"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[vorlon13]

As I've noted before, in science, breaking any link in a chain of reasoning in a hypotheses invalidates it, curiously, we have god claims too many to count, where pounding out even one verifiable link seems to be the most daunting task imaginable, and yet without even that one particle in what should be reams of evidence, we still see any number of willing and compulsive gullibles rushing to the finish line and concluding their God candidate 'wins' the existence sweepstakes.

[Asmodee]

It's a little of both.  It's a claim because it is impossible to know for certainty.  It is a conclusion because after searching for God, in particular, I came to the conclusion it didn't exist.  But I'm not making the claim that I know absolutely.  Confusing, I know, but I hope it helps.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Perhaps none of you have noticed my signature line in which the evidence for the existence of God has been plainly stated. Evidence means that which is evident. Evidence is data about the world used to support a conclusion. You may disagree with the conclusion I accept as a valid interpretation of the data. I understand and welcome that disagreement. I believe that people can apply reason to simple observations (things clearly and plainly evident) about the world and draw conclusions about an important issue, namely whether there is a Divine aspect to reality.

I carefully stated proposition 2 as "The proposition that god(s) exist is not true," as opposed to "The proposition that god(s) exist is false." That allows one to take the 'I don't know' position which would be a kind of state of innocence of someone has not had a chance to consider the possibility of God(s) existence. Many of you are not in any such state of innocence and haven't been for quite a long time. Those of you how say "no evidence" have taken a stance with respect to the proposition: There is no evidence for god(s).

[Mister Agenda]

We've been politely overlooking your signature because of how inane it is. Everyone was hoping you wouldn't embarrass yourself by calling attention to it.

[Jesster]

So much straw in here...

[Minimalist]

A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

I would say "God does not exist" is a claim. What an atheist usually inductively reasons is something like:

1. There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise because even if there was no evidence for God, a person could not conclude with anything near certainty there is no God because our knowledge is limited to examination of the natural world and we lack the capacity to examine any supernatural world. To fix it:

1` There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2` Therefore God probably does not exist.

So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

You're going to hurt your back jumping through all those hoops to justify your belief in nothing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

We've been politely overlooking your signature because of how inane it is. Everyone was hoping you wouldn't embarrass yourself by calling attention to it.

At least it isn't a blatant insult like yours.

[SteveII]

I would say "God does not exist" is a claim. What an atheist usually inductively reasons is something like:

1. There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

Speaking of unsupported claims, this is one. There is certainly nothing you could reasonably have gathered from this forum to justify you thinking that this is 'what an atheist usually inductively reasons'. The usual reasoning, as you will have encountered repeatedly here is 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God.

Excuse me for inferring from the usual level of animosity on this site against anyone who believes in God that it is not a matter of "you are wrong/stupid/brainwashed/clueless/liars...". While there are exceptions, this is the prevailing attitude here. In my opinion, your mild " 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God. " does not justify the animosity, so rather than just think that many of you just lack character, I reasoned that many of you believe with near certainty that you are right and I am wrong.

[Jesster]

[SteveII]

So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

Wrong Steve, "god doesn't exist" is the null hypothesis, because given the current evidence we live in a universe which has no need for a god to exist. The idea of god posits an extra being which doesn't agree with what we know of the universe, therefore that is the hypotesis which needs supporting evidence.

"God does not exist" would be the null hypothesis only if there were absolutely no evidence for God. If any evidence whatsoever is presented, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is evidence (it does not matter if you don't find it compelling) so the null hypothesis must be rejected. If the null hypothesis is rejected, "God does not exists" becomes a positive claim.