Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

[watsup]

You know very well that saying, "It is possible that the Yankees will win" their first game necessitates "It is possible the Yankees will lose their first game."

Again, a terrible analogy since we know that there are Yankees and we know that a game is either won or lost in baseball. Has nothing at all to do with the “possibility” of an imaginary entity for which there is not a scintilla of evidence as regards its “possibility”.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Neither is a guess. The statement is a fact in and of itself.

Guessing that it is possible that gods exist is no less of a guess than guessing that gods do not exist.

Nothing inferential about it. IT ABSOLUTELY IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT AT LEAST ONE GOD EXISTS.

As far as you know.

But, then again, it is also impossible that at least one god exists as far as you know.

In other words, you don't know.

I cannot even make sense of that.

Is saying "no god exists as far as I know" equivalent to saying "at least one god exists as far as I know?"

Are both of those equivalent to saying "I don't know whether at least one god exists or not?"

No he isn't, but I expected that as part of your answer.

He is correct, and you are mistaken.

Cute. But no cigar. You know very well that saying, "It is possible that the Yankees will win" their first game necessitates "It is possible the Yankees will lose their first game."

You are becoming predictable. Bad thing for a regular poster.

You are incorrect. If it is impossible that the Yankees will lose their first game, that does not make it impossible that they will win their first game.

It is not possible.

It's pretty funny when you assert nonsense like this, and then imagine that you are the rational one.

"It is not possible for a triangle to have three angles" has to be a contender for the most ridiculous claim I have ever encountered.

You even managed to outdo Trump with that one.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Guessing that it is possible that gods exist is no less of a guess than guessing that gods do not exist.

You are wrong. Asserting that it is possible that gods exist...IS NOT A GUESS. It is a fact that it is possible, right here, right now, in this discussion...that it is possible there are no gods...and it also is possible that at least one god exists.

I am glad AI backed me up on this.

As far as you know.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NO GODS EXIST...AND IT ALSO IS POSSIBLE THAT AT LEAST ONE GOD EXISTS.

That is so. It is not a guess.

But, then again, it is also impossible that at least one god exists as far as you know.

Stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

In other words, you don't know.

I do know that it is possible.

Just as I know it is possible there are no sentient beings that exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...and it also is possible that there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets.

Is saying "no god exists as far as I know" equivalent to saying "at least one god exists as far as I know?"

Right now, right here, in this discussion, saying it is possible that no gods exist is logical, and a fact.

Are both of those equivalent to saying "I don't know whether at least one god exists or not?"

Right now, right here, in this discussion, saying it also is possible that at least one god exists is logical, and a fact.

He is correct, and you are mistaken.

He is wrong...and so are you.

You are incorrect. If it is impossible that the Yankees will lose their first game, that does not make it impossible that they will win their first game.

That is not what I said.

It's pretty funny when you assert nonsense like this, and then imagine that you are the rational one.

"It is not possible for a triangle to have three angles" has to be a contender for the most ridiculous claim I have ever encountered.

You even managed to outdo Trump with that one.

What I wrote was, "It is not possible. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles."

And I am correct. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles. It has nothing to do with possibility.

You shame yourself.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Again, a terrible analogy since we know that there are Yankees and we know that a game is either won or lost in baseball. Has nothing at all to do with the “possibility” of an imaginary entity for which there is not a scintilla of evidence as regards its “possibility”.

Still no cigar.

Atheism is a joke. Atheists are as devoted to their blind guesses as any religionist is to their blind guesses.

 

[watsup]

Still no cigar.

Atheism is a joke. Atheists are as devoted to their blind guesses as any religionist is to their blind guesses.

It is you who is constantly making blind guesses with zero evidence to back them up. Hundreds upon hundreds of repetitions by you does not change that.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You are wrong. Asserting that it is possible that gods exist...IS NOT A GUESS. It is a fact that it is possible, right here, right now, in this discussion...that it is possible there are no gods...and it also is possible that at least one god exists.

You are welcome to guess that it is a fact that it is possible there are no gods. Others have guessed that it is impossible that there are no gods.

I suspect that one or the other is correct. I wonder which it is?

Right now, right here, in this discussion, saying it is possible that no gods exist is logical, and a fact.

That wasn't the question.

Is saying "no gods exist as far as I know" the same as saying "at least one god exists as far as I know?"

Right now, right here, in this discussion, saying it also is possible that at least one god exists is logical, and a fact.

No it's not. But that repetitive line of your has gotten stale.

Now we are talking about whether saying "at least one god exists as far as I know" is the same as saying "I don't know whether at least one god exists or not."

