Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Citations please.

All the a-leprechaunists.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.

Non-acceptance of your claim of god is not the assertion 'there is no god', though, as you well know.

It is no good excusing oneself of the burden of proof then claiming to have the  default position which is a  positive assertion.

Everyone is waiting for evidence of every claim. Some of us have lower thresholds, some of us have lower thresholds for certain types of claims, some of us weight different types of evidence differently, but we all need some sort of reason to accept a claim.

O.

[Maeght]

First of all let’s address the bollocks statement Atheism is merely the lack of belief in atheism. The bollocks here being the notion that somehow that’s the end of the matter. The problem is that atheism is the lack of belief in everything every God represents or is. No hiding place their then.

The next conciet is that this state is the default position. There is no God. How is this the default?
It’s the default because atheists say it is. Unless you can do better than there is no empirical evidence which isn’t claimed anyway there is no way in logical argument you can legitimately claim the default.

Have a day.

As I posted earlier, surely not being convinced by something is the default position until you are convinced. Not sure what you mean in your first paragraph.

[Maeght]

Citations please.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.
It is no good excusing oneself of the burden of proof then claiming to have the  default position which is a  positive assertion.

Yes, if someone says there is no God then they have the burden of proof for that. Saying you don't have a belief in God doesn't. Saying you are not convinced by the evidence for God doesn't.

[Stranger]

Citations please.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.
It is no good excusing oneself of the burden of proof then claiming to have the  default position which is a  positive assertion.

Are you really, really trying to tell us that, after all this time, you still don't understand? I mean, is this totally beyond your intellect to grasp? Is that what you want us all to think? Really?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Citations please.

For what – your bad (ie, unsound) arguments to justify your claim “god exists”? They’re all bad for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times here, and that you always either straw man or run away from.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.

Yep, it would if anyone actually said it.

So anyway, back to atheism…
 

It is no good excusing oneself of the burden of proof then claiming to have the default position which is a  positive assertion.

There’s no burden of proof for a statement that hasn’t been made. Once again:

“God does not exist” = straw man atheism.

“You have failed to provide sound reasons to accept your claim that god exists” = actual atheism.

Keep trying – you’ll get it eventually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non-acceptance is the default for any proposition. [ /quote ] Citation please

If you make a bad argument for something, then you haven't established the truth of your proposition - even if it's actually true. For example, if you argued that the Earth was approximately spherical, rather than flat, by saying "well most people in the world think that's true", then that would still be an ad pop fallacy and, if that's the only argument somebody had to go on, they'd be perfectly justified in rejecting your claim.

But if you argue a necessary entity how is that a bad argument? It seems to me that counter arguments would need to be better. Infinite regress is  not better, brute fact is not better, we don't know suffers terribly as an argument and appeals to an unproven epistemology, . Circular hierarchy are not better, non existent until proved to exist. Ditto, composite necessities likewise.

[Stranger]

But if you argue a necessary entity how is that a bad argument?

For all the reasons already given. It's incoherent, magical thinking, being the main one.

It seems to me that counter arguments would need to be better. Infinite regress is  not better, brute fact is not better, we don't know suffers terribly as an argument and appeals to an unproven epistemology, . Circular hierarchy are not better, non existent until proved to exist. Ditto, composite necessities likewise.

Counterarguments are not the same thing as alternative solutions.   

If your argument for some solution to a problem has a fatal flaw, then it fails. That's it. It doesn't matter a jot how bad or good the arguments are for any other proposed solution, let alone how credible you, personally find them (which appears to be your criterion here).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to some problem. In fact, it's provably the case that we can't know everything, even in a fully axiomatised, formal mathematical systems: Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So no citations then.

[Stranger]

So no citations then.

For what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But if you argue a necessary entity how is that a bad argument?

For the reasons that keep being explained to you. “God” doesn’t answer “don’t know” questions about the universe, it just relocates the same questions to that god. And no, “cos it’s magic innit” doesn’t resolve those same questions about a god. 

It seems to me that counter arguments would need to be better. Infinite regress is  not better, brute fact is not better, we don't know suffers terribly as an argument and appeals to an unproven epistemology, . Circular hierarchy are not better, non existent until proved to exist. Ditto, composite necessities likewise.

