Atheism is a belief.

[Frud11]

There is no "belief" in possibility - "possibility" is a FACT until proven otherwise.

What is this? Some sort of mantra you chant? Who told you this BS??
Possibility is belief, how can they possibly be distinct?
Show me a single example of a probable outcome that's free of expectation...?

...there are two mutually exclusive sets that encompass EVERYTHING: (A) things that exist, (B) things that do not exist. Nothing can be in both (A) and (B). Nothing can be outside both (A) and (B). (A) and (B) have no overlap.

Right, but only one of these sets is in the set of things we know (about). We can't assign meaning, possibility, probability, or anything at all informative to the unknown.

 

[Sarkus]

What is this? Some sort of mantra you chant? Who told you this BS??
Possibility is belief, how can they possibly be distinct?
Show me a single example of a probable outcome that's free of expectation...?

I'm not talking about being free of expectation - I'm merely talking about "being possible".

It is a logical truth - whether you accept it or not - that X remains possible until proven otherwise - where X is anything either known about or unknown about.

The only things that are "not possible" are those where we have conclusive proof as to their impossibility.

Right, but only one of these sets is in the set of things we know (about). We can't assign meaning, possibility, probability, or anything at all informative to the unknown.

Not true, in that we know of many things that do NOT exist (a physical "square circle" etc) and we know of many things that do.


God existence remains a possibility to "weak" atheists - the agnostic atheists.
As does God's non-existence.

YOU would claim that we "believe God either exists or does not exist" - but only because you can't see how that belief is NOT a belief - but a statement of fact that can be said about ANYTHING.
ANYTHING at all either exists, or it doesn't exist.
Whether you know anything about it or not, this truth (that "it either exists or does not exist") does not change.


So feel free to continue that we hold a belief.
It's ultimately no skin off my nose that you are incorrect about it.
I'll just have to try and remember that you hold this incorrect stance regarding what atheism is whenever we discuss such matters.

 

[Frud11]

X remains possible until proven otherwise - where X is anything either known about or unknown about.

If X is unknown, then there is no possibility. You're talking about something unknown about a thing that is known to exist, some measurement or other.
If you dont, or can't know this (X is only partially knowable, say in a mathematical way, or we can only model its behaviour), then there will never be any expectation, so no possibility. You're seeing the thing that delivers information as information itself, but the message isn't the telegraph wire.

The only things that are "not possible" are those where we have conclusive proof as to their impossibility.

Again, anything might be possible, but this is imagination, not actuality.
The only things we can know about, are the ones we see, and explain.
Explanations only have a possibility of being correct. If you're implying that there are things that we know are impossible, this is only relative to a worldview. This isn't something we can, in fact say, except with some expectation of it being true.

Right, but only one of these sets is in the set of things we know (about). We can't assign meaning, possibility, probability, or anything at all informative to the unknown.

”
Not true, in that we know of many things that do NOT exist (a physical "square circle" etc) and we know of many things that do.

You can't draw a square circle, or find anything in an empty set. Zero is nothing, which we use mathematically all the time (it's an important symbol), does zero (absolutely no value) exist?

You cannot say God is impossible, you can only say the existence of something like God is not impossible.

If you had never heard anyone mention the subject, or never read about it (so never considered the possibility), would that mean you had no expectation of it?
i.e. can we not have, or do without, some idea of God?

What is God, anyway? We can't even define it as an idea all that well, so arguing about theories (theism) is a bit of a bootstrap problem.
.

Nothing can be outside both (A) and (B). (A) and (B) have no overlap..

These two sets that you think include all possible known and unknown things. You say "Nothing can be outside" the union of these two all-encompassing sets, but the set of unknowns already is outside, it's a set that we know nothing about at all.
In my worldview, theism implies the other perspectives, i.e. anti-theism, and atheism, or pretty much any religious viewpoint, which includes, natch, my own claimed areligious one.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It seems to me that 'possibility' is one of those things that exists AND does not exist.

Also there are two ways of defining possibility:

1) for all I know such and such could be the case - centered on the truth guesser. Here it means something like 'I cannot rule it out'
2) given the conditions of reality there is room for this to occur - centered on 'reality'

Not that it is easy to keep these two clearly separate. In fact I think the meaning is often blurred and this is because saying 2 is problematic, since it always includes a bit of 1. And one is a complete admission of subjectivity and admits it has little to do with reality. Or it 'might' not have anything to do with reality. (Irony of my using 'might', a possibility signifier, noted and accepted)

I have also had problems with the concept of possibility.

One can later say 'It turned out never to have been a possibility' (for example, now that we know ___________ about quarks)

If we can later say it was never a possibility this implies that it was wrong, though understandable, that it was posited as possible.