He is wrong...and so are you.

Neither of us is wrong, but you are.

Since you are so keen on what AI has to say, why don't you go ask ChatGPT whether □p→◊p is true or not?

Here is a little Q&A with ChatGPT about the possibility of a triangle having three angles.

Q: If it is necessarily true that a triangle has exactly three angles, does that mean that it is also possible for a triangle to have three angles?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, it is possible for a triangle to have three angles because, by definition, a triangle always has exactly three angles. The statement that a triangle necessarily has exactly three angles is simply another way of saying that a triangle, by its very nature, is a polygon with three sides, and each of those sides meets at an angle.
In other words, the fact that a triangle "necessarily" has three angles directly implies that it is indeed possible for it to have exactly three angles—it's a defining characteristic of a triangle! So, it's both true and consistent that a triangle has three angles.

According to ChatGPT, @watsup and I are right, and you are wrong.

That is not what I said.

You said that if it is possible for the Yankees to win their first game, that implies that it is also possible for the Yankees to lose their first game.

But that clearly isn't the case, since if it were impossible for them to lose, it would still be possible for them to win or tie.

What I wrote was, "It is not possible. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles."

Yep. Pretty weird that you would make the outrageous claim that it is impossible for a triangle to have three angles, and then turn around and say that a triangle must have three angles, (which you just said was impossible for triangles).

You seem very confused about triangles.

Not only is it possible for a triangle to have three angles, it is necessary.

This is an example of how the possibility of something does not logically imply the possibility of any particular alternative. It is possible for a triangle to have three angles, but not possible for a triangle to have seven angles.

The possibility of a triangle having three angles does not logically imply the possibility of a triangle have seven angles, twelve angles, or any number of angles other than three.

But since you are so keen on what AI has to say, let's ask ChatGPT, shall we?

Q: Is it possible for a triangle to have three angles?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, every triangle has exactly three angles. By definition, a triangle is a polygon with three sides and three angles. The sum of these three angles always equals 180 degrees. So, a triangle will always have three interior angles, regardless of its type (equilateral, isosceles, or scalene).

Looks like ChatGPT agrees that @watsup has outreasoned you yet again.

 

[Revelation]

You are welcome to guess that it is a fact that it is possible there are no gods. Others have guessed that it is impossible that there are no gods.

I suspect that one or the other is correct. I wonder which it is?

Wonder? wonder no more, we believers Know which it is because we simply sought after God and found him.

you can too.

takes effort of course, you must make the FIRST move because God already has.

or you can stay in Denial.


.

That wasn't the question.

Is saying "no gods exist as far as I know" the same as saying "at least one god exists as far as I know?"



No it's not. But that repetitive line of your has gotten stale.

Now we are talking about whether saying "at least one god exists as far as I know" is the same as saying "I don't know whether at least one god exists or not."




Neither of us is wrong, but you are.

Since you are so keen on what AI has to say, why don't you go ask ChatGPT whether □p→◊p is true or not?

Here is a little Q&A with ChatGPT about the possibility of a triangle having three angles.



According to ChatGPT, @watsup and I are right, and you are wrong.



You said that if it is possible for the Yankees to win their first game, that implies that it is also possible for the Yankees to lose their first game.

But that clearly isn't the case, since if it were impossible for them to lose, it would still be possible for them to win or tie.



Yep. Pretty weird that you would make the outrageous claim that it is impossible for a triangle to have three angles, and then turn around and say that a triangle must have three angles, (which you just said was impossible for triangles).

You seem very confused about triangles.

Not only is it possible for a triangle to have three angles, it is necessary.

This is an example of how the possibility of something does not logically imply the possibility of any particular alternative. It is possible for a triangle to have three angles, but not possible for a triangle to have seven angles.

The possibility of a triangle having three angles does not logically imply the possibility of a triangle have seven angles, twelve angles, or any number of angles other than three.

But since you are so keen on what AI has to say, let's ask ChatGPT, shall we?



Looks like ChatGPT agrees that @watsup has outreasoned you yet again.

 

[watsup]

Wonder? wonder no more, we believers Know which it is because we simply sought after God and found him.

you can too.

takes effort of course, you must make the FIRST move because God already has.

or you can stay in Denial.


.

Blather.

 

[Revelation]

Blather.

prove it.

read the last line:

takes effort of course, you must make the FIRST move because God already has.

or you can stay in Denial.


.

 

[watsup]

prove it.

read the last line:

takes effort of course, you must make the FIRST move because God already has.

or you can stay in Denial.


.

More blather.

