Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Oh?

So these evangelical atheists are exempt from proving God does not exist but evangelical theists are required to prove God exists? Seriously?

There is no default position outside of claimant is required to prove claim, where did that baloney come from? Thats an absurd circular argument since the atheist cant prove nonexistence which is their claim.

 

As far as I am aware, agnosticism is not a middle ground it is a position regarding knowledge not belief, but hey, your posts seem to specialise in telling people what they believe while simultaneously displaying a cartoon understanding of the positions of that they identify with.

 

RE: Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
※→ Kokomojojo, et al,

This is a serious point.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an "evangelical atheists" (as in relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel). I would think that one cannot be both (√) in agreement with the gospels → and → (√) at the same time reject the teaching in the gospels that are base on a belief in the existence of Supreme Being. There are certain lines of thought and pathways to solution that are problematic to start with, and fallacies are one of them.

​

(COMMENT)

There is a slight difference in the concept that the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists (that being the Supreme Being) → is actually different (∆) from the claim that when persons are born, they naturally have a belief in some higher supernatural power (a Supreme Being) as a "default position." Similarly, the inverse position (opposite and contrary in position) that humans are born naturally without a belief in some higher supernatural power (a Supreme Being) → as something they are totally unaware of the existence (that being the Supreme Being) → being the "default position." This is an unnecessary argument pertaining to the subset of knowledge that is obtained from resources which are external initial instincts at birth; as opposed to the light of the active intellect at birth.

The environment of birth and growth has an impact on the belief structure (if any) an individual might acquire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

The same way a child can prove Santa exists. The proof is all the toys u see under the tree. He fears being bad because he will get coal in his stocking (hell) he asks Santa for things (prayer) ...and he believes it all

 

Thanks, but when making reasoned counter arguments you didnt need to go through all the work of pictures frankly. I used the word evangelical, to emphasize atheists today are preaching the gospel of lord zero. As you can see those who lack belief also lack the fortitude to argue the matter. I agree there is no default position and I also agree its a useless as in meaningless argument. Its not my proposition its reas proposition.

The proposition, 'I am an atheist' stands on its own and in direct opposition ¬ to 'I am a theist'.
I presented no other conditions.

a theist is directly equivalent to +1 an atheist is directly equivalent to -1.

both are affirmative conditions (statements), the condition used in my argument.

your examples attempt to set the perception that I am trying to prove the existence of God, (for this element) I am not, I have demonstrated as a side note the fallacies used in the atheist lack of belief playground.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Hence atheists accept the proposition God does not exist purely based upon 'faith', hence one of several proofs atheism is their religion.

You can bring 'reasonable probability' into this but reason though very helpful has nothing to do with the acquisition of incontrovertible truth which rea is claiming he has, and probability is not fact, merely best guess.

 

Which does nothing to show a god exists.

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. That isn't a positive assertion. The burden or proof lies squarely on the person making the claim that a god or gods exist.

 

you miss the point, and fail to grasp the concept of semantics, [ie difference lacking distinction] if you believe 'lack of belief' is any different than 'no belief' or 'believe not' or 'disbelieve' feel free to show your truth table how the result is different. You would be the first to do so.

 

Negation
First published Wed Jan 7, 2015

Negation is in the first place a phenomenon of semantical opposition. As such, negation relates an expression e to another expression with a meaning that is in some way opposed to the meaning of e. This relation may be realized syntactically and pragmatically in various ways. Moreover, there are different kinds of semantic opposition. Section 1 is concerned mainly with negation and opposition in natural language, both from a historical and a systematical perspective. Section 2 focuses on negation as a unary connective from the point of view of philosophical logic. The history of negation is comprehensively studied and surveyed in Horn 1989 and Speranza and Horn 2012.

1.4 Contrariety and contradiction

Negation as such is often semantically restricted to contradictory opposition between propositions, in which ¬A can be paraphrased (if not necessarily syntactically represented) as “it is not the case that A

”. As introduced in Aristotle’s Categories (11b17), the genus of opposition (apophasis) is divided into species that include contrariety and contradiction. Contradictory opposites, whether affirmative and negative counterparts of a singular predication (Socrates is wise/Socrates isn’t wise) or quantified expressions (All pleasure is good/Some pleasure is not good), are mutually exhaustive as well as mutually exclusive, while contrary opposites (Socrates is wise/Socrates is unwise; All pleasure is good/No pleasure is good) do not mutually exhaust their domain. Contraries cannot be simultaneously true, though they may be simultaneously false. Members of a contradictory pair cannot be true or false simultaneously; contradictories “divide the true and the false between them” (see the entries on contradiction and the traditional square of opposition).

Contrary terms (enantia) come in two varieties (Cat. 11b38ff.). In immediate or logical contraries (odd/even, sick/well), a true middle—an entity satisfying the range of the two opposed terms but falling under neither of them—is excluded, e.g., an integer neither odd nor even. But mediate contrary pairs (black/white, good/bad) allow for a middle—a shirt between black and white, a man or an act neither good nor bad. Neither mediate nor immediate contraries fall under the Law of Excluded Middle [LEM] (tertium non datur).

