When does Atheism Become a Belief System

[Quag]

If we do not know what does or does not exist, it might or might not exist. Hence, it may or may not be possible, which can be shortened to, "It is possible."

No Frank this has been shown to be untrue.
A two headed coin can NEVER land on tails regardless of whether or not you know it is a two headed coin.
It is NOT possible.

 

[calamity]

No Frank this has been shown to be untrue.
A two headed coin can NEVER land on tails regardless of whether or not you know it is a two headed coin.
It is NOT possible.

You only know the coin cannot land tails because...wait for it---you know it is a two headed coin. If you didn't, you very well would believe it was possible.

Likewise, even though we all now know the moon is not made of cheese. It was not until we actually showed that it was made of rock that it being made of cheese was no longer a possibility. Up until then, "the moon is made of cheese" crowd had a legitimate argument when they said it was possible.

Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about follows the same principle. It's possible. If you say it's not, I ask only one thing. Prove Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about are not possible.

 

[soylentgreen]

If we do not know what does or does not exist, it might or might not exist. Hence, it may or may not be possible, which can be shortened to, "It is possible."

So santa clause is possible?

 

[William Rea]

You only know the coin cannot land tails because...wait for it---you know it is a two headed coin. If you didn't, you very well would believe it was possible.

Likewise, even though we all now know the moon is not made of cheese. It was not until we actually showed that it was made of rock that it being made of cheese was no longer a possibility. Up until then, "the moon is made of cheese" crowd had a legitimate argument when they said it was possible.

Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about follows the same principle. It's possible. If you say it's not, I ask only one thing. Prove Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about are not possible.

Our knowledge of the composition of the moon did not change the reality because, reality is not contingent upon our knowledge of it.

It was never possible that the moon was made of cheese, all that changed was that we found out that it wasn't made of cheese.

This is why claiming that, 'we don't know what the moon is made of so it is possible that the moon is made of cheese' is an assertion of an unjustified belief and a guess about the true nature of reality just as much as asserting outright that, 'the moon is made of cheese' is. Now, if you are going to claim that you don't believe or guess about the true nature of reality while simultaneously asserting what is possible then you are a hypocrite.

The two headed coin thought experiment exposes the fundamental problem with asserting that things are possible because we have limited knowledge. We have no idea what is possible because we are ignorant and our ignorance or lack of does not change that reality. Attempting to use ignorance as an intellectual bludgeon against atheists fails because once you start using ignorance, it is ignorance all the way down. Frank tried to stop that one straight away but failed so, be careful about applying ignorance as a catch all because if you don't know everything, then you don't know anything. Think about it however, unlike your mentor, I am prepared to discuss that with you.

 

[Quag]

You only know the coin cannot land tails because...wait for it---you know it is a two headed coin. If you didn't, you very well would believe it was possible.

Likewise, even though we all now know the moon is not made of cheese. It was not until we actually showed that it was made of rock that it being made of cheese was no longer a possibility. Up until then, "the moon is made of cheese" crowd had a legitimate argument when they said it was possible.

Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about follows the same principle. It's possible. If you say it's not, I ask only one thing. Prove Gods and outer universes and infinity and all that other stuff we know nothing about are not possible.

OK Frank you really really need to read this again
A two headed coin can NEVER land on tails regardless of whether or not you know it is a two headed coin.
I is irrelevant if you know it is a two headed coin or not, it is IMPOSSIBLE to land on tails. If you dont know it is a two headed coin you can believe or have faith that it will land on tails but that doesn't make it possible.

It doesn't matter if you know if God(s) possible or not If God(s) are not possible.
The possibility/impossibility of something doesn't change due to lack of knowledge.
To claim otherwise is to claim you have knowledge that you do not have.

 

[Quag]

Our knowledge of the composition of the moon did not change the reality because, reality is not contingent upon our knowledge of it.

It was never possible that the moon was made of cheese, all that changed was that we found out that it wasn't made of cheese.

This is why claiming that, 'we don't know what the moon is made of so it is possible that the moon is made of cheese' is an assertion of an unjustified belief and a guess about the true nature of reality just as much as asserting outright that, 'the moon is made of cheese' is. Now, if you are going to claim that you don't believe or guess about the true nature of reality while simultaneously asserting what is possible then you are a hypocrite.

