Видео

Sounds like atheism. Just swap "god" for a distinct psychological state of "nonbelief." You even get to rip off the tax dollars.

@@JustifiedNonetheless but we don't care what you do not believe. We dont want tax money. :) So... no.

Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).

@@JustifiedNonetheless Everything you just said is exactly why no one should believe in a god. Simulation theory is useless because as you said, its untestable lol. What was your point here?

​@gogojordanmasterofpolyethy105 "What's your point?" That your assertion that "it is reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for _anything"_ is obvious and demonstratrably false...as evidenced by three examples on which such an expectation *isn't* reasonable. Presuppositions serve as the foundation for all epistemology. It is inevitable. I logical and intellectually honest individual should be able to recognize and acknowledge that instead of deflecting to some other, irrelevant bullshit.

@@JustifiedNonetheless Reasonable for things worth believeing. Is that enough clarification? I mean your whole point in that big wall of text is exactly why no one SHOULD believe in simulation theory. And why no one SHOULD believe in god. Because it is totally untestable. You are revealing your ignorance on this topic

@@JustifiedNonetheless presup is the most ignorant and useless topic. I can't believe I wasted time replying to a presup argument.

Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).

"I don't know what would convince me" is the ultimate bullshit cop-out. Premise 1: According to Popper's formulation of the principle of falsififiability, an assertion is falsifiable, if it is possible to conceive of a means by which it might be disconfirmed _in principle_ (whether it can be disconfirmed _in practice_ or not). Premise 2: "I don't know what would change my mind" is an explicit statement that one cannot conceive of anything that would change one's mind with regard to a proposition. Conclusion: Therefore, "I don't know what would change my mind" is a de facto concession that even if the _content_ of the proposition itself is falsifiable, one's _disposition_ toward the assertion is *not.* In summary, because the principle of falsifiability it contingent upon the subject's capacity to _conceive of_ a means of disconfirmation, a proposition's _actual_ falsifiability is independent from any subject's _attitude_ toward its falsification; ie, it is possible for a proposition to be falsifiable (and indeed, even disconfirmed), yet the subject remain unconvinced of it--think of Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, and the like. In the interest of reason and intellectual honesty, one is obliged to conceive of some means by which one's disposition might be disconfirmed *and* be willing to express those terms. Alternatively, if one _cannot_ do so, one ought explicitly express its unfalsifiability.

Your response implies knowledge that it is a fictional character. Yet, I'd almost be willing to be you cling to "lack" of belief rather than committing to the belief in nonexistence.

@JustifiedNonetheless I don't commit to any belief. I commit to what actual evidence supports until superceding evidence comes along and then I commit to that. A total absence of evidence isn't worth serious consideration.

​@@ScottByther That still implies that you have evidence for the NONexistence of a deity (and no, absence of evidence still isn't evidence of absence) by which to declare a deity as a fictional character in the first place. So, why hide behind a bullshit concept like "nonbelief." Why not have the balls to say, "you know what? I could be mistaken, but I think no such thing exists." That would the the intellectually honest and non-cowardly response. Don't you think? It's not a knowledge claim, so it's not like you'd have to prove nonexistence. It's simply taking a stand and honestly stating what you *believe* to be the case. But, no, atheists like you feel compelled to say, "I don't think a deity doesn't exist; I just 'lack' belief that one exists," which is a bullshit cop-out, as evidenced by your own actions and statements. Yes, you *do* believe in the nonexistence of the being in question. Otherwise, you would describe it as fictional. So, just admit it.

@@JustifiedNonetheless It doesn't imply anything of the kind. You're seeing something that isn't there because you want to. Shocking huh?

​@ScottByther You're so full of shit. Premise 1) Belief informs willful action. Premise 2) Characterizing something as "fictional" is a wilful action. Conclusion: Therefore, characterizing something as "fictional" implies belief to that effect. This is how logic actually works.

Do you "lack" belief in dragons or fairies? I don't. I tentatively assent to the proposition that dragons and fairies don't exist, and have no reservations against saying so. I feel no compulsion to hide behind a nonsensical concept like "nonbelief" when it comes to dragons and fairies. I don't assert to _know_ that dragons and fairies don't exist, so I incur no burden of proof for the nonexistence of dragons and fairies. No bogus "nonbelief" is required.