 

[Sarkus]

If X is unknown, then there is no possibility. You're talking about something unknown about a thing that is known to exist, some measurement or other.

No. I'm talking about ANYTHING - known or unknown.
According to your thinking, things logically DO NOT EXIST until you know something about them.
This is not true. They may be consistent with things that don't exist - but that is not the objective truth of the matter.

I will say it again:
It is a logical truth that anything, known or unknown, either exists or does not exist.

Let X represent anything at all, known or unknown.

Is it true or false that X either exists or does not exist even if we do not know which?

I'm not asking you to state if it exists, or state if it doesn't - just whether, even if you know NOTHING about it, it MUST BE IN A STATE OF EITHER EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE.

If you dont, or can't know this (X is only partially knowable, say in a mathematical way, or we can only model its behaviour), then there will never be any expectation, so no possibility. You're seeing the thing that delivers information as information itself, but the message isn't the telegraph wire.

But you CAN say that it is in a state of either existence or non-existence - even if you can't say which, or assign a probability to each.
This is straight-forward logic.

You cannot say God is impossible, you can only say the existence of something like God is not impossible.

I don't say God is impossible.
I say it is possible that God does exist.
I say it is possible that God does not exist.
I do not have a belief that one or the other is true.

And it is a FACT that one of them is true.

These two sets that you think include all possible known and unknown things. You say "Nothing can be outside" the union of these two all-encompassing sets, but the set of unknowns already is outside, it's a set that we know nothing about at all.

No - the set of unknowns is NOT outside - as even though we don't know what they are (i.e. they are unknown) we DO KNOW that they HAVE TO HAVE at least one of the properties: existence or non-existence.
This is a logical truth.

If you don't think so - please tell me something that can both exist and non-exist at the same time, or do neither at the same time.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

If you don't think so - please tell me something that can both exist and non-exist at the same time, or do neither at the same time.

We did make some stabs at this at the end of the previous page of this thread.

A few more suggestions:

A particle. (a specific one, but it could also be particles in general)
Potential.
Differences.
Sound - (defining what is meant focuses either on vibrations in a medium or one the experience of hearing. In the latter the experience of the sound exists but the sound does not. In the former there is only vibration. Ockham's razor would eliminate, I think, the excess connotations of 'sound'.)
I also think from my earlier list
the future and the past

are pretty solid examples of things that both exist and do not.

Perhaps looking at my previous post on 'possibility' might be helpful to the discussion.

 

[Sarkus]

We did make some stabs at this at the end of the previous page of this thread.

A few more suggestions:

A particle. (a specific one, but it could also be particles in general)
Potential.
Differences.
Sound - (defining what is meant focuses either on vibrations in a medium or one the experience of hearing. In the latter the experience of the sound exists but the sound does not. In the former there is only vibration. Ockham's razor would eliminate, I think, the excess connotations of 'sound'.)
I also think from my earlier list
the future and the past

are pretty solid examples of things that both exist and do not.

Perhaps looking at my previous post on 'possibility' might be helpful to the discussion.

These all exist as concepts or abstractions.
And concepts or abstractions are merely words we use to describe a certain combination of interactions within our brain.
You also need to be very specific in your definition of these words - as it is true that you could define them differently and claim "it does" or "it doesn't" exist - and you need to be careful about what you are actually saying exists (the concept, a physical object like a "brick", a combination of interactions within our brain etc).

You also have yet to show how any of these can both exist and not exist at the same time.


So - in each case - define precisely what you mean - and then show how they can exist and not exist at the same time.

 

[Frud11]

I say it is possible that God does exist.
I say it is possible that God does not exist.
I do not have a belief that one or the other is true.

So now you do say that you believe God may exist? But the truth is some other kind of belief?

So you mean to say that belief in the truth of something (like the existence of giraffes, or of stainless-steel elephants), is not the same as knowing it exists? Once you see giraffes, or get told about them by someone you trust, you know they exist either objectively, or conditionally?

Saying, as I say that there is a fourth element for your list: "The belief that God exists or that God does not"; you say you believe neither, which appears to be its logical inverse.
But again, if you know about something, then there is an expectation, there is meaning, and belief, or classification/uncertainty. It isn't random.

Someone who says "I have a non-belief in P", means "I don't believe P is the case". There is no "objective moment" to sit in, and see things happen... Remember this?
And I maintain that this whole side issue about what belief is or isn't, still comes down to you claiming that one of the following is wrong, the other is the atheist perspective:

not ?believed? (to be true) is not: not equivalent to ?believed? (to be false).

"not ?believed? (to be true) is not: equivalent to ?believed? (to be false)."

So which one is it?

- the set of unknowns is NOT outside - as even though we don't know what they are (i.e. they are unknown) we DO KNOW that they HAVE TO HAVE at least one of the properties: existence or non-existence.
This is a logical truth.

