The problem is the basic misnaming of angles. There has to be a different name for angles in triangles drawn on flat two-dimensional spaces, and for angles in triangles drawn on curved two-dimensional spaces.

The naming of the two DIFFERENT TYPES of ANGLES ONE SINGLE NAME is the source of confusion. It's like giving work a unit measure of force, or giving current a unit measure of resistance. The two are not equivalent, yet the literature tragically ignores that fact.

The problem is the basic misnaming of angles. — god must be atheist

Not so much. There are clear definitions of each, that work in hyperbolic, elliptical and flat space. Just three lines intersecting.

I merely echoed the OP's own protest against atheism as a lack of belief and not the belief that god doesn't exist. Atheists, I've observed, dodge the request/demand to prove god doesn't exist by saying atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of one. In my view this is sophistry and the OP seems to intuit that fact.

. There are clear definitions of each — Banno

The clear definitions of each what?

This is not the first time we, that is, you and I, debate something due to your imprecise, and insufficiently differentiating language. There are crucial problems arising from that, and which problems could have been avoided with a little more effort to avoid ambiguity.

You see, the way you put this, "There are clear definitions of each" implies that the definition of angles are different with clearly explained differences. And that is what I had suggested, and you argue that that is what is incorrect, because the definition is the same... except they are not the same, as you argue here.

More precise and rigorous translation from concept to language is needed, as the way -- I am sorry to say -- you do it, leaves to a lot of confusion in the readers' perception due to ambiguity and other forms of unclear writing.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I see the explanation you drew since the utterance I am questioning.

What you drew are not triangles on flat two-dimensional spaces, but shapes in three-D, with curved sides. That goes against the definition of a triangle, and that was precisely the thrust of my earlier criticism, that they named something triangle which is not a triange. They ought to have named the things differently, to separate the two types of shapes; you came in then, that the angles are still described by three intersecting lines.

That is not the issue. The issue is that triangles have straight lines, and the concepts you showed have no straight lines.

This is preposterous to call them, then, the same name.

Atheists, I've observed, dodge the request/demand to prove god doesn't exist by saying atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of one. — Agent Smith

Oh, geesh. Atheism is a belief system that includes a lack of belief in god. The entire thing is a belief, but one element that theists believe is in the system (system: world view, weltanschauung) is believed to be not there in the system by atheists... the god concept.

It's not the entire worldview of atheists that is a lack of belief... only one element therein.

I hope this makes sense.

I see the explanation you drew — god must be atheist

You mean you read what I wrote. There's not a whole lot of point in anyone answering your puzzlement if you won't listen. Those shapes are triangles, those lines are straight, given the definitions of straight and triangle in non-euclidean geometry. Google it.

Did we not agree that 2+2 is not 4? You said it needed some different equations, but the upshot was that 2+2<>4, and we also agreed that a 30 degree angle plus a 60 degree angle plus a 90 degree angle do not equal 180 degrees.
— god must be atheist

Certainly not. — Banno

Then how do you explain this:

Arithmetic still functions in spherical geometry. It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. The addition is done in the same way in alternate geometries.

The three angles of a triangle inscribed on a saddle add to less than 180º. — Banno

In other words:

(X+Y+Z) degrees is not equal to (sum of X, Y, and Z) degrees
Then divide both sides of the inequality by "degrees" and you get
X+Y+Z <> sum of X, Y and Z.

I know you will say I am arguing in circular reasoning. But I am not, I am just showing you earlier parts of our conversation paraphrased, in order to show that you are wrong in denying what I claim we had agreed on.

Oh, geesh. Atheism is a belief system that includes a lack of belief in god. The entire thing is a belief, but one element that theists believe is in the system (system: world view, weltanschauung) is believed to be not there in the system by atheists... the god concept.

It's not the entire worldview of atheists that is a lack of belief... only one element therein.

I hope this makes sense. — god must be atheist

That doesn't make sense (to me) and even if it does, does the atheist mean that "god doesn't exist" is not his position on god? If it is then the alternatives are a) god exists (theism) and b) god may exist (agnosticism) or c) he means something else entirely. Which is it then?

To take a step back from what I said above, a worldview that doesn't include god is Laplacian science (I had no need for that hypothesis) i.e. god is irrelevant/superfluous to science and by extension atheism. However, that doesn't mean science is a lack of belief in god.

I'll leave you to it.

does the atheist mean that "god doesn't exist" is not his position on god? — Agent Smith

Absolutely not. The atheist BELIEVES that there is no god.

Nobody can tell for sure if there is a god or not. If anyone states otherwise, they are a fool

The question of god's existence is a matter of personal belief. Believe it exists, or believe it does not exist. There is no proof either way. You can't find knowledge on that issue. You can only have a belief in god, or a belief that there is no god.

I am tired of explaining this any further. Sorry. Ask someone else with more patience.

Those shapes are triangles, those lines are straight, given the definitions of straight and triangle in non-euclidean geometry. — Banno

Have you looked at your drawings? They are on a surface of a curved plane. It is impossible for the sides of the triangle to be straight. "Given the definition"... so they are defined DIFFERENTLY form triangles drawn on flat, two-dimensional planes. So why not have a different names for them, for crying out loud? "Triangle" and "triangle" are different concepts on Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Why have the same name then?

I am sure you are not to blame for it. (-: But to insist that two things that are different should be called the same name is just not right.

I am tired of explaining this any further. Sorry. Ask someone else with more patience. — god must be atheist

I am tired of explaining this any further. Sorry. Ask someone else with more patience.

