The default position...

[Bunyip]

Because we make hypotheses and try to falsify them. We do not wait for someone to sway us

So what though? How is that relevant? We are discussing a belief not a hypothesis.

This person holds a belief that god exists and holds a belief that god does not exist...so are they a theist or an atheist?

They are confused, they hold two mutually exclusive beliefs. Why do you keep asking this?

 

[Bunyip]

You could just as easily spin that to "If you don't know enough to not believe, you are theist." But rather you focused on only half of what I said.

I addressed your entire post twice, I did not 'focus on half of it'.

And I am not interested in what you think you can 'spin' things into. I am trying to have an honest exchange of ideas.

"If you don't know enough to not believe" reads like gibberish to me. Did you mean, "if you believe"?

 

[Curious George]

So what though? How is that relevant? We are discussing a belief not a hypothesis.They are confused, they hold two mutually exclusive beliefs. Why do you keep asking this?

Because they are not confused.

 

[Bunyip]

Same question to bunyip to you...if someone believes both are true until one is excluded, what are they?

Confused.

 

[Curious George]

Confused.

Can you really not understand? Or are you labeling them confused because it is convenient?

 

[Bunyip]

Cat in a box with poison...

Is it dead or alive?

The default position would be to believe neither until some evidence of the truth of one was known.

Equally valid is the assumption that both are true until falsity of one is known?

This is not rocket science...I am pretty sure that you understand. There is no cognitive dissonance involved.

Schrodinger was talking about probability, not belief mate. Holding two mutually exclusive positions is irrational.

When presented with the dichotomy God exists or God does not exist, the same default positions are applicable.

You say the first is "atheist" well what is the second?

 

[Bunyip]

Can you really not understand? Or are you labeling them confused because it is convenient?

Can you really not understand that holding two mutually exclusive views is cognitive dissonance?

Can you really not understand how it is absurd to claim that you neither believe in God, nor do not believe in God?

Because I find it incredible.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Same question to bunyip to you...if someone believes both are true until one is excluded, what are they?

Confused? What type of Schrodinger logic is that, lol.
"It is real within me so it is real within you, but it is not real within the world so it is not real at all."

No matter how you cut this issue it's a believe or disbelieve, you can switch between but you can never be both.
I would go as far as to say that it is logically impossible to be both a theist and atheist at the same time, without trolling of course.

But I haven't seen it so I guess I wouldn't know....

 

[Curious George]

Schrodinger was talking about probability, not belief mate. Holding two mutually exclusive positions is irrational.

Schrodinger was talking about states not probability, However we can use probability to better understand this. If you are to pull a letter either a or b from a hat, and you reach in and select one of equally numbered "a"s and "b"s we can say that the letter in your hand is either a or b. The default position is to not believe the letter is a or b until you have some evidence upon which to base your belief. Conversely, we could describe the same probability by believing both are true, until we have some evidence upon which to base our exclusion.

Either of these solutions describe the approach of an agnostic. One refuses to accept either proposition the other accepts both. The former is done knowing that the lack of belief in one of the two is incorrect, and the latter knowing that the acceptance of one of the two is incorrect.

But whether you reject the truth or falsity does not matter. They both describe the same.

 

[Curious George]

Can you really not understand how it is absurd to claim that you neither believe in God, nor do not believe in God?

Because I find it incredible.

I did not make such a claim. In my example the person believes god exists and God does not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Schrodinger was talking about states not probability, However we can use probability to better understand this. If you are to pull a letter either a or b from a hat, and you reach in and select one of equally numbered "a"s and "b"s we can say that the letter in your hand is either a or b. The default position is to not believe the letter is a or b until you have some evidence upon which to base your belief. Conversely, we could describe the same probability by believing both are true, until we have some evidence upon which to base our exclusion.

Either of these solutions describe the approach of an agnostic. One refuses to accept either proposition the other accepts both. The former is done knowing that the lack of belief in one of the two is incorrect, and the latter knowing that the acceptance of one of the two is incorrect.

But whether you reject the truth or falsity does not matter. They both describe the same.

Sorry, but that made no sense to me whatsoever. Possible states have no relevance, this is about a specific belief. Claiming that you do not believe in God and at the same time do not not believe in God strikes me as just deliberate obfuscation. It is an inescapably irrational claim.

Besides, atheism is agnostic anyway.

 

[Bunyip]

I did not make such a claim. In my example the person believes god exists and God does not exist.

That is a very confused person, I do not know what else you expect me to say. The person is mad, or has misunderstood something.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, but that made no sense to me whatsoever. Possible states have no relevance, this is about a specific belief. Claiming that you do not believe in God and at the same time do not not believe in God strikes me as just deliberate obfuscation. It is an inescapably irrational claim.

Besides, atheism is agnostic anyway.

You still are not following.

I am not saying a person neither believes in God nor does not believe In God.

I am saying a person can believe that god exists and that god does not exist.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well that person would not be considered an agnostic, lol.
He/she would be defined as something completely different.

I'm not going to say it's not possible, but I really don't think it is.

 

[Bunyip]

You still are not following.

I am not saying a person neither believes in God nor does not believe In God.

I am saying a person can believe that god exists and that god does not exist.

Sorry, neither makes sense.
You either believe in god or you don't - there is no middle ground to a belief, you either have it or you don't. Please, read what you just posted to me again - does it really it make sense to you? How can you believe God does and doesn't exist at the same time?

 

[Curious George]

That is a very confused person, I do not know what else you expect me to say. The person is mad, or has misunderstood something.

So cat in a box...The cat is dead or alive...you are telling me it is not possible believe that the statement the cat is dead is true and the cat is alive is true?

 

[Bunyip]

Curious George.

This thread is about belief, not probability, possible states or hypothesis.

It is about a specific belief.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So cat in a box...The cat is dead or alive...you are telling me it is not possible believe that the statement the cat is dead is true and the cat is alive is true?

But the default position in itself needs a proof for a claim, so it would say both are false.
Then when the cat is found to be dead that's where defaulting would go to.

(I say assuming we are still on topic)

 

[Bunyip]

So cat in a box...The cat is dead or alive...you are telling me it is not possible believe that the statement the cat is dead is true and the cat is alive is true?

George, I told you twice that Schrodinger is not talking about belief.
This thread is about a specific belief, not hypothesis, possible states or probabilities.

The health of Schrodinger's cat is not knowable until the box is opened. Conversely whether or not you believe in God is knowable, it is a yes or no.

 

[Curious George]

But the default position in itself needs a proof for a claim, so it would say both are false.
Then when the cat is found to be dead that's where defaulting would go to.

(I say assuming we are still on topic)

No, schrodinger changes the default position from assuming not truth to assuming truth.