Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

No-God is a positive assertion. How are you getting on with justifying it?

Try again Vlad. We know you struggle with this whole burden of proof business, so just take it nice and slow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try again Vlad. We know you struggle with this whole burden of proof business, so just take it nice and slow.

You are the one with the struggle, nay, paralysis. No-God is a positive assertion you keep making.

[BeRational]

You are the one with the struggle, nay, paralysis. No-God is a positive assertion you keep making.

No god is the default position.

No ANYTHING is the default position, until you can demonstrate the existence of whatever you are claiming.

[Shaker]

You are the one with the struggle, nay, paralysis. No-God is a positive assertion you keep making.

The positive assertion is from those who expect me to take seriously their claims about reality, namely, that there exists a personalistic supernatural reality. They're positing a particular state of affairs which they want me to give headroom to as a realistic claim. OK so far?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The positive assertion is from those who expect me to take seriously their claims about reality, namely, that there exists a personalistic supernatural reality. They're positing a particular state of affairs which they want me to give headroom to as a realistic claim. OK so far?

''No God'' is a positive assertion. You cannot get round that, It is as you say ''a serious claim about reality''.

You know what you have to do.

[Shaker]

Nope, ''No God'' is a positive assertion. You cannot get round that, It is as you say ''a serious claim about reality''.

You know what you have to do.

Yes ... keep reminding you to read the relevant posts (including those of BRat) and thinking about burden of proof, null hypothesis etc. until the penny finally drops.

Call me an optimist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No god is the default position.

No ANYTHING is the default position, until you can demonstrate the existence of whatever you are claiming.

No anything is a positive assertion and therefore carries a burden of proof.

[Shaker]

No anything is a positive assertion and therefore carries a burden of proof.

Uh oh ... this is going to take a while, lads ...

[BeRational]

''No God'' is a positive assertion. You cannot get round that, It is as you say ''a serious claim about reality''.

You know what you have to do.

To say that there a no gods, is something that would carry the burden of proof.

To say that there are no gods until evidence is brought forward does NOT have a burden of proof, as that is the default.

Australia does NOT exist by default nor does the Moon or the Sun.

By default none of them exist.

But we have compelling evidence that quickly establishes that they do.

The sun certainly existed at least 8 minutes ago, but I am not sure about NOW though, and neither can you be.

[floo]

You seem to be accusing me of making a conscious decision not to read your post and simply re assert my own view.  Can you not see the irony in this? 

Your post indicates that your refusal to accept the existence of anything non physical forces you to come up with an imaginary scenario to explain how our apparent freedom to make conscious choices is just an illusion, and our conscious awareness merely spectates upon pre defined series of events.  Yet the thing you are trying to disprove is obvious evidence for the existence of events which must derive from the non physical.

It might be obvious evidence to you AB, but definitely not obvious to other posters.

[Shaker]

you [...] come up with an imaginary scenario

There's my dose of irony for the next decade or so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To say that there a no gods, is something that would carry the burden of proof.

Yep.

back to square one then.

[Shaker]

Yep.

back to square one then.

You're supposed to keep going past the first sentence, Vlad:

To say that there are no gods until evidence is brought forward does NOT have a burden of proof, as that is the default.

Otherwise it looks like the deeply dishonest practice of quote mining.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To say that there a no gods, is something that would carry the burden of proof.

To say that there are no gods until evidence is brought forward does NOT have a burden of proof, as that is the default.

Australia does NOT exist by default nor does the Moon or the Sun.

By default none of them exist.

But we have compelling evidence that quickly establishes that they do.

The sun certainly existed at least 8 minutes ago, but I am not sure about NOW though, and neither can you be.

But they do not suddenly exist because the evidence is there. They are pre-existent.

[Shaker]

But they do not suddenly exist because the evidence is there. They are pre-existent.

How do you know until you have the evidence, Vlad?

[BeRational]

But they do not suddenly exist because the evidence is there. They are pre-existent.

The actual fact of something existing has nothing to do with us.

What we are talking about is the rational belief that things do exist, and for that you need evidence. You could still be wrong though and think something does exist when it does not, but only more evidence can change your mind.

So, either a god exists, or it does not. They are the ONLY two possibilities.

By default we do NOT accept the existence of a god, as the default is to not exist.

YOU believe a god exists, therefore YOU carry the burden of proof.

Do you agree?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know until you have the evidence, Vlad?

I don't but then i'd have to be a dunce to positively assert ''There is no Australia'' when what I should be saying is ''I don't know''.

[Shaker]

I don't

Would have been good to quit while you're ahead, but hey ho ...

but then i'd have to be a dunce to positively assert ''There is no Australia'' when what I should be saying is ''I don't know''.

Hello hello - calling all cars, calling all cars - Vlad might be getting it at last.

[BeRational]

I don't but then i'd have to be a dunce to positively assert ''There is no Australia'' when what I should be saying is ''I don't know''.

NO.

By default as far as you are concerned it DOES NOT EXIST.

You need evidence to convince you, not knowing is also not believing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The actual fact of something existing has nothing to do with us.

What we are talking about is the rational belief that things do exist, and for that you need evidence. You could still be wrong though and think something does exist when it does not, but only more evidence can change your mind.

So, either a god exists, or it does not. They are the ONLY two possibilities.

By default we do NOT accept the existence of a god, as the default is to not exist.

YOU believe a god exists, therefore YOU carry the burden of proof.


Do you agree?

That carries a burden of proof yes. But then it is Shaker who declares there is no God and that any claim that there is a god is Bullshit(Bullshit until proven actual being a kind of having your cake and eat it statement) and so he definitely has a burden of proof.
The default position, if there is one, is the agnostic position.

[BeRational]

That carries a burden of proof yes. But then it is Shaker who declares there is no God and that any claim that there is a god is Bullshit(Bullshit until proven actual being a kind of having your cake and eat it statement) and so he definitely has a burden of proof.
The default position, if there is one, is the agnostic position.

Agnostic is not the same as atheist. One about belief the other knowledge.

I am a agnostic atheist.

I think Shaker has claimed that god does not exists as the default position, but you would have to clarify.

I do not believe any god(s) exist, but I do not make the positive claim that they don't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NO.

By default as far as you are concerned it DOES NOT EXIST.

But then you are positively asserting that and therefore you have a burden of proof.
You cannot get round that i'm afraid.

What you've said is that to say No God is a positive assertion, which carries a burden of proo,f and then you talk it round to say you have the default position (How?) by saying No God and magically you have no burden of proof.

[BeRational]

But then you are positively asserting that and therefore you have a burden of proof.
You cannot get round that i'm afraid.

What you've said is that to say No God is a positive assertion, which carries a burden of proo,f and then you talk it round to say you have the default position (How?) by saying No God and magically you have no burden of proof.

No it's not an assertion.

The default for EVERYTHING is that it does NOT exist as far as your are concerned.

You change your belief position of course when compelling evidence (as you see it) makes you believe it.

Whether it actually exists is not in question here, just whether it is rational to believe a claim.

All claims are not true until they are shown to be true to a degree that satisfies you.

[Nearly Sane]

The other day I took a 'quick' flick through this thread. It is like a stick of rock, the same words all the way through.

[BeRational]

The other day I took a 'quick' flick through this thread. It is like a stick of rock, the same words all the way through.

Does it taste of mint though.

In my experience all rock no matter what colour is still mint!

I do not like mint.