WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[GrandizerII]

Here you are giving your reasons for rejecting the claim that God exists.

The fact that (according to you) it has never been seen, experienced via the senses, or known empirically, is your counter evidence -- the reason you put forward as sufficient to deny the claim. (Actually you are saying the same thing three times, but it still constitutes a reason.) So you are not just saying that the burden of proof is on the believer -- you are arguing back. This is what I think we should all do.

That's fine, but many of us place God in the same category as the FSM.

Yeah, which is kinda dumb, considering the FSM is a physical being whereas God (in the classical theist sense) is not.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Been following the thread for a while.

So, how might other members rate these statements?

Person (A) says 'X' is true.
Person (B) says 'X' is false.
Person © says 'X' is real.
Person (D) says 'X' is unreal/not real
Person (E) says 'X' is evidenced in reality.
Person (F) says 'X' is impossible within reality.

Cheers.

[LadyForCamus]

Saying “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason to convince me your claim is true,” is a perfectly sufficient reason to withhold belief in that claim, at least tentatively. Though the person rejecting the reasoning used to support the claim is still responsible for explaining why the claimant’s reasoning is fallacious, because logic can be objectively assessed and critiqued. In other words, if someone puts forth a cosmological argument, and the respondent says, “nope. That argument is fallacious.” or “the premises are false.” then they haven’t yet done the work of supporting and justifying those counter-claims. And others of us enjoy a more in-depth discourse on the subject of metaphysics, beyond simply, “I’m not convinced, so I’m done thinking about it.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

[Jehanne]

That's fine, but many of us place God in the same category as the FSM.

Yeah, which is kinda dumb, considering the FSM is a physical being whereas God (in the classical theist sense) is not.

Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S. If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah, which is kinda dumb, considering the FSM is a physical being whereas God (in the classical theist sense) is not.

Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S.  If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

And who said the FSM was a physical being?

[polymath257]

That's fine, but many of us place God in the same category as the FSM.

Yeah, which is kinda dumb, considering the FSM is a physical being whereas God (in the classical theist sense) is not.

Why would you say that? The FSM's noodly appendages are made of supremely metaphysical pasta. Nothing physical about it.

[Belacqua]

Saying “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason to convince me your claim is true,” is a perfectly sufficient reason to withhold belief in that claim, at least tentatively. Though the person rejecting the reasoning used to support the claim is still responsible for explaining why the claimant’s reasoning is fallacious, because logic can be objectively assessed and critiqued. In other words, if someone puts forth a cosmological argument, and the respondent says, “nope. That argument is fallacious.” or “the premises are false.” then they haven’t yet done the work of supporting and justifying those counter-claims. And others of us enjoy a more in-depth discourse on the subject of metaphysics, beyond simply, “I’m not convinced, so I’m done thinking about it.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

This is all very well said, I think! Thank you for posting it. 

(It's pretty much what I've been saying, but since you're much nicer than I am people are more likely to read it with an open mind.)

It allows dialogue. So “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason" is perfectly fair, and allows the person making the claim to explore what "sufficient evidence" or a "sound reason" might look like to the respondent. 

We saw earlier someone making two claims: 1) there is no empirical evidence for God, and 2) we should not believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. 

If people were inclined, this is a very reasonable way to begin a discussion of classical theism, which of course never claimed that God would be some sort of physical object accessible to the senses. Since Plato, God is much more like Justice, or Mercy. Or numbers. These are things we don't sense, but can know of in the mind since we extrapolate their existence from actions and objects in the world. 

I know that most people here won't accept this argument either, but it shows how, when someone presents his reasons, discussion is possible.

[Jehanne]

Saying “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason to convince me your claim is true,” is a perfectly sufficient reason to withhold belief in that claim, at least tentatively. Though the person rejecting the reasoning used to support the claim is still responsible for explaining why the claimant’s reasoning is fallacious, because logic can be objectively assessed and critiqued. In other words, if someone puts forth a cosmological argument, and the respondent says, “nope. That argument is fallacious.” or “the premises are false.” then they haven’t yet done the work of supporting and justifying those counter-claims. And others of us enjoy a more in-depth discourse on the subject of metaphysics, beyond simply, “I’m not convinced, so I’m done thinking about it.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

This is all very well said, I think! Thank you for posting it. 

(It's pretty much what I've been saying, but since you're much nicer than I am people are more likely to read it with an open mind.)

It allows dialogue. So “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason" is perfectly fair, and allows the person making the claim to explore what "sufficient evidence" or a "sound reason" might look like to the respondent. 

We saw earlier someone making two claims: 1) there is no empirical evidence for God, and 2) we should not believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. 

If people were inclined, this is a very reasonable way to begin a discussion of classical theism, which of course never claimed that God would be some sort of physical object accessible to the senses. Since Plato, God is much more like Justice, or Mercy. Or numbers. These are things we don't sense, but can know of in the mind since we extrapolate their existence from actions and objects in the world. 

I know that most people here won't accept this argument either, but it shows how, when someone presents his reasons, discussion is possible.

Just so that we are clear, the Greeks were pagans (that is, polytheistic), and if you read Homer, the gods were constantly intervening in the affairs of we mortals; that's what the Greeks, Plato included, believed, Romans, too.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, which is kinda dumb, considering the FSM is a physical being whereas God (in the classical theist sense) is not.

Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S. If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

No there isn't