@ - did I say I was certain dragons never existed? No. I said there’s no evidence dragons ever existed.

​​@@NapoleonGelignite That's not what I asked. Try again with intellectual honesty this time.

Pretty sure he did call into one of the shows last weekend, and he did an absolutely terrible job. Or at least someone with the name Magnifico or whatever called in.

@ I hope to find it, if it’s the same guy even. If it is, I wonder if it was after this video that he made, or just on his previous call in to Matt? He sure has a lot to say about Matt’s so called flawed thinking, when he’s the one that makes the logic errors and has fallacious thinking.

@@paddlefar9175 I'll see if I can find the show and I'll let you know when it aired if I get a chance today.

@@paddlefar9175 The Hangup on 1.1.25 Eve and Matt is when he called in.

@@shanewilson7994 👍👍

How is Matt going to "crush" him? By muting him, talking over him, or hanging up on him? I've already soundly squashed Matt's bullshit Gumball Analogy by pointing out at least 14 different problems with it (with dozens of citations from scholarly sources, no less).

Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).

@ if it were true the universe was created last Thursday or we existed in a simulation, those would be meaningless revelations. High brow philosophy and rhetorical tricks mean very very little to the majority of the world waking up and working a real job (as far as their perception) and spending real hours (they can perceive) earning money to feed a family (they perceive). You can, in fact, become so meta that you make useless platitudes. I find those premises equally useless in that they can’t be tested or proven or verified and purely rely on blind faith to make them “real.” You’re literally just making the spaghetti monster meme, I can make infinite claims of supernatural hypotheses that are untestable, but what science is, is the testable definable realm of agreed human perception (ie the VAST majority of us recognize red as a color for being red, that wavelength of light has a meaning, thus an observation and thus is a scientific fact). Beyond this, the claims of theological systems like those of Abraham SAY DIRECTLY that this god does interact with our universe, does influence us, is observing use. This new age addition you’re making of him being out of space and time is a recent addition in apologetics as they continually and slowly lose the battle of reason.

​@@lukepoplawski3230 The point was to demonstrate that your blanket statement is obviously and demonstrably false. A logical and intellectually honest person should be able to recognize and acknowledge that rather than deflecting to some other irrelevant bullshit.

"Lack" of belief cannot logically exist in a vacuum. Because beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding brain activity, for "nonbelief" to be a thing entails a difference in the brain activity between self-identifying atheists who express it and self-identifying atheists who express belief in the nonexistence of any deity. I've never seen evidence of that, either. "Lack" of belief *_IS_* an implicit claim, which makes your comment on a video discussing that topic all the more amusing.