 

[Ouroboros]

What difference could it possibly make? Try to answer your own question instead of always expecting me to guide you over every little hump.

Your response assumed that the statues represented men's perception of women as mysterious, so I pointed out that you don't know that some or any of the statues were made by men. What are you not following about that?

 

[Ouroboros]

You still have not tried to explain or defend the statements in that Gish Gallop garbage that you posted. I think that is probably because you realize that is exactly what it is.

I've defended every statement I've made when you made any sort of coherent critique at all, which you did not come close to doing. I reviewed all your statements up to this point and you aren't even clear about what the "garbage" is. Is it the anti-Tylorian views I cited weeks ago? I brought them up because you did such a piss poor job of responding to them, and gave that as a reason why I don't bother "expanding." I already know that all you've got is a mechanical repetition of dogma. I've also thrown other posts to which you just said "nuh uh."

 

[Frank Apisa]

It is you who is constantly making blind guesses with zero evidence to back them up. Hundreds upon hundreds of repetitions by you does not change that.

I have made no assumptions. If you cannot see that...that is your problem.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You are welcome to guess that it is a fact that it is possible there are no gods. Others have guessed that it is impossible that there are no gods.

It is not a guess to assert that it is possible there are no gods...and it also is not a guess to assert that it is possible that there is at least one god.

I suspect that one or the other is correct. I wonder which it is?

What I said above IS correct. No need to wonder.

That wasn't the question.

Is saying "no gods exist as far as I know" the same as saying "at least one god exists as far as I know?"

I stick with my answer as given.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

But that repetitive line of your has gotten stale.

Your denial of the truth of the statement is wrong...and there is nothing wrong or stale about my challenging it.

Now we are talking about whether saying "at least one god exists as far as I know" is the same as saying "I don't know whether at least one god exists or not."

Perhaps you are. I am speaking about the fact that it is POSSIBLE that no gods exist...and it also is POSSIBLE that at least one god exists.

Neither of us is wrong, but you are.

Nope...you two are wrong.

Since you are so keen on what AI has to say, why don't you go ask ChatGPT whether □p→◊p is true or not?

You do that.

Here is a little Q&A with ChatGPT about the possibility of a triangle having three angles.

Every triangle has three angles...and anything that has more than three angles is NOT a triangle. Chat agreed. That is not a possibility...that is a fact.

According to ChatGPT, @watsup and I are right, and you are wrong.

Chat agreed that in order for a shape to be considered a triangle...it must have three angles.

It agrees that I am, correct.

You said that if it is possible for the Yankees to win their first game, that implies that it is also possible for the Yankees to lose their first game.

But that clearly isn't the case, since if it were impossible for them to lose, it would still be possible for them to win or tie.

C'mon! You are now in the "if you talk to God, he will answer you...and you also will know that God exists" stage of your defense of atheism. It actually is painful to watch, although I have a very well developed sense of humor...and I am laughing despite my pity for you.

Yep. Pretty weird that you would make the outrageous claim that it is impossible for a triangle to have three angles, and then turn around and say that a triangle must have three angles, (which you just said was impossible for triangles).

I did not make such a claim...and you know it. In fact, I insisted that a triangle must have three angles...and that it was not a "possible", but that it must be. And Chat agreed with me.

You seem very confused about triangles.

Not at all. But it is amusing that you think so.

MORE TO COME IN RESPONSE TO THIS POST OF YOURS

 

[Frank Apisa]

Not only is it possible for a triangle to have three angles, it is necessary.

It is necessary. Your use of possible here is absurd. One would not say, "It is possible that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10." Fact is, 2 + 2 does = 4 in base 10. You understand what I am saying here...and yet you are disputing it.

I am laughing my ass off realizing how far you have gone in your freneticism.

This is an example of how the possibility of something does not logically imply the possibility of any particular alternative. It is possible for a triangle to have three angles, but not possible for a triangle to have seven angles.

Calm down. Things will improve if you do.

The possibility of a triangle having three angles does not logically imply the possibility of a triangle have seven angles, twelve angles, or any number of angles other than three.

Really. Just calm down. You'll feel better.

But since you are so keen on what AI has to say, let's ask ChatGPT, shall we?



Looks like ChatGPT agrees that @watsup has outreasoned you yet again.

Nice try, but...Chat is agreeing with what I have said.

You and W just do not want to acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods...and it also is POSSIBLE that there is at least one.

Too bad, that. But I do love you for the entertainment.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Every triangle has three angles.

Previously you claimed that it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

Pretty entertaining to watch you backpedal again.

I did not make such a claim

You sure did.

