Do atheists need some faith?

[genkaus]

Sadly it's not. You make the assumption that whatever you say to be true, and feel no requirement to justify or rationalise your perspective in any way. Your claim of being unable to measure reality was purely a subjective judgement to which you then hide behind your tautology

Like I said, read again. Your failure to understand the justification given does not mean none was given.

That you believed you addressed my points/questions illustrates that you did not comprehend the points and/or questions in the first place. Please feel welcome to cut and paste my reponse, unless of course, it takes more brain cells to do this than what you intend to write.

Point out which points you consider unaddressed and I'll point out where I addressed them.

Ok that's a really poor comparison, and exposes your limited understanding of what is being said. You claimed to understand what reality is, and all that it entails. You have so far failed to provide any evidence, beyond countlessly repititions, of that this is correct.

Once again, a dismal failure of comprehension. I never claimed the bolded part.

If you propose that you understand reality it is logical that you have some idea of all that it is (its size would be logical included in this).

As demonstrated countless times by me and others - no that is not logical. You don't need to know all of something to know what it is not and the concept of size is not applicable.

For example, I understand football and the dimensions of the field, ball etc.

Let's go with your analogy then. A sit happens, I don't understand "all" of football. I don't know the dimensions of the field or the ball or many of the rules governing the game. What I do know is that its a game where two teams play to kick the ball into opposite team's goal. Therefore, I understand that the purpose is not to kick the ball in your own goal. Further, the "size of the game of football" is a nonsensical question. You can ask the size of the ball used in the game, that of the field, the number of players or fans - but the size of the game itself, that's nonsensical.

You understand reality (without requiring any need to define it further) and then class it's size as immeasurable.

Wrong. I said that the concept of size does not apply.

Or is this due to your self-proclaimed understanding of reality to then state the ability to measure its size is non-sensical.

Wrong again. The words "its size" are what's wrong here.

But you failed to offer any reason why it would be non-sensical, other than that you udnerstand reality.

No, actually, the reason is given right here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-13879-p...#pid314362

Do you see where you tripped yourself up? There are limitations on being self-assured as you eventually need some form of evidence/proof to back up what you state. Feel free to outline why you understand reality and why it's immeasurable now.

Done and done.

No I didn't mean any post, as you have not actually stated your position in this post or anywhere else.

This isn't Waldo you are looking for. My position regarding "is only science capable of determining reality" should be quite clear to anyone who reads it.

You're incapable of outlining what you believe, perfectly illustrated by the quote in the post you linked to above:

"I don't have to know what all of reality is to know what reality is" and yet you accuse me of using a tautology? I don't know what reality is, yet you seem to convinced based on what you perceive it to be? I just hope for your sake you're a troll.

If you can, rationalise your position. Otherwise I can't see the point in wasting my time with someone like you.

That has been done multiple times already - by me and others, using many different analogies, the latest being provided by you. Given that you still fail to understand this simple point, I have to say that you are wasting your time. The knowledge provided by simple logic is beyond you. Give up and strain your puny mind no more.

[Selliedjoup]

You state that you claim to understand reality and don't need to know all of it to dismiss that its size or the question how big is reality to be nonsensical. How much of reality do you claim to know as a percentage, to know you know enough to dismiss size as a nonsensical question?

Your football comparison was dire and desperate, where did I mention a "game" of football? I mentioned known physical things. Why don't you include the religion beliefs of the players to prove that the size of reality is futile?

[genkaus]

You state that you claim to understand reality and don't need to know all of it to dismiss that its size or the question how big is reality to be nonsensical. How much of reality do you claim to know as a percentage, to know you know enough to dismiss size as a nonsensical question?

You do understand that by talking about reality in percentages, you already are implying that it can be measured - the very thing that is nonsensical. Answer me this - what percentage of numbers do you know and if you don't know that, how do you claim to know the number system?

Your football comparison was dire and desperate, where did I mention a "game" of football? I mentioned known physical things. Why don't you include the religion beliefs of the players to prove that the size of reality is futile?

Here - "For example, I understand football and the dimensions of the field, ball etc.".