Premise 1: ⅓ • 3 = 1 Premise 2: ⅓ = .3̅ ⅓ = ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 3/9 = ⅓ Premise 3: .3̅ • 3 = .9̅ 3 • 0.3̅ = 3 • ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = ∑[9/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 0.9̅ Conclusion: .9̅ = 1 The reason this is counterintuitive is that people consider repeating decimals like .9̅ to be actual numbers, and they aren't. Actually infinites (and, in this case, infinitesimals) do not exist in reality; they are just abstract concepts. That is to say that people try to find a concrete examples of infinites in reality, but there aren't any. Technically speaking, all of mathematics is conceptual. These constructs themselves don't have direct physical existence. Infinity, infinitesimals, and even numbers themselves are not "things" in the physical world; they are ideas we use to understand patterns, quantities, and relationships in the universe. When we talk about repeating decimals, we're dealing with a conceptual limit-an infinite process that approaches 1, but in reality, we can't carry out an infinite number of steps or processes. We use the idea of infinity as a tool to capture and describe behavior that extends beyond what we can physically experience or calculate. However, our inability to conceive of a limit or perform calculations to reach it doesn't imply the nonexistence of that limit; .9̅ is an example of this. The decimal cannot actually extend interminably without converging on 1. The repeating decimal is essentially shorthand for the infinite sum: 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... This infinite series converges to 1, as the terms get smaller and smaller, and the sum approaches 1. So, while we can't "complete" the infinite process in a concrete way, the concept of limits shows that is indistinguishable from 1 in every meaningful sense. Just because we can't practically calculate or visualize an infinite process, it doesn't mean the result (in this case, the limit) isn't real. In fact, much of calculus and higher mathematics relies on this very idea-that we can use limits to describe the behavior of processes that extend infinitely, even though we can't "see" the entirety of the process. Indeed, arguing that .9̅ ≠ 1 implies that there is a number between them. What number could that possibly be, given that the vinculum above the 9 denotes an infinite series--meaning there is nowhere left for another number to exist? Atheists tend to define atheism as just an "absence" of belief, "lack" of belief, "nonbelief," or "unbelief" in the existence of deities. However, as beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding neural activity, such a definition necessarily entails a distinct mental statement. I've never been presented with any evidence for a phenomenological distinction between not believing a proposition and believing its negation. Yes, they are different _conceptually._ Yes, they are different _linguistically._ However, a difference in the descriptors doesn't imply a difference in the referent brain activity; and if there is no difference in the brain activity that corresponds to "nonbelief" versus disbelief, then per the principles of identity, indiscernables, and mereology, it is the same doxastic disposition. Recall that 1 = .9̅ *despite* conceptual and notational differences because infinity is nothing more than an abstract concept; it doesn't exist in reality. As far as I can tell, the same is true of ¬Bsp ("nonbelief") and Bs¬p (disbelief). Atheists tend to insist that there's a distinction, but I've yet to see any evidence of a phenomenological distinction. I think this is because this distinction, like infinity, is an abstract concept that does not exist in reality. To that end, I offer the following thought experiment: Subject A assents to the proposition (read: believes) that there is an _even_ number of gumballs in a jar. Subject B merely dissents to the proposition (read: "lacks" belief) that there is an _odd_ number of gumballs in the jar. *Neither* claims knowledge about whether the number is even or odd. *Both* can express _either_ doxastic position, regardless of its truth. By what independently verifiable means might one determine who holds which position? How could we falsify their belief-claims-if indeed that’s even possible? If it is objectively true that ¬Bsp ≠ Bs¬p, there _must_ be some way to reliably determine who is Subject A and who is Subject B. *_HOW?_*

If it is argued that "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance," as Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests, then if science actually does what skeptics already presume it will do and explains *everything,* then there will be no gap in which for any deity to reside; therefore, no deity could possibly existence, and the god-claim will have been falsified *in practice.* The fact that one has the capacity to invoke the God of the Gaps Fallacy in the first place implies that one has already conceived of a means by which a particular assertion might be falsified, so it's also falsifiable in principle. Also, if the terms are used in the same sense as David Hume, Carl Sagan, and Karl Popper (the ones who developed the principles in question), the same claim cannot logically be both extraordinary and unfalsifiable.

The problem is that the metric of "sufficiency" is necessarily arbitrary. If a the evidence for any given proposition _weren't_ sufficient for any given subject to believe it, then they *wouldn't* believe it.

@@JustifiedNonetheless You seem to be conflating subjective standards of belief with the notion that these standards are arbitrary. While personal standards of evidence may vary, they are not necessarily arbitrary. Someone might require empirical evidence for extraordinary claims, for example, which is a reasoned and consistent standard. This doesn’t mean the concept of sufficiency itself is flawed, only that it can differ between individuals. You critique the notion of sufficiency as arbitrary, yet you rely on it to explain belief and non-belief. By definition, atheism is simply a non-belief in a god or gods, often due to a lack of sufficient evidence. There’s nothing arbitrary about that. Matt does seem to lean into anti-theism, but this makes him no less of an atheist. Atheism is a position on belief (lack of belief in gods), while antitheism is a position on practice and ideology (opposition to theism or religion). Anti-theists are almost always atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists. If you want to attack Matt, well ... whatever, really. I'm not here to defend him. But you simply cannot refute my lack of belief because my subjective standard of belief is different or more stringent than your own.

"Lack" of belief cannot logically exist in a vacuum. Because beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding brain activity, for "nonbelief" to be a thing entails a difference in the brain activity between self-identifying atheists who express it and self-identifying atheists who express belief in the nonexistence of any deity. I've never seen evidence of that, either. You can't _define_ a psychological state into existence any more than a religious person can define their preferred deity into existence. It either exists, or it doesn't.