The two headed coin thought experiment exposes the fundamental problem with asserting that things are possible because we have limited knowledge. We have no idea what is possible because we are ignorant and our ignorance or lack of does not change that reality. Attempting to use ignorance as an intellectual bludgeon against atheists fails because once you start using ignorance, it is ignorance all the way down. Frank tried to stop that one straight away but failed so, be careful about applying ignorance as a catch all because if you don't know everything, then you don't know anything. Think about it however, unlike your mentor, I am prepared to discuss that with you.

Frank 2.0
Why does this even need to be debated again?

 

[calamity]

OK Frank you really really need to read this again
A two headed coin can NEVER land on tails regardless of whether or not you know it is a two headed coin.
I is irrelevant if you know it is a two headed coin or not, it is IMPOSSIBLE to land on tails. If you dont know it is a two headed coin you can believe or have faith that it will land on tails but that doesn't make it possible.

It doesn't matter if you know if God(s) possible or not If God(s) are not possible.
The possibility/impossibility of something doesn't change due to lack of knowledge.
To claim otherwise is to claim you have knowledge that you do not have.

If someone does not know it is a two headed coin, then of course they believe it can lend tails. In fact, for them, it is not only possible; it is 50% probable.

The key to knowing something is not possible is knowledge. Without that key, all things are possible. If you doubt my argument, prove something you do not know is not possible. Go for it.

 

[calamity]

OK Frank you really really need to read this again
A two headed coin can NEVER land on tails regardless of whether or not you know it is a two headed coin.
I is irrelevant if you know it is a two headed coin or not, it is IMPOSSIBLE to land on tails. If you dont know it is a two headed coin you can believe or have faith that it will land on tails but that doesn't make it possible.

It doesn't matter if you know if God(s) possible or not If God(s) are not possible.
The possibility/impossibility of something doesn't change due to lack of knowledge.
To claim otherwise is to claim you have knowledge that you do not have.

You can't say it's not possible without knowing it's not possible. Why is that so hard to understand?

You don't know if gods are possible or not. You don't know whether or not the universe is the result of a giant god's sneeze. You don't evenk now whether or not the universe is floating in some unobsevable pot of melted cheese.

Believe it or not, all things unknown remain on the list of "the possible."

 

[Russell797]

If we do not know what does or does not exist, it might or might not exist. Hence, it may or may not be possible, which can be shortened to, "It is possible."

Your first sentence is not true. Only if you start with that faulty premise does your logic hold valid. Possibilities are contingent upon a set of rules, not your knowledge. Things and events are made possible by the rules which govern them.

If there are other realms with rules different from those which govern our universe, you can know nothing about them. Therefore you can not know what things and events if any they make possible or impossible. In other words, you can't know what is possible or impossible other than in the one universe where we do know some of the rules.

 

[calamity]

Frank 2.0
Why does this even need to be debated again?

Blame Russell. He brought it up.

I guess you guys like having your asses handed to you.

 

[calamity]

Your first sentence is not true. Only if you start with that faulty premise does your logic hold valid. Possibilities are contingent upon a set of rules, not your knowledge. Things and events are made possible by the rules which govern them.

If there are other realms with rules different from those which govern our universe, you can know nothing about them. Therefore you can not know what things and events if any they make possible or impossible. In other words, you can't know what is possible or impossible other than in the one universe where we do know some of the rules.

You can not assert something is impossible unless you know it is not possible. How is that not self-evident to you all?

 

[Russell797]

If someone does not know it is a two headed coin, then of course they believe it can lend tails. In fact, for them, it is not only possible; it is 50% probable.

The key to knowing something is not possible is knowledge. Without that key, all things are possible. If you doubt my argument, prove something you do not know is not possible. Go for it.

Maybe that first sentence is the root of our dispute. You used the word "believe". We are not coming, like you seem to be, from the stand point of an observer. We are coming from what we deem an objective reality. The Moon is there whether or not we look at it. It was never possible that it was made of cheese. The FSM exists or doesn't. God exists or does not exist. A flying purple platypus on the planet Pandora exists or it doesn't exist whether or not we believe it does or not, or if your think it is possible or not.

 

[calamity]

Maybe that first sentence is the root of our dispute. You used the word "believe". We are not coming, like you seem to be, from the stand point of an observer. We are coming from what we deem an objective reality. The Moon is there whether or not we look at it. It was never possible that it was made of cheese. The FSM exists or doesn't. God exists or does not exist. A flying purple platypus on the planet Pandora exists or it doesn't exist whether or not we believe it does or not, or if your think it is possible or not.

