• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

Not a dodge. Simply an absurd response to an even more absurd question.

I'm really tempted to add that question to my sig line btw.:lol:

It's not absurd, could god not make a giant Frank? Is that beyond its power?
 
It's not absurd, could god not make a giant Frank? Is that beyond its power?
I don't know, I suppose. But it was absurd because that wasn't even the context of my post. Your analogy of knowing Frank's height to existence of gods is absurd as its premised in faulty logic. You're comparing one study which has known and defined parameters to one in which the parameters are completely unknown. On the one hand you have a control, on the other you do not.

On a side note, I've never tried to prove the existence of a god through objective or scientific means, just in case that is slippery slope upon which you are attempting to lead me. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Apples to oranges because we have known, finite parameters for human height. What are the parameters for where a god might choose to live, or for what form he/she/it might take, or for what abilities he/she/it might have?


"Man was made in God's image, and man promptly returned the favor. We limit God.

Excellent post, it appears to have gone over some heads. Perhaps we need someone to define infinate.
 
I don't know, I suppose. But it was absurd because that wasn't even the context of my post. Your analogy of knowing Frank's height to existence of gods is absurd as its premised in faulty logic. You're comparing one study which has known and defined parameters to one in which the parameters are completely unknown. On the one hand you have a control, on the other you do not.

On a side note, I've never tried to prove the existence of a god through objective or scientific means, just in case that is slippery slope upon which you are attempting to lead me. :lol:

No, in fact, it is not faulty. Here's the thing. He said "All of those things are POSSIBLE...regardless of which is correct. Until one is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE." It's an absolute statement, an absurd statement, but one of absolute. Anything that is not established as impossible is possible. In a world were a god can make a giant Frank, how can I know that Frank is not a giant unless I see him? Huh? Unless it is established as impossible, it must be possible. Thus it must be possible that frank is 18 feet tall. Until it's demonstrated otherwise, yes?

But it's absurd, we know that humans don't grow that large, even in a world of magical gods. That's because the initial statement is full of ****. Not everything that is unknown or not established as impossible is possible. There are things that, regardless of our knowledge of them, are impossible.
 
No, in fact, it is not faulty. Here's the thing. He said "All of those things are POSSIBLE...regardless of which is correct. Until one is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE." It's an absolute statement, an absurd statement, but one of absolute. Anything that is not established as impossible is possible. In a world were a god can make a giant Frank, how can I know that Frank is not a giant unless I see him? Huh? Unless it is established as impossible, it must be possible. Thus it must be possible that frank is 18 feet tall. Until it's demonstrated otherwise, yes?

But it's absurd, we know that humans don't grow that large, even in a world of magical gods. That's because the initial statement is full of ****. Not everything that is unknown or not established as impossible is possible. There are things that, regardless of our knowledge of them, are impossible.

Okay I see your line of reasoning here. So you've pointed out in this thread that you've at least sat through some grad courses in physics. As a mere "lay person" in the field of physics or any field of science for that matter, I have a question for you. Do you believe in the existence of dark matter? How about the possibility of parallel universes? Just curious.
 
Okay I see your line of reasoning here. So you've pointed out in this thread that you've at least sat through some grad courses in physics. As a mere "lay person" in the field of physics or any field of science for that matter, I have a question for you. Do you believe in the existence of dark matter? How about the possibility of parallel universes? Just curious.

Dark matter is something that makes the equations balance and explains the observables, but it's "dark matter" because we don't know what it is. I don't know about parallel universes, there are theories, such as String Theory, which postulate them. But there's no measurements to verify the existence thereof.
 
Dark matter is something that makes the equations balance and explains the observables, but it's "dark matter" because we don't know what it is. I don't know about parallel universes, there are theories, such as String Theory, which postulate them. But there's no measurements to verify the existence thereof.
So you will concede that neither are observable, measureable, or have definitive parameters based on our present limitations to test or study them? (Aside from anomalies in gravitational fields which may or may not be caused by dark matter)
 
So you will concede that neither are observable, measureable, or have definitive parameters based on our present limitations to test or study them? (Aside from anomalies in gravitational fields which may or may not be caused by dark matter)

Both are theories. Dark matter is hypothesized because of measurements we have made, but it's just a word that is used to mean "don't know". It fits observables, from what we measure there's something missing that we don't know about, we call it dark matter. What it is precisely, we won't know until we figure out how to measure it better. Parallel universes are pure conjecture, there's not even measurements that would suggest them.
 
