Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[ManMachine]

Not believing there is a purple monster under the bridge = believing there is not a purple monster under the bridge
Not believing the moon is made of cheese = believing the moon is not made of cheese
Not believing species were intelligently designed = believing species were not intelligently designed
Not believing invisible unicorns exist = believing invisible unicorns do not exist

And this grade school principle of semantics can be demonstrated true in all other cases. Its only when the atheist adds the term God to the sentence, that they suddenly lose the ability to understand semantics 101. Which tells me atheists are not that bright to begin with, or they really don't believe God does not exist, but lie to themselves for personal reasons

I think you're mixing belief with reality.
Yes, in reality either the cake exists or it doesn't.

However, my belief over the existence of the cake has more than two states.

I'll give you an example straight out of Quantum mechanics.

In QM, particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors.
But you can only experiment on one kind of behavior at a time and, when you do, that particle then always exhibits that same type of behavior.
This means that you can't test for both behaviors in series, because the second experiment in the series will fail. And does fail.
Because of this, it is said that each particle has, simultaneously, both behaviors, until an actual experiment is performed which then attributes only one behavior to the particle.
To try to convey this strange concept to the rest of the community, Schrödinger came up with the cat in a box thought experiment.
This box is closed and contains a cat, a living cat. in the box is some apparatus that can, at a non-deterministic time, kill the cat. It doesn't really matter how the cat is killed, all that we know is that from out of the box, there is no way of knowing if the cat is dead - no sound, no movement, no nothing.... we have to open the box and see if it is dead or alive. This is the experiment part which then settles the matter.

Now, suppose we have our cat in the box. Without any experiment that I can be aware of, you tell me that the cat is dead.
I have no way of ascertaining if it is dead or not. I know you also have no way of ascertaining that. So I cannot believe your claim that the cat is dead. This does not mean that I believe the cat to be alive.
Had you claimed that the cat was alive, I would also not be able to believe it.
I'd be in a state of unknowing whether the cat is dead or alive.

The reality is twofold - either the cat is dead or alive.
The belief in the claim made by a person with no access the the information regarding the state of the cat is not so twofold - I can believe it, if I see you as an expert way beyond my abilities; I can see you as a rookie, while I know better that, after a given amount of time, it is likely that the cat is in a particular state, hence I'd believe that it is in that state... or I can withhold judgement and believe neither.

Considering the inability to actually know about the cat's health, it seems that the more reasonable approach is to withhold judgement until experimentation yields an answer.

---

we all know the cake is a lie!

---

You have so missed the point of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

The point is to establish the existence of a superposition, the cat is in a state of being both alive and dead at the same time, not one or the other.




MM