Though I can understand why you would be embarrassed, and not want to acknowledge your error, even to yourself.

If I had claimed that it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles, I might feel the same.

It is necessary.

Necessity implies possibility. Every necessary truth must be possible, rather than impossible.

□p→◊p

Nice try, but...Chat is agreeing with what I have said

Nope. You said it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles. ChatGPT unambiguously said that it was.

How you got it into your head that it is impossible for a triangle to have three angles is beyond me. Most folks have a pretty good handle on that stuff by second grade.

You are clearly way out of your depth here.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Previously you claimed that it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

What I claimed was that EVERY triangle MUST HAVE 3 angles...or it would not be a triangle. It is not a possibility...it is a must. You know that, but you are now stooping to misrepresenting. Okay...so you realize you have lost the logic battle. That is a plus for you.

Pretty entertaining to watch you backpedal again.

Not backpedaling at all. But I am happy you are enjoying all this, because I absolutely love it.

You sure did.

Nope, I did not.

Though I can understand why you would be embarrassed, and not want to acknowledge your error, even to yourself.

I doubt that. You apparently are not embarrassed by what you are doing now, so I doubt you would be embarrassed by anything else.

If I had claimed that it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles, I might feel the same.

I claimed that EVERY triangle MUST HAVE three angles.

If you disagree with that...no way I can help you.

Necessity implies possibility. Every necessary truth must be possible, rather than impossible.

If you want to go through life saying things like, "It is possible that London is the capital of England"; "It is possible that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10"; "it is possible that the Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl game played this year (2025)"; or "it is possible that the Bronco SUV is a Ford product"...fine with me. I read your posts almost evesry day...and your doing so would not seem to be particularly unusual.

□p→◊p




Nope. You said it was not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles. ChatGPT unambiguously said that it was.

How you got it into your head that it is impossible for a triangle to have three angles is beyond me. Most folks have a pretty good handle on that stuff by second grade.

You are clearly way out of your depth here.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What I claimed was that EVERY triangle MUST HAVE 3 angles...or it would not be a triangle.

Your claim was that it was not possible for a triangle to have three angles.

I am glad that you seem to be starting to come around to a more reasonable position though.

It is not a possibility

Oops, looks like you are regressing again.

Not only is it possible for a triangle to have three angles, it is a necessary condition of all triangles.

It really looked like you had been starting to grasp the concept for a moment there.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Your claim was that it was not possible for a triangle to have three angles.

I am glad that you seem to be starting to come around to a more reasonable position though.

My claim was that it is required for a triangle to have three angles. If it did not have three angles...it was not a triangle.

That position was a reasonable position all along.

Oops, looks like you are regressing again.

Not only is it possible for a triangle to have three angles, it is a necessary condition of all triangles.

It really looked like you had been starting to grasp the concept for a moment there.

Nope...not regressing at all.

Any reasonable, intelligent individual reading what I am writing realizes that what I am saying is so.

But...you need this, because so much of your argument falls flat...and better for you to try to make something on a tangent than to continue to be humiliated...so fine with me that you are taking this path.

I am actually enjoying the diversion...no matter how desperate it is for you. Hope you are getting as much fun out of the conversation.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

My claim was that it is required for a triangle to have three angles. If it did not have three angles...it was not a triangle..

Your claim was that it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 sides, which is obviously nonsense.

The fact that necessity implies possibility is one of the basic principles of modal logic.

A tautology cannot contain a contradiction.

 

[gboisjo]

to show that atheists are as anxious to defend their blind guesses about the unknown as are religionists.

They don't guess, they want evidence that Santa exist.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Your claim was that it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 sides, which is obviously nonsense.

You are fabricating something you know is bull. But that is all you have. What I actually said was that it is not a possibility that a triangle has 3 angles (not sides)...a triangle ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE 3 angles...otherwise it would not be a triangle.

So stop with the bull.

The fact that necessity implies possibility is one of the basic principles of modal logic.

As I said up above, if you want to go through life saying things like, "It is possible that London is the capital of England"; "It is possible that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10"; "it is possible that the Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl game played this year (2025)"; or "it is possible that the Bronco SUV is a Ford product"...fine with me.

I enjoy a good laugh.

A tautology cannot contain a contradiction.

I agree.

 

[gboisjo]

Fictional, man made gods like Christ and Thor don't exist, common sense 101.

 

[watsup]

Your response assumed that the statues represented men's perception of women as mysterious, so I pointed out that you don't know that some or any of the statues were made by men. What are you not following about that?

What do the statues represent? Is it possible for you to move beyond your “nuh-uh” responses just once?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

This thread is a lesson in futility.