Then it seems to you wrong. No counter-arguments (or alternative explanations) are necessary to find your arguments for a god to be wrong. When your arguments are wrong then they’re wrong, regardless of the soundness or otherwise of the arguments used to support different hypotheses.   

[torridon]

Citations please.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.

That would be 'strong atheism'.  Most atheists don't fall into that category. 

For most non-believers, it is simply that they find theism incomprehensible, unevidenced, naive or irrelevant to anything that matters, or a combination of all the above, and so remain a-theist as in lacking theist beliefs.

Strong atheism is more a philosophical or intellectual position that argues that the definition of God is logically incoherent and therefore any gods falling within the definition are impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I posted earlier, surely not being convinced by something is the default position until you are convinced. Not sure what you mean in your first paragraph.

I think it might be your position but the default position? When were you not convinced of your surroundings I.e. that they were there.....You see, You’ve as yet given no reason why it should be the default position

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For what – your bad (ie, unsound) arguments to justify your claim “god exists”? They’re all bad for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times here, and that you always either straw man or run away from.

Yep, it would if anyone actually said it.

So anyway, back to atheism…
 
There’s no burden of proof for a statement that hasn’t been made. Once again:

“God does not exist” = straw man atheism.

“You have failed to provide sound reasons to accept your claim that god exists” = actual atheism.

Keep trying – you’ll get it eventually.

No,citation which demonstrates why atheism is the default position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For what?

For why atheism is the default position.
In our discussion we have the claim that atheism is the default position, Why then should the statement there are no God’s be treated differently from other positive assertions and the claim that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s where atheists ride the line between trying to empty that claim of any meaning and the phrase being meaningless anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All the a-leprechaunists.

Non-acceptance of your claim of god is not the assertion 'there is no god', though, as you well know.

Everyone is waiting for evidence of every claim. Some of us have lower thresholds, some of us have lower thresholds for certain types of claims, some of us weight different types of evidence differently, but we all need some sort of reason to accept a claim.

O.

Your claim is then, by default, that you do not accept my claim of God. Do you have any reasons for this non acceptance?Can you share them with us?

Regarding Leprechauns, it seems to me that Your Atheism is based on believing that there is one  less item in the sum of things in the universe. That certainly is the basis of my aleprechaunism.
But such a belief imv isn’t appropriate for God who isn’t another item in the universe but what is at the bottom of all hierarchies.

[Gordon]

For why atheism is the default position.

Not accepting a claim about something if that claim has no supporting grounds is routine, Vlad: we don't immediately believe everything we are told unless there are good grounds to do so. Part of that approach also involves checking that any grounds being offered by proponents of a claim don't contain flaws, such as reasoning errors (fallacies) - and for an atheist like me it is the case to date that I regard any claims made about 'Gods' to be flawed: but you've been told this often.

A categorical 'there is no x' is not the same position as 'claims that there is x can be justifiably rejected'.

In our discussion we have the claim that atheism is the default position, Why then should the statement there are no God’s be treated differently from other positive assertions and the claim that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s where atheists ride the line between trying to empty that claim of any meaning and the phrase being meaningless anyway.

For a start nobody is saying 'there are no gods' so maybe you should stop the misrepresentation. That an atheist like me regards the claim 'God' as being meaningless should be no great surprise to you, since if I though that 'God' was a meaningful claim I would also think there were valid supporting grounds (to be clear I don't), and as such I wouldn't be an atheist.

You seem to struggle so over fairly simple stuff that has been regularly explained to you - plus the effort you put into misrepresenting atheism does not add any credence to your own theism: so its a wonder you keep pointlessly banging the same tired old drum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For the reasons that keep being explained to you. “God” doesn’t answer “don’t know” questions about the universe, it just relocates the same questions to that god. And no, “cos it’s magic innit” doesn’t resolve those same questions about a god. 

Then it seems to you wrong. No counter-arguments (or alternative explanations) are necessary to find your arguments for a god to be wrong. When your arguments are wrong then they’re wrong, regardless of the soundness or otherwise of the arguments used to support different hypotheses.