If you don't think so - please tell me something that can both exist and non-exist at the same time, or do neither at the same time.

Well, I certainly don't think it is the case that something we know nothing about (an unknown) must have to have or be anything, especially a member of a set made up by human observers.

Again, with things like a moment of time, or any event: we can't see it, and we never can.
But we believe that every journey starts and ends, and every event is a process, or a change or transfer, but we never see this either.
So these things exist, they "happen", but there it is, they cannot be actually measured, only expected. So what does the existence of any event mean?

 

[Sarkus]

So now you do say that you believe God may exist? But the truth is some other kind of belief?

So you mean to say that belief in the truth of something (like the existence of giraffes, or of stainless-steel elephants), is not the same as knowing it exists? Once you see giraffes, or get told about them by someone you trust, you know they exist either objectively, or conditionally?

Saying, as I say that there is a fourth element for your list: "The belief that God exists or that God does not"; you say you believe neither, which appears to be its logical inverse.
But again, if you know about something, then there is an expectation, there is meaning, and belief, or classification/uncertainty. It isn't random.

It is a logical fact that things either exist or do not exist - i.e. must be one of those two.
Therefore to accept that God might also fit in one of those two options is NOT a belief - it is FACT. I don't need to know anything else about God to know (not believe, but KNOW - as FACT) that God MUST either exist or not exist.

Someone who says "I have a non-belief in P", means "I don't believe P is the case". There is no "objective moment" to sit in, and see things happen... Remember this?

But also remember that "I have a non-belief in P" does NOT necessarily mean "I believe P is NOT the case".

And I maintain that this whole side issue about what belief is or isn't, still comes down to you claiming that one of the following is wrong, the other is the atheist perspective:

not ?believed? (to be true) is not: not equivalent to ?believed? (to be false).

"not ?believed? (to be true) is not: equivalent to ?believed? (to be false)."

So which one is it?

Again - "Non-belief in P as the truth" is not the same as "belief in non-P as the truth". It merely means "I don't believe P is the truth".

Well, I certainly don't think it is the case that something we know nothing about (an unknown) must have to have or be anything, especially a member of a set made up by human observers.

If you wish to defy simple logic - feel free.

We can not know anything about X but know that it also has to fit into one of
these sets: "Can speak English" / "Can NOT speak English". We do not need to know which of these it sits in - but we do KNOW - AS FACT - that it will sit in one of these.

Similarly, "existence" is a binary condition - you either exist - or you don't.

Again, with things like a moment of time, or any event: we can't see it, and we never can.
But we believe that every journey starts and ends, and every event is a process, or a change or transfer, but we never see this either.
So these things exist, they "happen", but there it is, they cannot be actually measured, only expected. So what does the existence of any event mean?

First - adequately define what you actually mean. Then you can establish whether it exists.

 

[fadingCaptain]

semantics are AWESOME!!!

 

[Frud11]

We can not know anything about X but know that it also has to fit into one of
these sets: "Can speak English" / "Can NOT speak English". We do not need to know which of these it sits in - but we do KNOW - AS FACT - that it will sit in one of these.

Similarly, "existence" is a binary condition - you either exist - or you don't.

You seem to keep completely missing it. If you "can not know anything about X", how then can you claim that: "it also has to..."??

You simply can't say that something MUST exist, or it MUST not exist. This sounds nice and logical, but if you don't have any idea (the set of observations is empty), then there is nothing you can say about it either. That first sentence is then not logical: if you know nothing about X, why do you think you can fit it into anything?

You know that you exist, and that this is also not a permanent (invariant) property you "have". So that is the only thing you know about what exists, or doesn't, the rest is expectation (including the expectation that your existence will change or cease).

 

[Sarkus]

You seem to keep completely missing it. If you "can not know anything about X", how then can you claim that: "it also has to..."??

Unfortunately it is YOU who is completely missing it...

The combined set of "Things that exist" + "Things that don't exist" encapsulate EVERYTHING.
Do you accept this?

If not - why not?
If so - everything else I have said is an undeniable logical conclusion.

You simply can't say that something MUST exist, or it MUST not exist.

I am not saying that. I am saying that something MUST "exist or not exist".

The rest of your post is thus irrelevant as you still do not grasp the basics.

 

[Frud11]

The combined set of "Things that exist" + "Things that don't exist" encapsulate EVERYTHING.
Do you accept this?

If not - why not?

This "combined set", that we're visiting again.
You claim that its the union of all things that are known (to exist) and all things that are not known to exist?

All things that are not known to exist, are all IMAGINARY things. I cannot accept that there is such a set, since, by definition, it cannot exist. You don't seem prepared to accept this. Therefore, we have what I suppose can only be termed a fundamental difference of opinion, about what existence means, and possibly also what logic actually is.