​@icycooldrink6085 Premise 1: ⅓ • 3 = 1 Premise 2: ⅓ = .3̅ ⅓ = ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 3/9 = ⅓ Premise 3: .3̅ • 3 = .9̅ 3 • 0.3̅ = 3 • ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = ∑[9/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 0.9̅ Conclusion: .9̅ = 1 The reason this is counterintuitive is that people consider repeating decimals like .9̅ to be actual numbers, and they aren't. Actually infinites (and, in this case, infinitesimals) do not exist in reality; they are just abstract concepts. That is to say that people try to find a concrete examples of infinites in reality, but there aren't any. Technically speaking, all of mathematics is conceptual. These constructs themselves don't have direct physical existence. Infinity, infinitesimals, and even numbers themselves are not "things" in the physical world; they are ideas we use to understand patterns, quantities, and relationships in the universe. When we talk about repeating decimals, we're dealing with a conceptual limit-an infinite process that approaches 1, but in reality, we can't carry out an infinite number of steps or processes. We use the idea of infinity as a tool to capture and describe behavior that extends beyond what we can physically experience or calculate. However, our inability to conceive of a limit or perform calculations to reach it doesn't imply the nonexistence of that limit; .9̅ is an example of this. The decimal cannot actually extend interminably without converging on 1. The repeating decimal is essentially shorthand for the infinite sum: 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... This infinite series converges to 1, as the terms get smaller and smaller, and the sum approaches 1. So, while we can't "complete" the infinite process in a concrete way, the concept of limits shows that is indistinguishable from 1 in every meaningful sense. Just because we can't practically calculate or visualize an infinite process, it doesn't mean the result (in this case, the limit) isn't real. In fact, much of calculus and higher mathematics relies on this very idea-that we can use limits to describe the behavior of processes that extend infinitely, even though we can't "see" the entirety of the process. Indeed, arguing that .9̅ ≠ 1 implies that there is a number between them. What number could that possibly be, given that the vinculum above the 9 denotes an infinite series--meaning there is nowhere left for another number to exist? Atheists tend to define atheism as just an "absence" of belief, "lack" of belief, "nonbelief," or "unbelief" in the existence of deities. However, as beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding neural activity, such a definition necessarily entails a distinct mental statement. I've never been presented with any evidence for a phenomenological distinction between not believing a proposition and believing its negation. Yes, they are different _conceptually._ Yes, they are different _linguistically._ However, a difference in the descriptors doesn't imply a difference in the referent brain activity; and if there is no difference in the brain activity that corresponds to "nonbelief" versus disbelief, then per the principles of identity, indiscernables, and mereology, it is the same doxastic disposition. Recall that 1 = .9̅ *despite* conceptual and notational differences because infinity is nothing more than an abstract concept; it doesn't exist in reality. As far as I can tell, the same is true of ¬Bsp ("nonbelief") and Bs¬p (disbelief). Atheists tend to insist that there's a distinction, but I've yet to see any evidence of a phenomenological distinction. I think this is because this distinction, like infinity, is an abstract concept that does not exist in reality. To that end, I offer the following thought experiment: Subject A assents to the proposition (read: believes) that there is an _even_ number of gumballs in a jar. Subject B merely dissents to the proposition (read: "lacks" belief) that there is an _odd_ number of gumballs in the jar. *Neither* claims knowledge about whether the number is even or odd. *Both* can express _either_ doxastic position, regardless of its truth. By what independently verifiable means might one determine who holds which position? How could we falsify their belief-claims-if indeed that’s even possible? If it is objectively true that ¬Bsp ≠ Bs¬p, there _must_ be some way to reliably determine who is Subject A and who is Subject B. *_HOW?_*

@@JustifiedNonetheless Just for clarity, do you lack a belief in Hindu gods?

This has always been my sticking point too, life as an imposition. IM the one with everything to gain and everything to lose here if my eternal soul is on the line.

My point was that god doesn't just want you to acknowledge his existence, he wants a relationship. I tend to think he would rather not forcibly convert you using tangible, falsifiable, evidence (not sure if that's what you meant by solid) and then have a begrudging resentful slave for the rest of your life. In my mind if you're truly seeking you should probably look for something more subtle. It sounds sacrilegious, but I think it's conceptually similar to flirting. The idea being to send out a signal that if someone is seeking, they will pick up on, and if they're not they can easily ignore it.

