"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Asmodee]

Yeah, proving something's non-existence is a difficult, ill-defined, and often impossible process.

That's why I wouldn't defend the assertion "God does not exist."  That was my whole point.  It's an assertion in support of which no evidence can be adduced - I might personally lean towards that being true, but in any real discussion I wouldn't use that as my starting point because I know I wouldn't be able to justify it in any satisfactory manner.

Fair enough.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

I assumed your signature is what you meant when you spoke of your "signature line" as the "evidence" in support of the existence of God. Was that incorrect?

---

Please continue...

You must first explicitly affirm that these are empirically obvious facts.

I would also ask you to confirm that you believe in the efficacy of human reason and that reality is intelligible. Why? Because it would be pointless to present a logical demonstration only to find that the audience denies that human reason cannot lead to knowledge or that knowledge about the world cannot be actually be attained.

I disagree.  I submit that you must first clarify what it is you are saying as your signature clearly states that the things you list are "evidence for God", yet you refer to them as nothing more than simple observations.

What I can reasonably conclude from this is that your signature is not, itself, evidence for the existence of God, but a lead-in that you felt the need to point out because we all "missed it" to some convoluted argument which only works if you make us agree to some set of explicit rules without any context, which you alone get to dictate and word.  You may not know this, but atheists are really, REALLY skeptical about accepting or agreeing with any statement without context because it is a common, cheap, underhanded, shady, slimy trick of theists, especially prevalent from Jehovah's Witnesses, in my experience, to try to get you to agree to some seemingly innocuous statements without any context to where it is leading to later twist and warp what was said, changing the context entirely from what it at first appeared to be to something completely unrelated.

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me what it's about before I agree to it, I'm not going to agree to it.  Fool me once and all.

[Simon Moon]

Please continue...

You must first explicitly affirm that these are empirically obvious facts.

I would also ask you to confirm that you believe in the efficacy of human reason and that reality is intelligible. Why? Because it would be pointless to present a logical demonstration only to find that the audience denies that human reason cannot lead to knowledge or that knowledge about the world cannot be actually be attained.

First you need to clearly define the term "exist".

But, for the sake of your argument, I will stipulate that those are empirically obvious facts.

I will also agree that human reason is effective and that reality is intelligible.

[SteveII]

"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.

If there were sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis would be refuted. If there is insufficient evidence to refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis stands. There's nothing in it about 'absolutely no evidence against the null hypothesis'. Only evidence sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis justifies rejecting it.

In particular, 'any evidence whatsoever being presented' is certainly not the standard for rejecting the null hypothesis. The evidence must stand up to scrutiny, and be of adequate significance. Just calling something evidence doesn't make it evidence. It has to point to the specific conclusion that would refute the null hypothesis.

There's an obvious reason why you would want to make the null hypothesis so ethereally flimsy, but the definitions at hand are not under your dominion.

Thank you for the correction about the null hypothesis.

[Mister Agenda]

No worries, you're always as good as your last post with me, Steve. I admire it when someone can take criticism on board gracefully.

[bennyboy]

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.

For specific definitions of God,  you can conclude that God doesn't exist.  The Sky Daddy Christians talk about is an incoherent concept and therefore can be said not to exist.

Lacking a specific definition, then "God doesn't exist" means "Nothing exists which might reasonably be referred to as God."  That's a pretty hard claim to make, even for an atheist.  For example, you could say that whatever philosophical or existential quantity or principle allowed for a Big Bang would be God, at least of our universe-- but that's not a discovery, it's a definition.

[robvalue]

A Christian, a Muslim, a Rabbi and a Scientologist walk into a coffee shop.

---

At least three of them are wrong.

---

[Pat Mustard]

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.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

That's insufficient evidence for flu.

Your throat could be sore because of the vomiting.
Certain poisons could elicit those symptoms.
The fever and sore throat, vomiting and sore throat may be unrelated to each other.
It may share symptoms with flu but is does not mean it is flu.
In fact a lot of things people think are flu aren't actually flu, bad colds for instance, are often mistaken for flu.

Normally it doesn't matter because you get better after a few days anyway.

The point is that just because you think something looks like it fits with your idea of what it is, doesn't mean that it IS what you think it is, even if you think you have seen evidence that satisfies you.

It others remain unsatisfied it is down to the quality of your evidence not our incomprehension or stubbornness.

If there was good evidence for a god I'd have to hold my hand up and admit I was wrong. But there isn't so I wont.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Most likely..."

[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".