You simply can't say that something MUST exist, or it MUST not exist.

”
I am not saying that. I am saying that something MUST "exist or not exist".

What's the difference between : MUST (exist or not exist), and (MUST exist), or (MUST not exist). Aren't they equivalent logical statements? If not, why not?

 

[Sarkus]

What's the difference between : MUST (exist or not exist), and (MUST exist), or (MUST not exist). Aren't they equivalent logical statements? If not, why not?

Yes - they are. I merely stated the former so as to make it clear I was not specifying one in particular - to avoid the "but how can you know they MUST exist" etc.

 

[Frud11]

So they are the same, Boole got it right?

In which case: how can anyone (ever) say: "O must exist" or "O must not exist", if nothing at all is known about it? It isn't even a symbol? How do we put unknown things into a known set (the set of unknowns)?

We can do this with things that we know do exist, that we don't know stuff about--white dwarf stars, say, or other unusual objects we have observed.

 

[Sarkus]

So they are the same, Boole got it right?

In which case: how can anyone (ever) say: "O must exist" or "O must not exist", if nothing at all is known about it? It isn't even a symbol? How do we put unknown things into a known set (the set of unknowns)?

If you'll reread the comment I made in my previous post - the reason I stated it the way I did was to AVOID your question above... which only stems from your misunderstanding.

I am NOT saying "it MUST be X" or "it MUST be Y".
I am saying "it MUST be either X or Y".
i.e. I am NOT specifying which of X or Y it might be, which you assume to think I am doing.

That was why I specifically worded it like I did - to avoid the ambiguity that has caused your error.

Clarified?

 

[Frud11]

There is no difference though; your claim that you "worded it like" you did to avoid ambiguity, simply has not avoided it.

You say that something--whatever you might think of presumably--MUST either exist, or logically, it MUST NOT exist. If this is what you are saying (I think I have clarified that you are saying this), then you are saying that ALL things must be in one of two sets.

I'm saying that you CAN"T say this. There is no set of unknown things, which is a set "outside" of the set of known things, as you are claiming. There is no union of two sets, since, logically, there can be only a single set: the set of knowns. The unknown cannot be said to belong to anything, or be anything, how can you imply that unknowns belong in some set, even if you call it the set of unknowns?

All that can logically be said about an unknown is that it isn't in any set.

P.S. You're saying: "it must be either (X or Y)", you aren't saying "it must be X, or must be Y"? Are you saying it's inclusive, not exclusive, this OR relation?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

These all exist as concepts or abstractions.

Yes. Certainly part of what I am saying relates to the problems of language.

And concepts or abstractions are merely words we use to describe a certain combination of interactions within our brain.

So the issue is what do they have to do with what is out there. I did not include unicorns - nor get into the mess of unicorns in tapestries in the Cloisters, for example - but chose words that are meant to refer to something one can go out and experience, repeatedly or detect in ways that make scientists happy. At least some of my examples are of this.

You also need to be very specific in your definition of these words - as it is true that you could define them differently and claim "it does" or "it doesn't" exist - and you need to be careful about what you are actually saying exists (the concept, a physical object like a "brick", a combination of interactions within our brain etc).

However we define it as 'out there' it will also end up being only changes in our experience. The word 'brain' is simply a sign for a very complicated set of associations and experiences of somethign that may or may not be out there. I actually think a lot of scientists and rationalists forget that the word 'brain' only refers to experiences and yet they like to think this abstract concept is more fundamental then experience.

You also have yet to show how any of these can both exist and not exist at the same time.

I also have to define 'exist' and I have to be honest with you I find the task daunting. Do you really think there is nothing to this line of argument?

Probably my best case would be to work with particles, but I am afraid of what would happen if I tried to go into QM and found myself challenged by a physicist.

It seems to me your response is that these are simply semantic problems, but up until this moment you have it seems accepted a definition of exist. So let me turn the question back on you:

You say that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Could you give me a definition of exist?

 

[Sarkus]

You say that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Could you give me a definition of exist?

"Able to be interact" would probably be a good starting point - and "able" in the absolute sense - i.e. has the ability to interact, even if there is nothing around it to interact with (in which case it would not be detectable and so would be logically consistent - from an observer's p.o.v. - with something that does not exist, but would still exist per the definition above).

 

[Frud11]

...it would not be detectable and so would be logically consistent - from an observer's p.o.v. - with something that does not exist, but would still exist...

I couldn't help but spot this: you seem to be saying that something undetectable can logically still exist. "Having the ability" to interact, implies that it would interact with any measurement process (which would involve work, and energy output). If it doesn't, then it cannot be said to exist, at least not logically. Then you can only imagine that it exists. An observer's POV is one of observation, not imagination.