Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

unpopular penile insertion preferences.

I wouldn't say your posts here are 'unpopular'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I genuinely believe that the former is the basic assumption or status quo of the latter.

Then justify that genuine belief as it’s evidently wrong. “X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
 
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. It stands independently of whether or not X exists.

Atheism requires the latter, but not the former. That’s why your continually assertion that atheism requires the former is a straw man.

Has this finally sunk in now?     

Secondly the latter is not the status quo of my burden of proof…

That’s just incoherent.

…since your opinion that you have no good reason is your opinion.

No it isn’t. Logic and, in particular, rhetorical logic and rhetoric are codified. My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there – either the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “God” are constructed as one or more of these codified fallacies or they aren’t. So far at least, all of them have been.

That’s your problem

So I couldn't really give a shit.

Yes I know, because you can hide behind that to keep trolling. What does that say about you though? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which 'god-like' powers and abilities?  The point of gods is that the bypass the laws of nature to suspend the natural order.

No, they establish a nature, give it order and laws and intervene when those made in their image mess up possibly to the point of suspending the natural order

So if you want to define the ability to create universes as 'god like'. It's traditional to and maintain them and to be independent of contingency so they are sovereign and not subject to any mysterious overarching laws of nature.

It's infinite, it didn't 'pop out' of anywhere, there is nowhere and nowhen that it isn't.

traditionally a property of God Yes.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that logic is?

The logic codified as the various rhetorical fallacies on whch you rely.
   

Since we are talking about the default position being naturalism…

“We” weren’t – you just introduced it a few posts ago, and after discussion of default positions but ok…

…it should be obvious that I am talking about philosophical naturalism…

That’s called a non sequitur – another fallacy. The “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise. When “X” is “God”, that’s called atheism.   

…which is assumed as the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of fact. When you attempt to satisfy that burden with logically false arguments (as, so far at least, you always have) you fail to satisfy that burden. 

It is a positive assertion and the implicit position.

What is? That your arguments to justify your claim “God” are constructed as fallacies? I agree. 

[Outrider]

No, they establish a nature, give it order and laws and intervene when those made in their image mess up possibly to the point of suspending the natural order.

So, from the human perspective, they suspend the normal operation of nature.  As to establishing nature and giving it order and laws, that's not what reality is doing.  Reality is simply being, the universe happens within it, but reality doesn't 'create' any natural laws, the laws simply are as they have always been (possibly).

It's traditional to and maintain them and to be independent of contingency so they are sovereign and not subject to any mysterious overarching laws of nature.

That's a property of being infinite; that God has also had that description doesn't confer upon the ability a god-like nature, it ascribes to posited gods an infinite nature.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The logic codified as the various rhetorical fallacies on whch you rely.

Which are?
 

[/quote]

Vlad,

Then justify that genuine belief as it’s evidently wrong. “X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
 
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. So what if that were true you would be asking for naturalism

Has this finally sunk in now?     

That’s just incoherent.

No it isn’t. Logic and, in particular, rhetorical logic and rhetoric are codified. My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there – either the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “God” are constructed as one or more of these codified fallacies or they aren’t. So far at least, all of them have been.

That’s your problem

Yes I know, because you can hide behind that to keep trolling. What does that say about you though?

Hillside. What is the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist?

The burden of proof on a claim that there are no good reasons for God is satisfied with evidence. Let's 'ave it my son. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, from the human perspective, they suspend the normal operation of nature.  As to establishing nature and giving it order and laws, that's not what reality is doing.  Reality is simply being, the universe happens within it, but reality doesn't 'create' any natural laws, the laws simply are as they have always been (possibly).

If they are this way then they are necessary. It sounds like you've rediscovered the Gods of Old.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The logic codified as the various rhetorical fallacies on whch you rely.
   
“We” weren’t – you just introduced it a few posts ago, and after discussion of default positions but ok…

That’s called a non sequitur – another fallacy. The “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise. When “X” is “God”, that’s called atheism. The claim x exists is false is based on a presumption of naturalism. So why does that presumption not have to be justified? Since proceeding as if the claim exists is false is actually indistinguishable from what a lot of you guys do now and maybe for the rest of your lives. There is no 'as if' about it. It is your working pragmatic assumption. Something that needs overturning for any difference to be made. I'm not trying to switch my burden of proof. I'm just making sure you realise what it is you are suggesting.   

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of fact. When you attempt to satisfy that burden with logically false arguments (as, so far at least, you always have) you fail to satisfy that burden. 
 

