Does antitheism exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't see how the idea that the universe could not have had a creator has been established.

That’s because it’s not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.

Nor that the universe is somehow itself the necessary entity.

That’s also not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.

Your straw man game is off the scale here.

They both are unfalsifiable and yet by implication they are the foundation for me supposedly having THE burden of proof.

You’re completely confused still (either that or lying again). The burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim (“creator”). To justify not accepting that claim all the rationalist needs to show is that there are other possibilities.   

If you are saying ah, that is because we can see the universe and we cannot see God…

No-one says that – it’s just another of your straw men. What people actually say is that arguments made about the universe are investigable, testable, verifiable using methods that apply to equally to everyone regardless of whatever faith beliefs they may have. Gravity keeps you on the ground no matter what your personal beliefs on whether you can fly unaided. Claims about gods on the other hand are just assertions, and the arguments made to justify those assertions have – so far at least – all been fallacious. Thus there is no better reason for me to accept your claim “God” than there is for you to accept my claim "leprechauns". They’re both just assertions, and any arguments made so far to justify them are demonstrably wrong.

…that is an argument based on empiricism which itself is unfalsifiable.

No it isn’t.

So it seems that your choice of establishing the burden rather acknowledging burdens all round, to me shows a deficiency in rigour.

That’s because you’ve made a complete dog’s breakfast of what the burden of proof actually entails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s because it’s not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make to not accept the claim “creator”.

That’s also not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make to not accept the claim “creator”.

Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.

Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.

Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.

[BeRational]

Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.

Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.

Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

If you claim a god exists, then you have the burden.
If you claim no gods exist then you have the burden.

 This  is really simple stuff and I cannot believe after all this time you do not understand the burden of proof concept

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMDjyG5u_A

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

If you claim a god exists, then you have the burden.
If you claim no gods exist then you have the burden.

 This  is really simple stuff and I cannot believe after all this time you do not understand the burden of proof concept

By giving me the burden (which I accept) you are saying that the status quo/default position is that God does not exist that is a positive assertion and therefore gives you the burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.

Depends what you mean by “god free”.

If you mean, “act as if there are no gods” then it’s the “status quo” as you put it because I’ve never seen a sound reason to do otherwise.

If though you mean “assert there to be no gods” you’ve been told countless times that atheism requires no such statement and so you’re just lying about that again.   

Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.

About the same as the probability of there being no leprechauns. Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably aren’t leprechauns, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it?

Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.

NURSE! HE’S GONE AGAIN!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


You’re completely confused still (either that or lying again). The burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim (“creator”). To justify not accepting that claim all the rationalist needs to show is that there are other possibilities.   

And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
I should coco.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

By giving me the burden (which I accept) you are saying that the status quo/default position is that God does not exist that is a positive assertion and therefore gives you the burden of proof.

Utter bollocks. The “status quo” is that nothing exists unless there’s sound reason to conclude otherwise. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
I should coco.

Everything coherent and logically consistent, yes. Why is that hard to understand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Depends what you mean by “god free”.

If you mean, “act as if there are no gods” then it’s the “status quo” as you put it because I’ve never seen a sound reason to do otherwise.

But just because you act as though there are no Gods, why should it be the status quo? That doesn't seem a good enough reason why that should be the default position. It sounds most subjective.

Secondly, what do you mean ''Acting as if there are no Gods''? I have you down as a very active Goddodger who uses a fair amount of(professional?) expertise in defending the indefensible although I hope you, like St Augustine will finally acknowledge looking back on it that that is what you have been doing.

[Gordon]

Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.

Sigh - you do understand that noting that there are no good arguments for 'God' does not then lead to the claim 'God Free'?

Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.

It sounds like you are inviting someone to fall into the NPF, and I doubt anyone here is that naive. So, if you have proposals for a method that would show the probability of there being no 'God' then please feel free to share your workings.

Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.

No it doesn't (in the context you've been using the term).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter bollocks. The “status quo” is that nothing exists unless there’s sound reason to conclude otherwise.

How does that square with everything's possible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sigh - you do understand that noting that there are no good arguments for 'God' does not then lead to the claim 'God Free'?

It sounds like you are inviting someone to fall into the NPF, and I doubt anyone here is that naive. So, if you have proposals for a method that would show the probability of there being no 'God' then please feel free to share your workings.

