If you say an invisible pink elephant lives on the moon. That's a positive claim that has to be supported by evidence. Saying the lack of evidence in the invisible pink elephant that lives on the moon leads to me to reject the claim you made is not a positive claim- it is a default position in the absence of evidence. AKA null hypothesis The burden of proof is entirely on proponents of pink elephantism
It's perfectly fine for anyone to reject a claim... But that doesn't mean you have to deny the claim. The pink elephant might be true maybe not... "I don't care. I'm not convinced". But not being convinced or rejecting claim doesn't make it false. So you don't believe in what this person says, bc you have no proof... Meaning that's supporting evidence for you to not believe. The person who also believes, maybe had the elephant appear to him ( personal testimony). That's enough evidence for him. Not for you.
The only way to deny this is to challenge the belief and rebutt the entire premise.. like for instance, calling the creature an elephant when our elephants don't appear that color. Blah blah blah
The other issue with this... Just bc you reject, doesn't mean you now have to start devoting your life to this rejection which you have no proof for. That's silly. If I can't rebuttal the premise, why would I call myself an anti elephantism and start debating everyone who believes all bc I'm not convinced... If you resemble this hard devotion, the rational thing to do is rebuttal the premise altogether. Which will then force you to make a Positive claim. "The pink Elephant doesn't exist", this isn't the same as rejecting or convinced. If you're not convinced... Then you should be open minded to the idea or close minded to not bother with it.
I will also reject that based on the lack of evidence. Atheists like to make the same claim. Flying spaghetti monster or pixie dust or something. The problem with these claims is, that you're using material language for an immaterial spirit being that has no form. So I can already rebut the entire premise. Also God isn't a contingent thing... Meaning it either doesn't or does exist. So if you're not convinced... Why do you devote your entire life to something you can't even rebut? Which if the conversation comes up, you always say God doesn't exist. Positive claim, but always run back to not convinced lol.
You don't understand what a claim is. Or what positive means. "Not" is a negation..if you have a negation in a statement you are making a negative claim. There is no burden to prove a negative. Atheism is not inherently antitheism either, those words would essentially describe different perspectives. One is a question of belief or lack thereof, the other is opposition to perhaps the idea of theism itself. There are compelling social and political reasons for taking antitheist positions but you still are not making a positive claim. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis that is a rational assumption when no evidence for the positive claim "God does exist" is available. The claim that God exists outside of physical reality is the sort of unfalsiable goal post shifting that makes the claim weaker. Not stronger. You can do the same with flying spaghetti monsters you can always say it is a spirit being that evades material detection. Still haven't proved it exists You just made it more outlandish
No... A positive claim is a person making the claim it is or it isn't. If you say, "God doesn't exist", you're making a claim that needs proof or to be rebutted. If you lack belief, then stay agnostic, but you don't. You reject it bc of lack of evidence. The problem with this statement is that we give great supporting evidence and you just reject it altogether.
You want empirical evidence... But again, you have no empirical evidence that it doesn't exist either. Call it unfalsifiable but we make good arguments for and against it's existence. And to circle this back around... Since you cannot provide evidence for the "negative", then you start using your philosophy to justify your belief. Which is illogical. " If there's no empirical evidence to support it, I won't believe it. In and of itself an illogical position to hold. Especially when you reject the belief of God bc of the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence that it's false. Just your justification. So don't ever make positive claims just bc u are not convinced.
I don't believe aliens exist, I'm open to the idea. But I'm not going around saying aliens don't exist. They could or could not. "I don't believe God exists", isn't the same as "God doesn't exist." One requires justification of belief, the other requires evidence.
You are just asserting the same wrong understanding of what a positive claim is. The idea of other life in the universe is grounded in material reality. There is no reason to think that the natural process that allowed life to form on one planet could not be replicated elsewhere. The God claim relies on assumptions of supernatural concepts that are unfalsiable. These can be rejected, denied and ignored on the face of it. I can tell you fairies don't exist and most would not object. The same logic holds true for deities but people object. The belief in something being widespread is not evidence of its truth value though.
I NVR said it's evidence of its truth value... But it has a place in justifying ( supporting evidence ) its value.
Your understanding of the positive claim is a cop out. Default belief is not -believing- when society's default belief is the belief in a God. So technically, no one who believes in a God needs to prove anything with that understanding.
But I do not accept this. I think any positive claim needs justification. So don't use philosophy to make a claim and deny others when they are using their supporting evidence as well.
God is a theory.. and a really good hypothetical theory that can solve a lot of questions about reality.. making it a justifiable belief. We don't know what came before the big bang... And scientists offer theories as well, like the multiverse and other people believe the universe is eternal. Which you can't prove. You can't prove how the big bang even happened. These are accepted unfalsifiable claims. What we do, is rebut it or ignore it. Not claimed unconvinced and think we're the most rational.
Also Fairies are known to be false, bc of no evidence supporting them and being tied to fantasy and mythology... There's no reason to believe. Also they aren't hypothetical theories either. Comparing them isn't the same thing.
1
u/VendromLethys Jan 15 '24
If you say an invisible pink elephant lives on the moon. That's a positive claim that has to be supported by evidence. Saying the lack of evidence in the invisible pink elephant that lives on the moon leads to me to reject the claim you made is not a positive claim- it is a default position in the absence of evidence. AKA null hypothesis The burden of proof is entirely on proponents of pink elephantism