@@magnificogi1800 Yeah, if he’s real I want a relationship with him too. But he ISNT. I DID seek, I read the texts, listened to the great apologists, diligently prayed; and I can’t force myself to believe in something so obviously made up as Santa clause. And that’s where the accusations lie; Christian’s (specifically apologists) engage in special pleading to reinforce an emotional belief because it makes them feel good. Special pleading is a logical fallacy and in my experience, no Christian applies the same logic and reasoning to ANY other arena of their life other than this one particular arena.

@@magnificogi1800 Who would be "begrudgeful" if they knew some super being brought them into existence and would guarantee their welfare for acknowledgement? The insane, and ONLY the insane. It's NOT on me to be "seeking". If I create a sentient being capable of suffering the onus is on me to guide them away from choices that cause supreme suffering. It's morally reprehensible to bring some being capable of suffering into the world then leave it on its own to suffer, Your concept of God is an EVIL being. that you worship it should warn your associates.

As briefly as I can ... simply lacking belief in a proposition (e.g., "a goblin created the color purple") does not require one to consciously believe the opposite (e.g., "a goblin did not create the color purple"). Lack of belief can exist independently, as a neutral or agnostic position where one withholds judgment due to insufficient evidence. Your argument hinges on the idea that any lack of belief is tied to an implicit belief in the negation, which is not necessarily true. Likewise, your critique of Jesus mythicism seems to conflate skepticism of historicity with an assertion of complete fabrication. While some mythicists may make this claim, not all do. Someone skeptical of Jesus's historicity could simply say, "I find the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure unconvincing," which doesn't require asserting fabrication as fact.

​@@icycooldrink6085 "Lack" of belief cannot logically exist in a vacuum. Because beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding brain activity, for "nonbelief" to be a thing entails a difference in the brain activity between self-identifying atheists who express it and self-identifying atheists who express belief in the nonexistence of any deity. I've never seen evidence of that, either. You can't _define_ a psychological state into existence any more than a religious person can define their preferred deity into existence. It either exists, or it doesn't.

​@icycooldrink6085 Premise 1: ⅓ • 3 = 1 Premise 2: ⅓ = .3̅ ⅓ = ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 3/9 = ⅓ Premise 3: .3̅ • 3 = .9̅ 3 • 0.3̅ = 3 • ∑[3/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = ∑[9/10^n] from n=1 to ∞ = 0.9̅ Conclusion: .9̅ = 1 The reason this is counterintuitive is that people consider repeating decimals like .9̅ to be actual numbers, and they aren't. Actually infinites (and, in this case, infinitesimals) do not exist in reality; they are just abstract concepts. That is to say that people try to find a concrete examples of infinites in reality, but there aren't any. Technically speaking, all of mathematics is conceptual. These constructs themselves don't have direct physical existence. Infinity, infinitesimals, and even numbers themselves are not "things" in the physical world; they are ideas we use to understand patterns, quantities, and relationships in the universe. When we talk about repeating decimals, we're dealing with a conceptual limit-an infinite process that approaches 1, but in reality, we can't carry out an infinite number of steps or processes. We use the idea of infinity as a tool to capture and describe behavior that extends beyond what we can physically experience or calculate. However, our inability to conceive of a limit or perform calculations to reach it doesn't imply the nonexistence of that limit; .9̅ is an example of this. The decimal cannot actually extend interminably without converging on 1. The repeating decimal is essentially shorthand for the infinite sum: 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... This infinite series converges to 1, as the terms get smaller and smaller, and the sum approaches 1. So, while we can't "complete" the infinite process in a concrete way, the concept of limits shows that is indistinguishable from 1 in every meaningful sense. Just because we can't practically calculate or visualize an infinite process, it doesn't mean the result (in this case, the limit) isn't real. In fact, much of calculus and higher mathematics relies on this very idea-that we can use limits to describe the behavior of processes that extend infinitely, even though we can't "see" the entirety of the process. Indeed, arguing that .9̅ ≠ 1 implies that there is a number between them. What number could that possibly be, given that the vinculum above the 9 denotes an infinite series--meaning there is nowhere left for another number to exist? Atheists tend to define atheism as just an "absence" of belief, "lack" of belief, "nonbelief," or "unbelief" in the existence of deities. However, as beliefs are propositional attitudes that manifest in reality as corresponding neural activity, such a definition necessarily entails a distinct mental statement. I've never been presented with any evidence for a phenomenological distinction between not believing a proposition and believing its negation. Yes, they are different _conceptually._ Yes, they are different _linguistically._ However, a difference in the descriptors doesn't imply a difference in the referent brain activity; and if there is no difference in the brain activity that corresponds to "nonbelief" versus disbelief, then per the principles of identity, indiscernables, and mereology, it is the same doxastic disposition. Recall that 1 = .9̅ *despite* conceptual and notational differences because infinity is nothing more than an abstract concept; it doesn't exist in reality. As far as I can tell, the same is true of ¬Bsp ("nonbelief") and Bs¬p (disbelief). Atheists tend to insist that there's a distinction, but I've yet to see any evidence of a phenomenological distinction. I think this is because this distinction, like infinity, is an abstract concept that does not exist in reality. To that end, I offer the following thought experiment: Subject A assents to the proposition (read: believes) that there is an _even_ number of gumballs in a jar. Subject B merely dissents to the proposition (read: "lacks" belief) that there is an _odd_ number of gumballs in the jar. *Neither* claims knowledge about whether the number is even or odd. *Both* can express _either_ doxastic position, regardless of its truth. By what independently verifiable means might one determine who holds which position? How could we falsify their belief-claims-if indeed that’s even possible? If it is objectively true that ¬Bsp ≠ Bs¬p, there _must_ be some way to reliably determine who is Subject A and who is Subject B. *_HOW?_*