God doesn’t answer don’t know questions about the universe? Can you give us any idea what you are talking about here. You seem to be saying that all don’t know questions are answered scientifically, ergo this is just your funded extreme Scientism coming out. We can dismiss this, I think, as fanaticism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not accepting a claim about something if that claim has no supporting grounds is routine, Vlad: we don't immediately believe everything we are told unless there are good grounds to do so. Part of that approach also involves checking that any grounds being offered by proponents of a claim don't contain flaws, such as reasoning errors (fallacies) - and for an atheist like me it is the case to date that I regard any claims made about 'Gods' to be flawed: but you've been told this often.

A categorical 'there is no x' is not the same position as 'claims that there is x' can be justifiably rejected.

For a start nobody is saying 'there are no gods' so maybe you should stop the misrepresentation. That an atheist like me regards the claim 'God' as being meaningless should be no great surprise to you, since if I though that 'God' was a meaningful claim I would also think there were valid supporting grounds (to be clear I don't), and as such I wouldn't be an atheist.

You seem to struggle so over fairly simple stuff that has been regularly explained to you - plus the effort you put into misrepresenting atheism does not add any credence to your own theism: so its a wonder you keep pointlessly banging the same tired old drum.

No supporting grounds? The necessary entity?Are you kidding?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not accepting a claim about something if that claim has no supporting grounds is routine, Vlad: we don't immediately believe everything we are told unless there are good grounds to do so. Part of that approach also involves checking that any grounds being offered by proponents of a claim don't contain flaws, such as reasoning errors (fallacies) - and for an atheist like me it is the case to date that I regard any claims made about 'Gods' to be flawed: but you've been told this often.

A categorical 'there is no x' is not the same position as 'claims that there is x can be justifiably rejected'.

For a start nobody is saying 'there are no gods' so maybe you should stop the misrepresentation. That an atheist like me regards the claim 'God' as being meaningless should be no great surprise to you, since if I though that 'God' was a meaningful claim I would also think there were valid supporting grounds (to be clear I don't), and as such I wouldn't be an atheist.

You seem to struggle so over fairly simple stuff that has been regularly explained to you - plus the effort you put into misrepresenting atheism does not add any credence to your own theism: so its a wonder you keep pointlessly banging the same tired old drum.

Routine?,  Ah, argument from tradition.

[Stranger]

For why atheism is the default position.
In our discussion we have the claim that atheism is the default position, Why then should the statement there are no God’s be treated differently from other positive assertions and the claim that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s where atheists ride the line between trying to empty that claim of any meaning and the phrase being meaningless anyway.

Nobody here is making the claim "there is no God". Just how many time do you need to be told that before it sinks in?

The people here who are atheists are saying that they see no reason to accept any of the (many) propositions that various versions of 'God' exist.

This is really, really, really, really simple. Why do you find it so hard?

[Stranger]

No supporting grounds? The necessary entity?Are you kidding?

The necessary entity is a shit argument for something. It wouldn't even lead to any sort of notion of God, even if it wasn't so shit.

[Gordon]

Routine?,  Ah, argument from tradition.

That is one of your dafter comments, Vlad, but then again you've never understood fallacies.

Next time you cross a very busy road, and if a fellow pedestrian tells you it is safe but you can hear the roar of busy traffic, would you accept their claim at face value - or would you want to check that their claim of 'it's safe' is justified? 

[Stranger]

God doesn’t answer don’t know questions about the universe? Can you give us any idea what you are talking about here.

Why do you need everything endlessly repeated to you? Do you have something called a 'memory' lurking somewhere in you brain?

You seem to be saying that all don’t know questions are answered scientifically...

Then we come to problems with English comprehension.   

I see nothing at all in the post that suggests that. Really Vlad, get a grip! Slow down. Try remembering what we've all been through endless times before. Read what is said, rather than reading your own assumptions into what is said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody here is making the claim "there is no God". Just how many time do you need to be told that before it sinks in?

It is though supposed to be the default position. So if you assume the default position that becomes the claim.

The people here who are atheists are saying that they see no reason to accept any of the (many) propositions that various versions of 'God' exist.

Well they have had them placed in front of them so they a) must have reasons for disagreeing with them but b) at the same time dispute having to provide those reasons because they don’t have a burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is one of your dafter comments, Vlad, but then again you've never understood fallacies.

unjustified.