No it doesn't.

I'm afraid it advises not to multiply entities beyond necessity Gordon.

I have to disagree with the no good arguments. It seems that the possibilities put forward to answer the question of why something and not nothing regarding the physical world are no good though, By dint of mainly starting with something, er, physical

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Everything coherent and logically consistent, yes. Why is that hard to understand?

''Contingency only'' is not coherent or consistent.

[BeRational]

And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
I should coco.

If you declare everything  is possible then that would carry a burden of proof. Some things may in fact not be possible we just don't  know

[Stranger]

In the meantime those asserting that people who propose or suggest God have THE burden of proof ought to be making a case for why God free should be the default.

It's not "god free", it's that no case has been made for any god(s), so the default is to not accept any of them. This has been explained many, many times, and you just ignore it.

If you are proposing that anything exists, or that one of the possible options for an unknown is the actual answer, then it's your burden of proof. This is always the case, even if it's a scientific or naturalistic thing or answer that you're proposing.

The default is always not to accept that something exists until a case has been made for it, and that an unknown remains unknown until a case has been made for one of the options.

What's so hard?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But just because you act as though there are no Gods, why should it be the status quo? That doesn't seem a good enough reason why that should be the default position. It sounds most subjective.

It’s the default position because, obviously, if you accept any one claim as true without good reason then you must accept any other claim on the same basis. Then what?   

Secondly,…

You can’t have a secondly when your firstly just collapsed, but ok…

…what do you mean ''Acting as if there are no Gods''?

You’re the one using the phrase “god free” so it’s you job to tell us what you mean by it. I suspect you’re using it ambiguously to hide behind it when you lie about people supposedly making the positive claim “no gods” but perhaps if you told us which meaning you intend we wouldn’t have to guess about that.     

I have you down as a very active Goddodger…

A piece of lying stupidity you’ve had detonated countless times. Are you a very active leprechaundodger? Why not?

…who uses a fair amount of(professional?) expertise in defending the indefensible…

If you think something is indefensible then you need to demonstrate that rather than just assert it.

…although I hope you, like St Augustine will finally acknowledge looking back on it that that is what you have been doing.

Utter bollocks. Again. More reasonably though, will you finally acknowledge that you’re here only to pollute this mb with your lying, misrepresentation and insult while contributing absolutely nothing of any value to anyone?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How does that square with everything's possible?

Easily. Think about it. Oh wait, it's you...perhaps not then. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter bollocks. The “status quo” is that nothing exists unless there’s sound reason to conclude otherwise.

Existence depends on reason?and conclusion?

That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists. You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.

[Stranger]

''Contingency only'' is not coherent or consistent.

OK, if you properly define your terms and can make a logical argument that shows this to be the case, at least you will have got somewhere.

The floor is yours....

[Stranger]

That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists. You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.

Just the universe, actually. We have good reason to think the universe exists, and no case has been made that any of the thousands of god-concepts refer to anything real.

This isn't hard.

ETA: And we also proceed from the position that none of the scientific conjectures about why the universe exists and is the way it is, are true, unless and until some case has been made for them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just the universe, actually. We have good reason to think the universe exists, and no case has been made that any of the thousands of god-concepts refer to anything real.

This isn't hard.

I accept the universe exists, what does that have to do with not accepting the existence of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s because it’s not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.

That’s also not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.

Anyone?

One does not have to make the claim because......The default position is that God does not exist because..................,.?

[Stranger]

I accept the universe exists, what does that have to do with not accepting the existence of God?

As I said, and you ignored, no case has been made for any sort of god(s). Again, this isn't hard. It would apply just as much if you were convinced of some entirely naturalistic reason for the universe. The burden of proof would still be yours.

Also, referring to "God" as if it were a well defined term is also misleading. There are many, many different definitions, at least most of which must be false.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists.

No it isn’t. The foundational idea is that we should not accept that anything exists unless there are sound grounds for thinking otherwise. This isn’t just about gods (or leprechauns for that matter) – it’s about any truth claim. 

You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.

Are you genuinely not grasping the difference between the statements “there are no gods” and “no good reasons have been made to justify the claim “gods”” or are you just trolling again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


You’re the one using the phrase “god free”

I'm only using because it is supposed to be the status quo which is allowing you supposedly to say that I have the burden.