The hiddenness of God

[Maeght]

Yes but if you claim something is false you need to show falsification I would have thought.
If you say God does not exist you similarly need to show falsification.

The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated.''

We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.

Yes. Not sure why you put the 'but' in there though since we seem to be saying the same thing. Will be interested to hear the argument for the default being God doesn't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes. Not sure why you put the 'but' in there though since we seem to be saying the same thing. Will be interested to hear the argument for the default being God doesn't exist.

Yes IMHO there has always been a fair amount of moving on swiftly on this.

[jeremyp]

I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way. I'm certinly not dismissing rationalism - it's very important, and I'm alarmed at the rise in irrational nonsense such as flat earth and bonkers conspiracy theories.

How do you explain something without using rationalism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you explain something without using rationalism?

I think the problem is the equation of rationalism with atheism.

[Stranger]

The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated.''

We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.

I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.

That is what the philosophical burden of proof is about and what Russell's teapot is an illustration of.

As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.

[jeremyp]

I think the problem is the equation of rationalism with atheism.

How about answering the question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.

That is what the philosophical burden of proof is about and what Russell's teapot is an illustration of.

As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.

But the point is is what is seen by people like you as sound reasoning proceeds from a conflation of rationalism, a methodology with atheism, a world view.

Your argument sets up a weird universe in which that which exists only does so through what you describe as ''sound reasoning''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about answering the question?

I have nothing against reasoning and a God is a reasonable suggestion as is the atheist position.

People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.

[Maeght]

I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.

That is what the philosophical burden of proof is about and what Russell's teapot is an illustration of.

As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.

God doesn't exist is a claim and needs evidence to support it.

[Maeght]

People who say there is no evidence or reasoning for God are wrong ......

Can't agree with that.

[Stranger]

But the point is is what is seen by people like you as sound reasoning proceeds from a conflation of rationalism, a methodology with atheism, a world view.

Not entirely sure what this word salad is supposed to mean but I used the word sound in the technical sense - logically valid with correct (supported by evidence) premisses.

Your argument sets up a weird universe in which that which exists only does so through what you describe as ''sound reasoning''.

Nonsense. What exists exists - a rational and evidence based approach is how we can have confidence in our beliefs about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't agree with that.

Fair Do's

can you say what your disagreement is.

[jeremyp]

I have nothing against reasoning and a God is a reasonable suggestion as is the atheist position.

People who say there is no evidence or reasoning for God are wrong and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.

If you want to explain how aeroplanes fly: “god keeps them aloft” is not satisfactory.

[Stranger]

God doesn't exist is a claim and needs evidence to support it.

Yes (and a proper definition of 'god') - but I do not know of anybody who is making that positive claim, rather than the claim that there is no reason to think that any of the many gods on offer exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not entirely sure what this word salad is supposed to mean

That is because IMHO your knowledge of philosophy and religion and rationality is appaling.

[Stranger]

People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong...

It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.

...and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.

Oh FFS!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.

Oh FFS!

The reasoning has been provided and is out their you are blind to it as you are seemingly blind to the claims of Be Rational.

[Stranger]

The reasoning has been provided...

Where?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.

Stranger says.
It's easy for me to falsify it......go and falsify it for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where?

There's no point in telling you.

[Gordon]

There's no point in telling you.

I'd like to know - so, spill the beans, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd like to know - so, spill the beans, Vlad.

Feser of course.
But if you are prepared to hang around I can go through the objections to the objections to Feser.

I am doing a you a favour Gordon since we don't know what your beliefs are.

[Stranger]

Stranger says.
It's easy for me to falsify it......go and falsify it for me.

Seriously? Do you really need to have everything explained to you in minute detail? It's easy to falsify in the sense that it is open to falsification in a simple and straightforward way.

You said that "People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong..." - if they are, it's easy to demonstrate it by producing the reasoning.

[Stranger]

Feser of course.

We did that - laughably contrived.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously? Do you really need to have everything explained to you in minute detail? It's easy to falsify in the sense that it is open to falsification in a simple and straightforward way.

You said that "People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong..." - if they are, it's easy to demonstrate it by producing the reasoning.

There is Feser the refutation of whom is summarised as a delusion in those who think they have bested him.