Dark matter is something that makes the equations balance and explains the observables, but it's "dark matter" because we don't know what it is. I don't know about parallel universes, there are theories, such as String Theory, which postulate them. But there's no measurements to verify the existence thereof.
Oh, and by the way......serious questions. Has there been some breakthrough in string theory that I am unaware of? Last time I checked, string theory has become just as much of a religious obsession to the physics community as you claim belief in gods has to religious zealots. Has a Hadron Collider somewhere actually produced a measureable result? Have physicists overcome Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that they are now capable of even measuring something at the "string level"? Or is this "theory"....like belief in a supreme being....still just a "shot in the dark" based on little if any objective evidence?
 
Both are theories. Dark matter is hypothesized because of measurements we have made, but it's just a word that is used to mean "don't know". It fits observables, from what we measure there's something missing that we don't know about, we call it dark matter. What it is precisely, we won't know until we figure out how to measure it better. Parallel universes are pure conjecture, there's not even measurements that would suggest them.
Okay, next question. Do you entertain the possibility of the existence of dark matter, strings, or parallel universes?
 
Oh, and by the way......serious questions. Has there been some breakthrough in string theory that I am unaware of? Last time I checked, string theory has become just as much of a religious obsession to the physics community as you claim belief in gods has to religious zealots. Has a Hadron Collider somewhere actually produced a measureable result? Have physicists overcome Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that they are now capable of even measuring something at the "string level"? Or is this "theory"....like belief in a supreme being....still just a "shot in the dark" based on little if any objective evidence?

String Theory is pretty math. The LHC cannot test it, there's nothing to test it as of this point. I don't think it's really a religious obsession. It's an interesting theory, the math seems to work out. But that's about it. It would be kinda cool, it would explain some things, such as why gravity seems so much weaker than any of the other fundamental forces. Scientists like to wax philosophical over things like that. But there's no evidence to it, there's nothing that can even measure it. So it's conjecture and math at this point.
 
Okay, next question. Do you entertain the possibility of the existence of dark matter, strings, or parallel universes?

For dark matter, there's definitely something there. There are too many measurements that point to something being there. Will there be a time when it's no longer "dark"? I think so. I think we'll figure that one out. I don't know about string theory or parallel universes. They seem far fetched and there's nothing we've observed yet that would even indicate them. At least with dark matter, there's verifiable data and measurement that alludes to it.
 
For dark matter, there's definitely something there. There are too many measurements that point to something being there. Will there be a time when it's no longer "dark"? I think so. I think we'll figure that one out. I don't know about string theory or parallel universes. They seem far fetched and there's nothing we've observed yet that would even indicate them. At least with dark matter, there's verifiable data and measurement that eludes to it.
I think its an interesting theory as well. A praiseworthy attempt to link quantum theory to relativity on a one dimensional scale. So, I will ask again. Do you entertain this theory as a big "possible"?
 
For dark matter, there's definitely something there. There are too many measurements that point to something being there. Will there be a time when it's no longer "dark"? I think so. I think we'll figure that one out. I don't know about string theory or parallel universes. They seem far fetched and there's nothing we've observed yet that would even indicate them. At least with dark matter, there's verifiable data and measurement that alludes to it.
But in reality, we've only observed other measureable anomalies which allude to something being there, correct? (and in actuality, we've really only observed one major phenomenon which alludes to it....unexplained fluctuations in gravitational fields, right?) We've yet to test it, observe it, measure its mass, velocity, dimensions, etc, is that correct?

Btw, now you seem to be the one dodging questions.
 
Meh....stupid is a relative term. It works for me. Gives me hope and inner peace. People find hope and positive energy in a variety of strange ways but I don't judge them. Why should my source of comfort be considered more "stupid" than any other?

It doesn't matter what "works for you". It matters what's actually true. Someone could claim that believing in magical unicorns works for them. They'd still be irrational.
 
Could a god not make a giant Frank?

If said god existed, which we have no reason to think is so. That's like saying couldn't Voldemort use his wand to make a giant Frank. Sure, in a book. In reality, not so much.
 
I think its an interesting theory as well. A praiseworthy attempt to link quantum theory to relativity on a one dimensional scale. So, I will ask again. Do you entertain this theory as a big "possible"?

Dark Matter is the theory that best explains the observables. We haven't figured out anything better as of yet.
 
