"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[FatAndFaithless]

Gotta agree with Steve here. "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary. The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist." This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

[Edwardo Piet]

"God doesn't exist" is just shorthand for "I believe God doesn't exist" and that doesn't specify how strongly I believe it. If I believe God is 99.99999999% improbable that is still believing to an extent that God doesn't exist.

There's all this talk about how agnostic atheists don't believe there is no God they just don't have a belief that there is one. This is true if they put no probability on the matter whatsoever. But if you believe it's far more likely that God doesn't exist than does then you do to a certain degree of probability believe there is no God. The thing is, the complexity and unfalsifiability and complete lack of evidence is indeed a very good reason to believe that God is highly improbable and almost certainly doesn't exist.

And in fact many definitions of God are actually logically contradictory and can't exist. For example, a definition of "God" where God is outside of the universe but the universe is the totality of everything. God cannot be outside the totality of everything because that's a logical impossibility therefore that definition of God cannot exist.

Another example is a God that has contra-causal free will when contra-causal free will is logically incoherent. God cannot change the future that he already knows and if he is said to be able to then that's a logical contradiction, once again, it makes God like a square circle.

I'm inclined to believe that many definitions of God are complete non-concepts. There cannot be a God that is outside of spare and time because everything has to begin to exist to exist, there is no time before time or space outside space because that's logically incoherent. The universe is natural, the whole idea of outside of the universe makes no sense. Supernaturalness makes no sense.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gotta agree with Steve here.  "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary.  The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist."  This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

It sounds like you at least tacitly accept the proposition that god(s) do not exist, if only as a practical matter. That said, I do not believe you are indifferent to the interpretation of generally accepted observations given by believers. More than likely you have rendered some kind of judgement although in your case I could be wrong.

(BTW Jesser may want to look up the meaning of "straw man" since it means misrepresenting another's position as an easily refuted argument. My signature line does makes no such reference.)

[Jesster]

[Tonus]

I think we tend to overthink this. It's easy enough for me to state my position as "I do not believe that there is a god" and it's not a definitive claim that "god does not exist." But it's not in question that my belief can be restated as "I believe that god does not exist." If the belief is held without any reason, it can also be defined as unreasonable.

Either way, I lead my life as if there is no god. And I do approach it from the same process as that used to dismiss many other myths and legends because it's a reasonable basis from which to start-- it's a human habit to create such beings and even build mythologies and celebrations around them, complete with symbols and stories and cultural impressions that last long after people accept that it's not a real being (assuming they ever did). So my view is indeed that there is no god, and I readily admit that I cannot prove that negative.

[FatAndFaithless]

Gotta agree with Steve here.  "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary.  The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist."  This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

It sounds like you at least tacitly accept the proposition that god(s) do not exist, if only as a practical matter. That said, I do not believe you are indifferent to the interpretation of  generally accepted observations given by believers. More than likely you have rendered some kind of judgement although in your case I could be wrong.

(BTW Jesser may want to look up the meaning of "straw man" since it means misrepresenting another's position as an easily refuted argument. My signature line does makes no such reference.)

Do I live my life as if no gods exist? Sure.  And you're right, if you really pressed me on it, I'd probably say yeah - I think it's likely that gods do not exist.  I just wouldn't be able to give any evidence for that belief besides "there hasn't been any gods proven to exist," which is just an argument from ignorance (besides the definitions of a god that are logically contradictory or incomprehensible).

[Neo-Scholastic]

"God doesn't exist" is just shorthand for "I believe God doesn't exist" and that doesn't specify how strongly I believe it. If I believe God is 99.99999999% improbable that is still believing to an extent that God doesn't exist.

I think this is a particularly astute observation. I am interested in how the "simply lack belief" atheist will respond.

...a definition of "God" where God is outside of the universe but the universe is the totality of everything. God cannot be outside the totality of everything because that's a logical impossibility therefore that definition of God cannot exist.

I haven't heard anyone seriously offer that particular definition of God. If they did my guess is that they forgot to add a qualifier to make it clear that they were talking about the physical universe.

