"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Asmodee]

Until we have evidence to the contrary accepting "god does not exist" as the default hypothesis is the only logical course of action. Arguing for the existence of a god is positing a being which according to our knowledge is not only not neccessary but in some ways looks to be contrary to our knowledge of how the universe. In order to accept that there is a god sufficient evidence needs to be given. So far theists have given fuck all evidence.

Asserting that god doesn't exist is as scientifically valid at the moment as asserting phlogiston doesn't exist.

You make a very good point.  If I assert that I have magical powers like Superman it is fair to assume the claim is not true until I offer some proof and, in fact, everybody does that on a regular basis.  If a claim is just too fantastical to believe, we don't believe it until the claimant proves it.  That is actually just the way our brains work.  So it's definitely fair to say that God does not exist until there is some evidence to suggest otherwise.

Of course we have all seen people offer plenty of what they think is evidence for the existence of a favored deity, but that evidence always falls within the same few categories.  Logical fallacies such as appeal to authority or popularity are popular ones.  Very often the "evidence" is nothing more than simple assertions or unsupported claims.  Or Michael Behe's "observations and logical inferences" where he conveniently leaves out that you start with the answer you want and work back from there to find the observations and make up inferences which sound logical.  But more often than not the "evidence" they offer is nothing more than an argument, usually rife with logical fallacies.  But they back that with appeals to authority and complete lack of understanding of the physical universe around us.

But yes, very good point.  It is certainly fair to simply assume, and even state outright that a fantastical claim is false until there is some evidence to suggest otherwise.  If we did not do that we would all spend our entire lives trying to disprove dragons and fairies and Bigfoot.  If the world worked like that we'd still be stuck in the Middle Ages because nobody would have time for worthwhile ventures.

[GUBU]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

And thus we are completely correct in assuming god doesn't exist.

And supernatural is a mealy mouthed term used by you theists to attempt to dodge the fact that you've currently no evidence, you never had any evidence, and that you know you never likely will have any evidence. The challenge is "show evidence for your position" not "talk mumbo jumbo until you fall over".

[downbeatplumb]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

If we can't know of gods existence then it is of no consequence.

If it is of consequence then we should be able to notice it.

[SteveII]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

And thus we are completely correct in assuming god doesn't exist. [1]

And supernatural is a mealy mouthed term used by you theists to attempt to dodge the fact that you've currently no evidence, you never had any evidence, and that you know you never likely will have any evidence. The challenge is "show evidence for your position" not "talk mumbo jumbo until you fall over". [2]

[1] You can assume all you want. "God does not exist" cannot be the null hypothesis.

[2] I see why some atheists don't like the term supernatural--because discussion of it is insulated from the myopic view that only science can provide us knowledge. The point of this thread is not to argue specific evidence. However, that does not mean we concede there is no evidence. We have the events of the NT as evidence, we have personal experiences of billions of people as evidence, we have all the formal natural theology arguments which articulate an inference to the existence of God based on natural evidence. While you might not like the evidence or think it is compelling, that is your subjective opinion and does not equate to "no evidence".

---

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

If we can't know of gods existence then it is of no consequence.

If it is of consequence then we should be able to notice it.

Well, there might be unknown consequences, but yes, I agree with you.

[robvalue]

I'd like anyone to define supernatural without using an equivocation fallacy.

The only definition I've heard that is consistent is that it refers to things external to our reality. This makes it subjective of course.

If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored. The question of its existence becomes irrelevant, for all practical purposes.

[SteveII]

I'd like anyone to define supernatural without using an equivocation fallacy.

The only definition I've heard that is consistent is that it refers to things external to our reality. This makes it subjective of course.

If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored. The question of its existence becomes irrelevant, for all practical purposes.

Supernatural is anything not part of the natural universe. As such, not constrained by our observable framework (perhaps constrained by another framework). That is not to say it cannot interact with our natural universe (causation). 

On what basis do you make the philosophical statement that "If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored"?

[Mister Agenda]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

The default position on our current ability to know with certainty that no possible version of a supernatural deity is actually real is that 'we can't know'. The null hypothesis on the matter is that God doesn't exist.

The null hypothesis for rabbit populations influencing hemline trends is that rabbit populations don't affect hemline trends. The null hypothesis for human contributions to global warming is that humans don't contribute to global warming. For purposes of 'what is a null hypothesis', we're treating the null hypothesis for God's existence exactly like any other null hypothesis.

[AceBoogie]

If you come to a realization based on a lack of evidence... It's fair to say that the realization is a conclusion. If you attempt to formulate an opinion or idea based on evidence you've found... it's fair to say that is a claim.

Saying "God doesn't exist" is as much of a claim as saying "Harry Potter doesn't exist."

[Mister Agenda]

I'd like anyone to define supernatural without using an equivocation fallacy.

The only definition I've heard that is consistent is that it refers to things external to our reality. This makes it subjective of course.

If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored. The question of its existence becomes irrelevant, for all practical purposes.

Supernatural is anything not part of the natural universe. As such, not constrained by our observable framework (perhaps constrained by another framework). That is not to say it cannot interact with our natural universe (causation). 

On what basis do you make the philosophical statement that "If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored"?

It can never be known whether something unfalsifiable is true or false unless convincing positive evidence for it's truth appears. If there is no possible evidence that could prove it false, and no available evidence to indicate that it's true, there's no reason to assign it significance. You can't prove there isn't an invisible, intangible leprechaun controlling your every thought and action. Do you think the possibility can't safely be ignored? Bear in mind that leprechaun decides when and how you die and for all we know, may get upset if you don't take it seriously.

Or you could ignore it as a real possibility unless the leprechaun appears and demonstrates its power to you. That's what I'd do, but you live your life as you see fit.

[SteveII]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

The default position on our current ability to know with certainty that no possible version of a supernatural deity is actually real is that 'we can't know'. The null hypothesis on the matter is that God doesn't exist.

The null hypothesis for rabbit populations influencing hemline trends is that rabbit populations don't affect hemline trends. The null hypothesis for human contributions to global warming is that humans don't contribute to global warming. For purposes of 'what is a null hypothesis', we're treating the null hypothesis for God's existence exactly like any other null hypothesis.

Your examples help my point. The rabbits influence and humans contribute--all knowable things.  God existing outside of our natural universe is not in the same category of knowledge and the fact that it is possible not ever to know defeats the claim that "God does not exist" is the null hypothesis and therefore is not a claim.