Anyway, I will go ahead and answer my very rhetorical questions. Whether or not you entertain the possibility of the existence of strings, dark matter, or parallel universes is actually quite irrelevant because the science community has spent billions of dollars and untold millions of man hours looking for them. So I must conclude that someone out there considers their existence to be possible, and in the case of string theory....even plausible...based on the math. Point is, originally we were discussing your claim that some things can be shown to be impossible to exist and you based that claim on the idea that those impossibilities arise from things for which we can provide no objective evidence, no measurable parameters, no testable or observable attributes. If a claim fits those standards we can then rationally state that it lies within the realm of impossibility. I would claim that parallel universe, strings, and even dark matter (as of now) fits each of those afore-mentioned standards. Anyone but me see a double-standard on the part of physicists here?
 
But in reality, we've only observed other measureable anomalies which allude to something being there, correct? (and in actuality, we've really only observed one major phenomenon which alludes to it....unexplained fluctuations in gravitational fields, right?) We've yet to test it, observe it, measure its mass, velocity, dimensions, etc, is that correct?

Btw, now you seem to be the one dodging questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
3 Observational evidence
3.1 Galaxy rotation curves
3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies
3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
3.4 Cosmic microwave background
3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations
3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
3.7 Lyman-alpha forest
3.8 Structure formation
 
claim that some things can be shown to be impossible to exist

Are you talking about this comment

Not everything that is unknown or not established as impossible is possible. There are things that, regardless of our knowledge of them, are impossible.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
3 Observational evidence
3.1 Galaxy rotation curves
3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies
3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
3.4 Cosmic microwave background
3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations
3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
3.7 Lyman-alpha forest
3.8 Structure formation
Yes, thank you. You've given me a list of deep space anomalies for which astronomers and physicists have yet to find definitive explanations. Do any of these help us to establish definitive and measurable properties of dark matter?
 
Yes, thank you. You've given me a list of deep space anomalies for which astronomers and physicists have yet to find definitive explanations. Do any of these help us to establish definitive and measurable properties of dark matter?

Hot dark matter[edit]
Main article: Hot dark matter
Hot dark matter consists of particles that have a free-streaming length much larger than that of a proto-galaxy.

An example of hot dark matter is already known: the neutrino. Neutrinos were discovered quite separately from the search for dark matter, and long before it seriously began: they were first postulated in 1930, and first detected in 1956. Neutrinos have a very small mass: at least 100,000 times less massive than an electron. Other than gravity, neutrinos only interact with normal matter via the weak force making them very difficult to detect (the weak force only works over a small distance, thus a neutrino will only trigger a weak force event if it hits a nucleus directly head-on). This would make them 'weakly interacting light particles' (WILPs), as opposed to cold dark matter's theoretical candidates, the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).

There are three different known flavors of neutrinos (i.e., the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), and their masses are slightly different. The resolution to the solar neutrino problem demonstrated that these three types of neutrinos actually change and oscillate from one flavor to the others and back as they are in-flight. It is hard to determine an exact upper bound on the collective average mass of the three neutrinos (let alone a mass for any of the three individually). For example, if the average neutrino mass were chosen to be over 50 eV/c2 (which is still less than 1/10,000th of the mass of an electron), just by the sheer number of them in the universe, the universe would collapse due to their mass. So other observations have served to estimate an upper-bound for the neutrino mass. Using cosmic microwave background data and other methods, the current conclusion is that their average mass probably does not exceed 0.3 eV/c2 Thus, the normal forms of neutrinos cannot be responsible for the measured dark matter component from cosmology.[95]

Hot dark matter was popular for a time in the early 1980s, but it suffers from a severe problem: because all galaxy-size density fluctuations get washed out by free-streaming, the first objects that can form are huge supercluster-size pancakes, which then were theorised somehow to fragment into galaxies. Deep-field observations clearly show that galaxies formed at early times, with clusters and superclusters forming later as galaxies clump together, so any model dominated by hot dark matter is seriously in conflict with observations.
 
Are you talking about this comment

Not everything that is unknown or not established as impossible is possible. There are things that, regardless of our knowledge of them, are impossible.
No, not specifically. Lets just cut to the chase. I'm talking about you attacking Frank's claim that existence of a creator-god is still within the realm of possibility. I realize we're not going to solve the age-old battle between science and faith here tonight on this forum. I am however, simply trying to point out a double-standard science places on believers in regards to producing credible evidence.

And btw, the physics community's obsession with strings and parallel universes over the past decade or so very much fits the description of a religion......if you cant see this, you may simply be in a state of denial.
 
Back
Top Bottom