Nevertheless the point is well taken. Not all definitions of God are coherent. Those ideas are usually offered up by believers who are not as inclined to theology as perhaps those who contribute on AF are. Christians like me, who are theologically inclined, take it for granted that they are talking about the God of Classical Theism. And even then, I am thinking of particular aspects of the Divine, like Necessary Being, since I also believe that the fullness of the Godhead is greater than can be conceived by limited creatures.

[Edwardo Piet]

Extraordinarily complex deities require extraordinary complex evidence though. Evidence is expected and it isn't there. The maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence doesn't apply when evidence for something is very much expected to be there if it were really true. And when something is so absurd as to be unfalsifiable then that itself is very much evidence against its existence too.

---

I think this is a particularly astute observation.

Thanks.

I am interested in how the "simply lack belief" atheist will respond.

It's an absence not a lack

I haven't heard anyone seriously offer that particular definition of God. If they did my guess is that they forgot to add a qualifier to make it clear that they were talking about the physical universe.

Well generally speaking they tend to not give specifics. In which case it's hard to know what they're talking about. I am still not sure what the concept of something being existent but non-physical is supposed to mean. As far as I am concerned the non-physical can't influence the physical and so isn't even part of our reality. As soon as something can effect the physical then that itself makes it a part of our physical reality and therefore physical.

Nevertheless the point is well taken. Not all definitions of God are coherent.

Indeed.

Those ideas are usually offered up by believers who are not as inclined to theology as perhaps those who contribute on AF are. Christians like me, who are theologically inclined, take it for granted that they are talking about the God of Classical Theism. And even then, I am thinking of particular aspects of the Divine, like Necessary Being, since I also believe that the fullness of the Godhead is greater than can be conceived by limited creatures.

I've never seen a clear definition of those things. Every believer seems to have their own definition of God.

Once gotten down to specifics I mean. I generally think of the definition of God as a deity or personal creator of the universe who is not outside of the universe but is in fact the first part of the universe that then created the rest of the universe. But this is only regards to deism. Religion can't really factor into deities and make any sense. Talking about Jesus who was a human person and speaking about what he did in the Bible and all the miracles he did is no different to reading from any other book and saying that that applies to the deity that one believes in.

Even if there were a deity that created the rest of the universe.... as far as I am concerned to go from a god of some kind to a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever kind of God is a complete non-sequitur. It makes as much sense as writing my own book and starting my own religion and saying that's what god is like.

The idea of God being a necessary being sounds like God is necessary because he is the first cause. But it's not necessary that the first cause is God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Extraordinarily complex deities require extraordinary complex evidence though. Evidence is expected and it isn't there. The maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence doesn't apply when evidence for something is very much expected to be there if it were really true. And when something is so absurd as to be unfalsifiable then that itself is very much evidence against its existence too.

Theologically speaking, God isn't complex but rather simple.

With respect to the idea that only falsifiable claims can be considered knowledge, that was certainly not a position Karl Popper would have accepted. Presenting "falsifiablity" as some kind of test is a red herring. I would refer you to this more comprehensive article on the subject which you can find at:

Do Theological Claims Need to be Falsifiable

Here is a quote from the article:

"Now, the fundamental claims and arguments of theology—for example, the most important arguments for the existence and attributes of God (such as Aquinas’s arguments, or Leibniz’s arguments)—are a species of metaphysical claim. Hence it is simply a category mistake to demand of them, as Flew did, that they be empirically falsifiable. To dismiss theology on falsificationist grounds, one would, to be consistent, also have to dismiss mathematics, logic, meta-science, and metaphysics in general. Which would be, not only absurd, but self-defeating, since the claim that only scientific claims are rationally justifiable is itself not a scientific claim but a metaphysical claim, and any argument for this claim would presuppose standards of logic." - Edward Feser in StrangeNotions.com

[Edwardo Piet]

Neither mathematics nor logic makes existential claims. When metaphysical claims are also existential claims they are therefore relevant to the universe and nature and therefore scientific and therefore should be testable and falsifiable.

Fair enough if the claim is that God exists in such a way that he doesn't affect the natural universe at all. But then that makes him indistinguishable from non-existent to all conscious subjects and therefore unfalsifable. This is why falsifiability matters.