Evidence please. Yesterday you swore blind I never ever EVER made any arguments....oh yes, but you also said when I did I was gave logically false argument.

Now a little experiment. Which one of those then is wrong? Not making arguments or making arguments?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Which are?

What disingenuous game do you think you’re playing now? They’re exactly the fallacies into which you’ve consistently fallen (albeit with mixed frequencies) time and time again over the years – the negative proof fallacy, the post hoc ergo propter hoc, the ad hom, the burden of proof, the straw man (your all-time favourites I’d say), the argument by assertion, the ad pop, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the diversionary tactic, the… etc and (wearily) etc. It’d be quicker to list the fallacies you haven’t tried as that’s the shorter list.

The fact that you ignore or lie about it when your fallacies are identified – or just or insult the person who identifies them – while you make good your escape (only to return with exactly the same fallacies a bit later on) doesn’t change that.

Hillside. What is the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist?

FFS! The “status quo” – ie the default position – is exactly as I explained it was in my last post to you. You’ve even just copied and pasted it. Here it is again as you’ve just ignored it:

“The “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise. When “X” is “God”, that’s called atheism.”

The burden of proof on a claim that there are no good reasons for God is satisfied with evidence. Let's 'ave it my son.

Stop fucking lying. Again, you’ve just copied and posted it so why lie about it in virtually the very next sentence? Here it is again:

“I have no good reason to believe that X exists”

Can you see that “I have...”? Can you though? Do you think those words mean “there is no possibility of any good reason existing at all” as you just misrepresented it, or can you grasp that they mean exactly what they say: “I have no good reason to believe that X exists”?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence please.

For what? That if you accept one truth claim without justification you have no grounds to reject any other truth claim without justification? It’s a point in logic you plum.

Yesterday you swore blind I never ever EVER made any arguments....oh yes, but you also said when I did I was gave logically false argument.

Yes – your efforts are called fallacies or, if you prefer, failed attempts at arguments. To be an actual argument you’d have to have connected premises that lead logically to a conclusion, something you’ve never managed to supply.   

Now a little experiment.

Are you going to stop lying? Well, that’d be novel at least…

Which one of those then is wrong? Not making arguments or making arguments?

So that’s a “no” then. Oh well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS As you've just wriggled off the hook again, let's put you back on it: can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise because, if you accept one truth claim without good reason, you have no grounds to reject any other? And if you can grasp that, can you grasp too that when “X” is the claim “God”, that’s called atheism?

This isn't difficult stuff I'd have though, even for you.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.

Yes – your efforts are called fallacies or, if you prefer, failed attempts at arguments. To be an actual argument you’d have to have connected premises that lead logically to a conclusion, something you’ve never managed to supply.   

Any examples?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any examples?

Of your use of fallacies? Thousands of them (none of which you've ever engaged with).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of your use of fallacies? Thousands of them (none of which you've ever engaged with).

lets see 'em then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

lets see 'em then.

What would be the point? You’ve already seen them – thousands of times – and never dealt with any of them, so why the sudden interest now? In the last few posts alone for example you’ve tried shifting the burden of proof, the non sequitur and the straw man. Each time these errors have been explained to you though you’ve just ignored the problem. 

If we go back only a few posts for example to Reply 963 you wrote:

It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion

You’ve had explained over and over and over again that atheism does not require the claim “God does not exist” yet still you persist with exactly the same misrepresentation. That’s called a straw man – probably your all-time favourite fallacy, though admittedly it’s hard to be sure as the field is so crowded.

So anyway:

As you've just wriggled off the hook again, let's put you back on it: can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise because, if you accept one truth claim without good reason, you have no grounds to reject any other? And if you can grasp that, can you grasp too that when “X” is the claim “God”, that’s called atheism?

[Gordon]

lets see 'em then.

Let's have a look at your #830 reply to me in this very Thread, Vlad, where you said:

Oh I see. I misunderstood you

Do you mean nobody is explicitly saying the universe is God free
While cunningly, sneakingly, underhandedly, slimingly, craftily, oleaginously, lubriciously, mostly, frictionlessly suggesting it?

It has been made plain numerous times that nobody here is claiming the universe is 'God free' - yet here you are misrepresenting the likes of me by implying otherwise and then proceeding to launch an attack using a sequence of pejoratives.

Can you guess what fallacy this might be called?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You’ve had explained over and over and over again that atheism does not require the claim “God does not exist” yet still you persist with exactly the same misrepresentation.

So anyway:

 can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false

I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist.......I should Coco.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You’ve had explained over and over and over again that atheism does not require the claim “God does not exist” yet still you persist with exactly the same misrepresentation.

