Off-topic (was Battlezone 3 RANT)

[MrTwosheds]

Glances about to make sure nobody's looking...Opens box, feeds Schrödinger's Cat, closes box. Whistle's innocently.

[Ded10c]

In that case, it becomes impossible to know. There is a physical barrier preventing us from knowing. However, there is an element of certainty. The cat is only either dead or alive. It cannot possibly be anything more than that. Instead of a single answer, there is a dual answer.

Similarly there is a physical barrier to us knowing whether (a) god(s) exist(s) - but we know (he/she/it/they) either do(es) or do(es) not. Instead of a single answer, there is a dual answer. As I phrased it earlier, until you open the box your God both does and does not exist. It is paradoxical, but logical and philosophical paradoxes like this are commonplace and are usually just glossed over.

I'm going to comment on the rest of your post in bulk, if you don't mind, since a lot of it was basically saying that you either assume one, the other, or both. Assuming both is out; one cannot believe that something exists and does not exist simultaneously without either accepting something like multiverse theory or subjectivism, or slipping into doublethink. If we remove that from the equation, then your post seems to imply that the only options are to believe god exists, or to believe god does not exist. That puts igtheists and agnostics in an impossible, non-existant position, as they're on a scale between "don't care", "don't know" and "abstain".

[bigbadbogie]

Similarly there is a physical barrier to us knowing whether (a) god(s) exist(s) - but we know (he/she/it/they) either do(es) or do(es) not. Instead of a single answer, there is a dual answer. As I phrased it earlier, until you open the box your God both does and does not exist. It is paradoxical, but logical and philosophical paradoxes like this are commonplace and are usually just glossed over.

The physical barrier which prevents us from knowing whether the cat is dead or alive cannot be compared with any barrier which prevents us from knowing whether there is or is not a supernatural force which could be labelled 'god'. This is a matter of 'existence', not 'state'. We already know that the cat exists. We have evidence to prove it.

An analogous situation to Schrödinger's Cat would be 'knowing' that a god exists but being unable to determine whether or not it was taking part in earthly affairs due to it obscuring itself.

I'm going to comment on the rest of your post in bulk, if you don't mind, since a lot of it was basically saying that you either assume one, the other, or both. Assuming both is out; one cannot believe that something exists and does not exist simultaneously without either accepting something like multiverse theory or subjectivism, or slipping into doublethink.

You are taking the term 'assuming' too literally. You can assume both if you are assuming that there are two possibilities. By 'assuming', I mean 'accepting them as possibilities'. You are assuming that they are both possible.

If we remove that from the equation, then your post seems to imply that the only options are to believe god exists, or to believe god does not exist. That puts igtheists and agnostics in an impossible, non-existant position, as they're on a scale between "don't care", "don't know" and "abstain".

Actually, I'm implying that the only reasonable option is to believe that god does not exist. I'm claiming that agnosticism is fallacious because it accepts the possibility that god exists using the "Negative Proof Fallacy" as justification.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[Ded10c]

You are taking the term 'assuming' too literally. You can assume both if you are assuming that there are two possibilities. By 'assuming', I mean 'accepting them as possibilities'. You are assuming that they are both possible.

Well, I was taking the term "assume" to mean "assume". I had no way of knowing I should have been taking it as "accept", but I'm glad I know now before we started arguing completely separate issues. Accepting that two mutually exclusive situations are possible is perfectly normal.

The physical barrier which prevents us from knowing whether the cat is dead or alive cannot be compared with any barrier which prevents us from knowing whether there is or is not a supernatural force which could be labelled 'god'. This is a matter of 'existence', not 'state'. We already know that the cat exists. We have evidence to prove it.

The analogy was intended to compare the is/is-not paradox and the position of accepting two mutually exclusive theories, not to explain why we can't prove them.

Actually, I'm implying that the only reasonable option is to believe that god does not exist. I'm claiming that agnosticism is fallacious because it accepts the possibility that god exists using the "Negative Proof Fallacy" as justification.

The negative proof fallacy is using a lack of evidence to prove something, not to acknowledge it as possible. If no evidence exists for something then the default position in the scientific method is skepticism, not disbelief. The page you linked, and the "skepticism" page linked from it, state this pretty clearly.

[bigbadbogie]

Well, I was taking the term "assume" to mean "assume". I had no way of knowing I should have been taking it as "accept", but I'm glad I know now before we started arguing completely separate issues. Accepting that two mutually exclusive situations are possible is perfectly normal.

I'm talking about how it is wrong to accept one of the possibilities which would require evidence to disprove alongside accepting the alternative possibility.

The negative proof fallacy is using a lack of evidence to prove something, not to acknowledge it as possible. If no evidence exists for something then the default position in the scientific method is skepticism, not disbelief. The page you linked, and the "skepticism" page linked from it, state this pretty clearly.

You're right. That's a bad example. The gist of the negative proof fallacy is what I was after, not the exact fallacy itself.

