The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Atheism and Universal Negative statements.
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
I've been thinking about Atheism and have a question that has been bugging me.
Atheist claim that there is no God. They claim that God does not exist. Most, I would say, base this on logical or scientific reasons. They claim to be more reasonable or logical by denying the existence of God.
But logic tells us that we cannot prove a Universal Negative claim.
So isn't that problematic? To claim to be more logical by denying the existance of God and in-so-doing make a claim which is a Universal Negative? If they know that one cannot prove a Universal Negative why would they embrace a Universal Negative claim?
It seems problematic to me.
Atheist claim that there is no God. They claim that God does not exist. Most, I would say, base this on logical or scientific reasons. They claim to be more reasonable or logical by denying the existence of God.
But logic tells us that we cannot prove a Universal Negative claim.
So isn't that problematic? To claim to be more logical by denying the existance of God and in-so-doing make a claim which is a Universal Negative? If they know that one cannot prove a Universal Negative why would they embrace a Universal Negative claim?
It seems problematic to me.
_J_ on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Not "there's no reason to believe in a god, therefore one does not exist."
Strong atheism asserts that there is absolutely no god.
Weak atheism asserts that no god, or action of any god, can or has been proven to exist, so there's no point worshipping anything or being part of a given religion.
Strong atheists always struck me as having a difficult case.
Right. But there's a difference between...well....I was going to say that there is a difference between saying "I don't think God exists" and "God does not exist"...but...I'm not sure. Because they both seem to be making universal negative claims.
It seems like the only way to be reasonable would be to say, "God might exist, as we cannot prove that God does not exist, but given that chance..."
No...because I think that inherent in the lack of belief in a thing is the denial of the existence of that thing...which would be a universal negative claim. "Thor does not exist" seems to be the same type of thing...
Well bugger...
also, evidence suggests that complex intelligences come late to the universe. a cosmic intelligence as the start seems highly improbable, given that it runs counter to this observation.
Ok. That makes more sense to me. Saying "there probably is no God" while leaving the possibility of there being a God seems to avoid the problem of making a universal negative claim.
I think.
What evidence? There is no evidence for that.
There is not currently a unicorn in my living room. Can I see my living room from here? No. Does that really matter? Not in any practical way.
No, that's just atheism.
That's agnosticism.
erk, my bad.
it runs counter to the existing scientific understanding of the universe.
Right. But that's a particular negative and not a universal negative. We can prove particular negatives such as, "no pennies exist in this jar" but we can't prove universal negatives such as, "no pennies exist."
I also find it odd when people seek practical answers to impractical questions.
yup.
I hope not.
I wanted to talk about why anyone would say God does not exist when they know that they can't prove that God does not exist. It seems problematic to say, "I'm being super rational" and then make a universal negative claim and argue it to be true.
Nope. Agnosticism asserts that we have no way of knowing if there is a God, therefore, they don't know what to believe exactly.
I'm missing the part where you say something that disagrees with that point.
You're being pedantic. Again.
Please
Just let it go
Is that weak atheism or strong atheism or what?
Atheism originally orginated out of boldness.
If Religion was never invented, and everyone believed there was no God in the beginning of human history, then the "atheist people" would have invented religion, and the "religious people" would have been opposed to them.
For Atheism itself to exist, one has to atleast have an understanding that the IDEA of God exists. If there was never an idea of Gods to oppose in the beginning, Atheists wouldn't have existed. Therefore, to worry about why someone would argue for atheism when they know they can't prove it is moot. They simply argue for atheism because they don't like the alternative (which is belief in a religion).
I disagree. Nobody can see my living room right now. We can't prove there isn't a unicorn in it.
But there isn't one.
But is it? Or are they advocating a view which is a universal negative claim, then covering for it when someone points that out, only to maintain the universal negative view?
Because when someone angrily types, "THERE IS NO GOD" that seems to not be shorthand and rather a universal negative claim...
No. Let me try again.
Weak atheists are basically strong atheists who concede you can't positively prove the non-existence of god in a debate (or anything, for that matter). They *do* feel there's a exceptionally strong case to be made that god does not exist, and personally believe that god does not exist on the balance of the available evidence. Agnostics are actually unsure whether god exists (or in an offshoot variant, believe that god is unknowable).
Those were the hairs the atheist community chose to split back when I was involved with it.
No, it won't be expelled from art school.
So to some degree you don't care that we can't prove it. You accept it to be true without proof.
Isn't that faith?
There is no God.
It is the exact same type of statement. There is no reason, logically or evidence-based, to think that either of those things exist. Therefore, I state, with confidence, that they don't.
I find it amusing that some people get ridiculously pedantic when saying that atheists can't possibly exist because they haven't examined every corner of everything, and yet fail to be that pedantic about the meaning of every word in the sentence they just uttered, and indeed the very idea of words and their link to meanings.
MY WISH FINALLY CAME TRUE
What exactly is the obvious?
You bullshitter, just because one thing doesn't exist doesn't mean another thing doesn't exist.
there. question answered. can we go home now?
Why?
Why should the existence of an omnibenevolent god necessarily mean I would believe in him? He won't zap me with lightening because he's omnibenevolent.
Even if it was somewhat proven without the smallest bit of doubt that God exists, I think there are a lot of people who still couldn't care less. Not everyone needs a god in their life.
That the idea of a God was invented by man and doesn't correspond to reality.
Explain how they are different.
So how do you explain the causation of the universe? And the intelligent design of physics and systems like evolution