By the law of the excluded middle, either “A is B” or “A is not B” must be true. Hence either “the present king of France is bald” or “the present king of France is not bald” must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we should not find the king of France on either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.

To resolve this (apparent) paradox while preserving a classical analysis in which every meaningful sentence is true or false, Russell banishes singular terms like the king of France from logical form, unpacking (5) and (6) as existentially quantified sentences despite their superficial subject-predicate syntax.

(5) The king of France is bald.
(6) The king of France is not bald.

On Russell’s theory of descriptions, (5) can be represented as (5′), the (false) proposition that there is a unique entity with the property of being king of France and that this entity is bald, while (6) is ambiguous, depending on the scope of negation.

(5′) ∃x(Kx∧∀y(Ky→y=x)∧Bx))
(6′) ∃x(Kx∧∀y(Ky→y=x)∧¬Bx))
(6″) ¬∃x(Kx∧∀y(Ky→y=x)∧Bx))

(6′), with narrow-scope (“internal”) negation, is the proposition that there is a unique and hirsute king of France, which is “simply false” in the absence (or oversupply) of male French monarchs. In (6″), on the other hand, the description the king of France falls within the scope of external negation and yields a true proposition. Unlike (6′), (6″) fails to entail that there is a king of France; indeed, the non-existence of a king of France guarantees the truth of (6″). This reading is more naturally expressed with the fall-rise contour and continuation characteristic of metalinguistic negation (Horn 1989) as in (7):

(7) The king of France isn’t v BALD—there ISN’T any king of France!

For Strawson (1950, 1952), negation normally or invariably leaves the subject “unimpaired”. Strawson tacitly lines up with Frege and against Russell (and Aristotle) in regarding negative statements like (4b) and (6) as unambiguous and necessarily presuppositional. Someone who utters (6) does not thereby assert (nor does her statement entail) that there is a king of France. Rather, (6)—along with its affirmative counterpart (5)—presupposes it. If this presupposition fails, a statement may be made but the question of its truth value fails to arise.

While many analysts (e.g., Wilson 1975, Atlas 1977, Gazdar 1979, Grice 1989) have since followed Russell by preserving a bivalent semantics and invoking pragmatic explanations of apparent presuppositional effects, other linguists and philosophers (e.g., Fodor 1979, Burton-Roberts 1989, von Fintel 2004) have defended and formalized theories of semantic presupposition in the Frege-Strawson spirit, allowing for the emergence of truth-value gaps or non-classical truth values when presuppositions are not satisfied.

Non-bivalent logics of semantic presupposition, dating back to Łukasiewicz (1930) and Kleene (1952), generally posit (at least) two not-operators, the distinction arising lexically rather than (as for Russell) scopally; see the entry on many-valued logic and Section 2 below. The ordinary, presupposition-preserving internal or choice negation is the only one countenanced by Frege and Strawson; on this reading, Santa is not white, like Santa is white, is neither true nor false, given that Santa does not exist. The presupposition-cancelling or exclusion negation always determines a classical value. With exclusion negation, Santa is not white (or perhaps more plausibly It is not the case that Santa is white) is true even if there is no Santa. Thus there is no excluded middle; any affirmation and its corresponding exclusion negation are contradictories rather than contraries (see the entry on presupposition for elaboration and further details).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/#ConCon

 

Lack of belief is different than belief. Where are you getting lost? That's as dumbed down as it can get.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Theism is the belief in a god.

The burden of proof lies solely with the theist, as they are making a positive assertion.

 

Oh you want to play foolish little word games, Ok, Theism is lack of belief in no God.

The burden of proof is on atheists.

I can quote stanford all day and its meaningless to atheists.

 

Sorry, but atheist by definition is lack of belief in a god. Theist by definition is belief a god.

The burden is solely on the theist, as they are making the positive claim.

 

Still insist on playing foolish word games?

There now its stated as a positive affirmation right out of the dictionary.

atheist
noun [ C ] us /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/
someone who believes that God does not exist

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/atheist


Oh look at that cambridge university no less, how about that

 

No, just correcting you.

There are in fact some atheists who make that positive claim, the majority simply lacks a belief in a god.

 

you have no explanation for any distinction since someone who believes God does not exist also lacks belief in God, hence the position is absurd on its face. You corrected nothing what so ever, merely contradicted yourself in your own word games. If you botherd to read previous posts you would know that anything can be stated as a negative or positive and carries the same meaning. you just murdered the law of the excluded middle.

 

Nope, as those are 2 different things.

Nope, I corrected you.

A negative can not be proven. The one making the positive assertion (theists) bear the burden of proof.

Sorry.

 

you just know, you cant explain it if your life depended on it but you have it on good faith that its twu. May as well face it you are in over your head.

 

I literally just explained it. Lol

 

He corrected you and you have been consistently proven wrong

 

its different is not an explanation, steeeerike 3 yer out!

 

thanks for posting the figments of your imagination.

 

I posted facts and you know I did

 

yes we fully understand you think the figments of your imagination are facts, that goes without saying.

 

No we fully understand that you know I am stating fact and simply lack the maturity to admit it