There is no objective reality unless you have a way to verify its solid state. Reality being subjective is certainly possible. In fact, it appears to be highly probable.

 

[Russell797]

You can not assert something is impossible unless you know it is not possible. How is that not self-evident to you all?

No one is saying we think something is impossible or possible in realms we know nothing about. We are saying we don't know. You are the one saying something is possible.

 

[calamity]

So santa clause is possible?

We know there is no bearded fellow managing a factory of elves up at the North Pole. We also know that there is no such thing as flying reindeer. And, since homes without chimney also recieve gifts, we know the fat **** does not slide down one to deliver presents. So, given what we know, it's reasonable to say Santa Claus is not possible.

 

[calamity]

No one is saying we think something is impossible or possible in realms we know nothing about. We are saying we don't know. You are the one saying something is possible.

If we do not know it's impossible, then of course it remains in the realm of the possible.

 

[Russell797]

There is no objective reality unless you have a way to verify its solid state. Reality being subjective is certainly possible. In fact, it appears to be highly probable.

That's true and is the reason we must establish boundaries. If you want to get a little technical, and I know you can be, we must look at wave/particle duality only as a particle in order to establish some degree of cohesive objective reality. We see the Moon as a solid body, but in reality it is mostly empty space, composed of innumerable overlapping and interfering waves. As particles, the components of the Moon, and you, are given mass by interaction with the Higgs field.

We never see the Moon. We never see, touch or hear anything. What we detect are waves or force fields travelling from an emitter to our receptive organs. The signals all come at different speeds from different places and our brains piece it all together for us into our "view" of objective reality. It's all real enough though. I am not going to punch that wall in front of me out of frustration because it will hurt real bad if I do. Our perspective is not all there is, but it is real enough.

 

[Russell797]

If we do not know it's impossible, then of course it remains in the realm of the possible.

Only in your mind, not in reality. In reality a set of rules determines whether or not something is possible. If you don't know the rules to infinity, and we don't, then you can not say something is possible. You must say you don't know and leave it at that.

 

[calamity]

Only in your mind, not in reality. In reality a set of rules determines whether or not something is possible. If you don't know the rules to infinity, and we don't, then you can not say something is possible. You must say you don't know and leave it at that.

If you do not know the rules, how on earth can you say X is not possible?

 

[calamity]

That's true and is the reason we must establish boundaries. If you want to get a little technical, and I know you can be, we must look at wave/particle duality only as a particle in order to establish some degree of cohesive objective reality. We see the Moon as a solid body, but in reality it is mostly empty space, composed of innumerable overlapping and interfering waves. As particles, the components of the Moon, and you, are given mass by interaction with the Higgs field.

We never see the Moon. We never see, touch or hear anything. What we detect are waves or force fields travelling from an emitter to our receptive organs. The signals all come at different speeds from different places and our brains piece it all together for us into our "view" of objective reality. It's all real enough though. I am not going to punch that wall in front of me out of frustration because it will hurt real bad if I do. Our perspective is not all there is, but it is real enough.

Therefore, pretty much anything not proven to be impossible is possible.

Take your platypus on Pandora as an example. We do not know what does or does not exist on some planet in a far off star system. Hell, my dead aunt might be having a tea party up there for all we know. Of course, this sounds absurd on the surface. But, until we can rule out the possibility that there is a tea party full of dead people on Planet X in Y star system, it certainly is possible that there just might be one.

 

[Quag]

Blame Russell. He brought it up.

I guess you guys like having your asses handed to you.

You are the one Using Franks disproven argument.

 

[Quag]

If we do not know it's impossible, then of course it remains in the realm of the possible.

No mit doesn't Frank, it merely means its possibility/impossibility is unknown.
Already shown you why you are wrong.

 

[calamity]

You are the one Using Franks disproven argument.

Prove that something we know nothing about is impossible.

 

[Quag]

If someone does not know it is a two headed coin, then of course they believe it can lend tails. In fact, for them, it is not only possible; it is 50% probable.

The key to knowing something is not possible is knowledge. Without that key, all things are possible. If you doubt my argument, prove something you do not know is not possible. Go for it.

Believing something is possible does NOT mean it is possible it only means you believe it is.
Frank you lost this debate a long time ago.

 

[calamity]

No mit doesn't Frank, it merely means its possibility/impossibility is unknown.
Already shown you why you are wrong.

You haven't shown squat other than saying that since you know this is impossible it is not possible. Gee, maybe you should apply for a Nobel Prize. :roll: