evidence, I now know that the earth revolves around the sun. Likely, there was a process whereby the evidence caused me to doubt my original knowledge, and the preponderance of evidence caused this doubt to eventually lead to new certainty.

I know that there is no god. But there could be a disparity between my knowledge and the Substance of concrete reality. If evidence ever arises for god, I will no longer be certain and I will begin to doubt my previous belief. If there is a preponderance of evidence, my belief will change and I will become certain that god exists.

Without any evidence whatsoever, and with no reasonable possibility for evidence to be forthcoming, I am certain there is no god. All I need to begin to doubt is evidence.

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.