By referring to the field and ball separately, the only thing the original football could be referring to is the game of football. And I don't need to bring up the player's religious affiliations since the examples I gave are sufficient.

[Selliedjoup]

Why do you continually use examples of what is understood to compare to reality. It must be safe to assume that you believe you understand reality as well as numbers.

This leads me to go back to where this began. You claimed that it's non-nonsensical to ask how big reality is. I make no claims to understand what reality is, I know how I perceive it but am wise enough to make a distinction between my perception and to make claims about what questions I can answer with certainty about whether its nonsensical or not. What makes you think you can? If the material is all that exists then why do you propose reality cannot be measured?

[genkaus]

Why do you continually use examples of what is understood to compare to reality.

Because reality, like those examples, is also understood.

It must be safe to assume that you believe you understand reality as well as numbers.

Nope, I understand the numbers better.

This leads me to go back to where this began. You claimed that it's non-nonsensical to ask how big reality is. I make no claims to understand what reality is, I know how I perceive it but am wise enough to make a distinction between my perception and to make claims about what questions I can answer with certainty about whether its nonsensical or not.

Accepting limits imposed by your stupidity is wise.

What makes you think you can? If the material is all that exists then why do you propose reality cannot be measured?

As I have explained many times already - for anything to be measured, we require a standard of measurement that exists independently form the object being measured. Since all such standards would automatically be a part of reality - measuring it is nonsensical.

[Selliedjoup]

Why do you continually use examples of what is understood to compare to reality.

Because reality, like those examples, is also understood.

Fantastic, perhaps you should define what reality is and whether it's the same as what you perceive it to be.

This leads me to go back to where this began. You claimed that it's non-nonsensical to ask how big reality is. I make no claims to understand what reality is, I know how I perceive it but am wise enough to make a distinction between my perception and to make claims about what questions I can answer with certainty about whether its nonsensical or not.

Accepting limits imposed by your stupidity is wise.

It's so much better than claiming to know, when you obviously don't.

What makes you think you can? If the material is all that exists then why do you propose reality cannot be measured?

As I have explained many times already - for anything to be measured, we require a standard of measurement that exists independently form the object being measured. Since all such standards would automatically be a part of reality - measuring it is nonsensical.

Wow pure bollocks, but impressive if you believe it to be true.

Since you seem to be all over what reality is, and why it cannot be measured, you need to define what you think it is is to counter your circular logic. I make no claims to know the size of reality, nor if the question is nonsensical, as you clearly believe you know what reality is and do not confuse it with how you perceive it to be.

[genkaus]

Fantastic, perhaps you should define what reality is and whether it's the same as what you perceive it to be.

Reality is everything that exists independently of my perception of it and yes, mostly it is the same as I perceive it to be.

It's so much better than claiming to know, when you obviously don't.

What makes you think I don't?

Wow pure bollocks, but impressive if you believe it to be true.

Since you seem to be all over what reality is, and why it cannot be measured, you need to define what you think it is is to counter your circular logic. I make no claims to know the size of reality, nor if the question is nonsensical, as you clearly believe you know what reality is and do not confuse it with how you perceive it to be.

Is there a logical counter-argument in this garbage? All I see is "I don't know, therefore you don't know either".

[Deicide73]

No. Atheists do not need faith. We base what we know to be true on evidence. Not faith, which is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[CliveStaples]

No. Atheists do not need faith. We base what we know to be true on evidence. Not faith, which is nothing more than wishful thinking.

So if I know "There is sufficient* evidence E that the proposition P is true"--call this statement A--I can conclude"Proposition P is true"--call this statement B.

How do I know "A implies B"?


*accord to some standard of 'sufficiency'

[Cato]

[quote='CliveStaples' pid='316710' dateline='1343609790']
`
So if I know "There is sufficient* evidence E that the proposition P is true"--call this statement A--I can conclude"Proposition P is true"--call this statement B.

How do I know "A implies B"?


What a childish argument. Look back and explailn to me what is the difference between A and B? You cannot based on the argument you gave. In fact, you gave the perfect proof for circular reasoning.

Would you like to try again?