So anyway:

 can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false

And?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist...

Finally! That’s exactly it.

Try this:

1. Do you make the definitive claim that leprechauns do not exist? Presumably not as you can't prove the non-existence of something.

2. Do you nonetheless live your life as if there are no such things a leprechauns? Presumably you do because you have no sound reasons to think them to be real.

3. Do you find any inconsistency between these two positions? I assume not as there is none.

Why is this still confusing you so?

....I should Coco.

That's not an argument - just an expression of incredulity.

 

[Gordon]

I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist.......

The penny drops: well done you.

I should Coco.

So you should: think of it as career progression.

[Stranger]

if these objects are outside the universe, in what sense are they natural?

Argument by arbitrary redefinition. Have you been taking lessons from Alan Burns?

I was using the 'universe' to mean the expanding space-time we can directly observe. Why on earth would you want to classify any larger context as not being natural (other than to suit your agenda, that is)? There are certainly scientific conjectures about larger contexts.

Isn't establishing the logical possibility making a case though otherwise how, according to you could it be logical?

I can't believe I'm having to explain the very basis of reasoned argument to you (again). You go on about philosophy a lot but you (apparently) can't grasp the basics of logic, something that is absolutely central to philosophy.

YET AGAIN: The whole point of making an argument for something is to move it from the merely possible to a certainty or at least probably true. If it can be shown it is no better than any other logically possible guess, there is no case. Anything at all that contains no contradictions and there is no evidence against it, is logically possible.

You can't make a case for something just by saying it's a possibility. If your 'argument' can be shown to reduce to that, because there are other equally possible answers, you haven't made a case.

You can compare it to the legal burden of proof. If the prosecution's case is that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime, and the defence can show that ten other people had just as much opportunity, then the prosecution's argument is undermined. It's not up to the defence to make a case against any of the other nine people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Argument by arbitrary redefinition. Have you been taking lessons from Alan Burns?

I was using the 'universe' to mean the expanding space-time we can directly observe. Why on earth would you want to classify any larger context as not being natural (other than to suit your agenda, that is)? There are certainly scientific conjectures about larger contexts.

The only natural things observed are in the universe. Atheists in the past have discounted the probability of God on the grounds that he is outside the universe.

What warrant therefore do you have to say outside the universe is natural and also,If you are extending nature outside the universe then all you are doing is making the universe bigger.

As Outrider has found the more you contemplate the outside of the universe the more traditionally supernatural features it takes on.

[Outrider]

If they are this way then they are necessary. It sounds like you've rediscovered the Gods of Old.

No, I've shown why you don't need to anthropormize fundamental forces of nature.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Argument by arbitrary redefinition. Have you been taking lessons from Alan Burns?

I was using the 'universe' to mean the expanding space-time we can directly observe. Why on earth would you want to classify any larger context as not being natural (other than to suit your agenda, that is)? There are certainly scientific conjectures about larger contexts.

I can't believe I'm having to explain the very basis of reasoned argument to you (again). You go on about philosophy a lot but you (apparently) can't grasp the basics of logic, something that is absolutely central to philosophy.

YET AGAIN: The whole point of making an argument for something is to move it from the merely possible to a certainty or at least probably true. If it can be shown it is no better than any other logically possible guess, there is no case. Anything at all that contains no contradictions and there is no evidence against it, is logically possible.

You can't make a case for something just by saying it's a possibility. If your 'argument' can be shown to reduce to that, because there are other equally possible answers, you haven't made a case.

You can compare it to the legal burden of proof. If the prosecution's case is that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime, and the defence can show that ten other people had just as much opportunity, then the prosecution's argument is undermined. It's not up to the defence to make a case against any of the other nine people.

In crime it is perfectly clear what the status quo is. Not so that God does not exist. Once you have claimed or declared that as the status quo you  have claimed it. Because it is actually a positive assertion then it needs it's own justification.

If I positively assert Gods existence. If I say God exists then I have a burden of proof. Some might say that even if I say I believe it or act it some would still say I have a burden of proof and so it is with being an agnostic atheist.

So do I have a burden because I believe there is a God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I've shown why you don't need to anthropormize fundamental forces of nature.

You have made them necessary.....You still haven't grasped the full meaning of that. Whatever decided to create the universe. Then allows THE laws of nature to rule over it the eternal laws of nature. What you've rediscovered is a pantheon to make and rule over the things of the universe.

You have or nearly have rediscovered the Gods.