The default basis of skepticism is disbelief. It has to be. You can't be skeptical of something which you already consider true. Skepticism is the process of requiring convincing to change one's mind from disbelief to belief. It is not about assuming nothing, as you would put it, but leaving one's mind open to accepting new evidence as it comes to light. The default position is disbelief.

[Ded10c]

The default basis of skepticism is disbelief. It has to be. You can't be skeptical of something which you already consider true. Skepticism is the process of requiring convincing to change ones mind from disbelief to belief. It is not about assuming nothing, as you would put it, but leaving one's mind open to accepting new evidence as it comes to light. The default position is disbelief.

Skepticism is not believing something; disbelief is believing it to be untrue. The difference appears subtle, but is vast.

I'm talking about how it is wrong to accept one of the possibilities which would require evidence to disprove alongside accepting the alternative possibility.

Howso?

Schrodinger's Cat demonstrated accepting two incompatible possibilities at the same time. How does that one cannot be proven and the other cannot be disproven change this?

[bigbadbogie]

Skepticism is not believing something; disbelief is believing it to be untrue. The difference appears subtle, but is vast.

I don't think that there is a difference there at all. You can't not believe in something which you consider true, therefore you must by default consider it untrue, hence disbelieve it.

Schrodinger's Cat demonstrated accepting two incompatible possibilities at the same time. How does that one cannot be proven and the other cannot be disproven change this?

It comes back to the nature of the experiment being about determining the state of the cat, not the existence of the cat. That is a fundamental difference which renders the entire experiment irrelevant.

Whether or not something exists is a completely irreconcilable concept to whether or not something has a particular characteristic. Existence is not merely a characteristic. It determines whether or not characteristics can exist.

In order to prove existence, there must be a process of skepticism. The difference between two incompatible yet intrinsically equal possibilities (dead or alive) versus the existence vs non-existence is that existent and non-existent are not equal. It is the same difference between True/False versus 1/2.

Existence vs non-existence = True/False
Dead or Alive = 1/2

Skepticism (about existence) begins with false and becomes true once evidence is presented and the truth revealed.

Incompatible possibilities could be either 1 or 2, but both equal in likelihood and potential.

[Ded10c]

You can't not believe in something which you consider true, therefore you must by default consider it untrue, hence disbelieve it.

This is the crux of the disagreement. We differ not on the problem itself but on the nature of belief. We both agree that positive belief is a thing, and we both agree that negative belief is a thing, but we differ on that I see a point between the two. I've searched far and wide but whilst I can find pieces acknowledging this I cannot find anything providing a logical or philosophical breakdown of the situation with thought experiments or a comparison between our viewpoints, so it's not something I can go in to. Rationalwiki (which I was hoping would be an ideal source) makes note of the problem under Agnosticism#An Atheist's Opnion but has nothing further on it.

I'm not really sure how much more there is to say. I certainly don't have anything else now.

[bigbadbogie]

For now, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

[MrTwosheds]

It comes back to the nature of the experiment being about determining the state of the cat, not the existence of the cat. That is a fundamental difference which renders the entire experiment irrelevant.

It's also about the experimenter's sentience and it being the fundamental central interaction of the experiment. It is impossible to even determine the state of the cat, or if there's a cat or a box at all, without the experimenter.

[Ded10c]

It's also about the experimenter's sentience and it being the fundamental central interaction of the experiment.

No it's not. That's just something it relies on. Sentience is taken for granted in these kind of situations since if there is no sentient experimenter then there is no experiment.

[MrTwosheds]

Exactly, without perception the undetermined state does not collapse to either state.
Without life the one song is not sung.

[Ded10c]

Exactly, without perception the undetermined state does not collapse to either state.

The experiment cannot be about sentience if the it cannot function without sentience.

Without life the one song is not sung.

If you have a perspective to put forward I'd much prefer that you present it rationally using words in their literal meanings, not this pretentious kitsch.

[MrTwosheds]

That just about sums up the essential problem really. Your looking for rationality in something that is essentially not rational to our planet bound evolutionary sensorium. Shrugs.

[Nielk1]

I didn't read the posts since a few after my last.

It has almost no power because it is not an organized movement

Sir, you are quite wrong.

Might I suggest you look at the schism related to Atheism+ to see the full scope of their complex organization, or more specifically it getting infected by 3rd wave ultra-feminism and being ripped into two parts akin to the East–West Schism where the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches split up.

I am not in that community so I don't know who the Atheist pope is, it was probably Richard Dawkins at one point before his involvement in ElevatorGate.

I don't think that there is a difference there at all. You can't not believe in something which you consider true, therefore you must by default consider it untrue, hence disbelieve it.

That's the logical fallacy of False Implication, to the letter.

Even Atheists believing in something. Or more specifically, they believe that there is not something. It's still a belief, as no proof exists either way. There is no reverse implication.