For example, if the proposition is the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth, a potential means of disconfirmation would be the discovery of a document discussing a conspiracy to falsify this fictional person whole-cloth. This is an unlikely hypothetical event; however, it would disconfirm the proposition, and it is obviously possible to conceive of it. I find it highly unlikely that those who invoke the, "I don't know what would change my mind" canned response either 1) _wouldn't be_ convinced by such a piece of evidence, or 2) are incapable of _conceiving of_ such a possibility. Thus, the invocation of, "I don't know what would change my mind" comes across as an insincere tactic employed to avoid committing to _any_ metric. It is, in my view, an attempt to gain a dialectical advantage by hedging one's bets in a fallacious manner while feigning intellectual humility. This Hedge-Betting Fallacy incorporates a variety of other fallacies, including ad hoc reasoning, appeal to ignorance, definist's fallacy, equivocation, and shifting the goalpost. Even if the belief is that extraterrestrial life exists, I can at least _conceive of_ some variable that has mistakenly been excluded from the Drake equation--that there is _something_ heretofore undiscovered, unique about Earth, that permits life here alone. This example is a prime illustration because it effectively demonstrates the distinction between falsifiability of one's _disposition_ toward a proposition versus the falsifiability of the proposition _itself,_ as the hypothetical identification of a variable that allows for life on Earth alone wouldn't *actually* disconfirm the existence of extraterrestrial life (at best, it would disconfirm the existence of life _as we know it)._ In fact, I would argue that the proposition that extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere in the universe is technically unfalsifiable *because* we can only account for life _as we know it,_ within the _observable_ universe. Thus, while it would be premature to claim _knowledge_ of nonexistence, from the epistemological frameworks of at least rationalism and pragmatism, the _belief_ in the universal nonexistence of extraterrestrial life would be justified in such a hypothetical scenario. We simply couldn't claim knowledge due to inability to ascertain the truth component.

ha, also did I say celebrated? I think my point was that there is a tendency to equate the two. For the record I think some people do and there is a tendency in some spaces to parade your marginalization around like a prize show pony.

Your response implies knowledge of nonexistence. Yet, I'd almost be willing to bet that you cling to "lack" of belief rather than defend your actual position.

Here a question if you were God how would you conceivably fix the world without making the cure worse that the disease?

If I were all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, that seems like a walk in the park.

⁠@@magnificogi1800easy, if I were god I wouldn’t need to fix anything since I’m omniscient and omnipotent and wouldn’t create something that needed fixing in the first place lmao this would be funny if it wasn’t pathetic

​@@magnificogi1800 the funny thing is you really think you have a point and didn't spit out word salad

​@magnificogi1800 well first off, i cant even conceive of any cure that would be worse than allowing pedophiles to SA children. If you think god is actually all powerful and all knowing, yet continues to allow pedophiles to exist, then your god is truly evil. He's sitting there with popcorn watching these events happen...