These semantic muddles are why I prefer the more probative question of Is theism true or not true? rather than merely "Does g/G exist?" If theism is not true (i.e. antitheism), then atheism (i.e. every theistic g/G is a fiction) follows; however, whether or not "g/G exists" does not entail either belief or disbelief in g/G
.

If antitheism, then atheism;
antitheism, therefore atheism.

Antitheism: theism (Type) is not
true (i.e. empty).
Atheism: therefore, theistic deities (Tokens of theism-Type) are fictions — 180 Proof

True that the existence/nonexistence of god doesn't entail belief/disbelief. However lack of belief, what does that mean? Neither do I believe god exists, nor do I believe god doesn't exist? That translatea as neither do I believe theism, nor do I believe atheism, a performative contradiction if spoken by an atheist.

:smile: Ok.

However lack of belief, what does that mean? — Agent Smith

I have already addressed why "lack of belief" is useless:

Every monotheism is "the absence of belief" in every god except "the one God" ... that's not saying much. — 180 Proof

I believe I got it now - there's no justification either way i.e. belief is moot. Why should I believe god exists when it hasn't been proven and why should I believe god doesn't exist when that too hasn't been proven? It differs from agnosticism in that unlike agnosticism, it doesn't permit/allow beliefs like agnostic theism/atheism.

... belief is moot. Why should I believe god exists when it hasn't been proven and why should I believe god doesn't exist when that too hasn't been proven? — Agent Smith

Well, since the crux of the issue is theism's truth-value and not god's non/existence, your "moot point" is also moot, Smith. One can believe or disbelieve whatever one wants, but what I think is decisive is what we know / don't know and what we can know / can't know. We don't know / can't know g/G beyond the predicates we claim as (uniquely) g/G's, and yet we do know / can know whether or not our claims about g/G are true or not. Why? Because a g/G without discernible, or attributable, predicates is indiscernible from not being a g/G, so knowing the truth-value of claims about a g/G (assumed to exist) is inescapable.

When scriptures (or testimonies, visions, legends, superstitions, etc) say "g/G did XYZ", this means that something (somewhere somewhen) has been changed in a way that only g/G could have changed it, and therefore, we can check it out in order to learn whether or not such a sui generis change – which could have been caused only by g/G – has happened. When you know any claim's truth-value (or that you can know it eventually), mi amigo, "belief" is irrelevant. :fire: :eyes:

Intriguing! Belief is irrelevant insofar as truth doesn't depend on it and we don't know the truth.

1. God exists or does not exist [truth]
2. We don't know [knowledge]
3. We can believe or not believe [belief]

I don't have to prove god doesn't exist because I have refused to form a belief either way.

:roll:

Just trying to make sense of it all mon ami. That's all.

Well, since the crux if the issue is theism's truth-value and not god's non/existence, your "moot point" is also moot, Smith. One can believe or disbelieve whatever one wants, but what I think is decisive is what we know / don't know and what we can know / can't know. We don't know / can't know g/G beyond the predicates we claim as (uniquely) g/G's, and yet we do know / can know whether or not our claims about g/G are true or not. Why? Because a g/G without discernible, or attributable, predicates is indiscernible from not being a g/G, so knowing the truth-value of claims about a g/G (assumed to exist) is inescapable.

When scriptures (or testimonies, visions, legends, superstitions, etc) say "g/G did XYZ", this means that something (somewhere somewhen) has been changed in a way that only g/G could have changed it, and therefore, we can check it out in order to learn whether or not such a sui generis change – which could have been caused only by g/G – has happened. When you know any claim's truth-value (or that you can know it eventually), mi amigo, "belief" is irrelevant. :fire: :eyes: — 180 Proof

Interesting. There are testable claims pertaining to god (predicates) and as the Epicurean riddle demonstrate, none of the attributes of god pass the test. If so, god's an inconsistent (internally and externally) idea - it sticks out like a jigsaw piece out of place.

:up:

1. God exists or does not exist [truth]
2. We don't know [knowledge]
3. We can believe or not believe [belief]

I don't have to prove god doesn't exist because I have refused to form a belief either way. — Agent Smith

I take option 3. :wink: Does the below muddy the waters?

If someone has no belief 'either way' then they are an atheist. Not having a belief in god is atheism. Even if it is a weak version. For me, being an agnostic is essentially being an atheist. If one is not actively engaged in belief or can't commit to belief, one is (at the risk of repetition) not a believer. The matter of gods existing or not is a seperate affair. Not being able to make up one's mind is equivalent to not believing in a god. It just avoids taking a stand on making a positive claim - that god does not exist.

I've never found the matter complex although there are some more dogmatic atheists that different views.

For me - I have heard, and am aware of no reason that supports the idea god/s exist. One is either convinced or one is not. (The evidence seems slender and relies heavily for its perpetuation on hucksters, shills, the confused, the fanatical - pretty much no one I can take seriously. You'll note god/s never actually appear to settle the matter (except to the insane) - cue Nietzsche quote).

Arguments from contingency; personal anecdote; design; miracles; scripture, whatever, all seem underwhelming, unconvincing. But I appreciate they are meaningful to others.

Nevertheless "Atheism" is so encrusted in bullshit and dogma, not to mention disinformation by Muslims and Christians who take it to mean a world view (which it is not), that I can't blame people from not wanting to use the word. I've usually preferred freethinker.

I've usually preferred freethinker. — Tom Storm

:up: But when a Bible/Quran/Occult-thumper begs for it, I say pandeist instead just to tilt the fuck out of their "god/woo-of-the-gaps" mindgames ...

I think you can compare The case of Santa Claus and The case of God in this situation.

Parents sometimes tell their children that Santa Claus came and left them presents. Later on they admit they left the presents not Santa. Santa was playing the causal role of presents giver but was adequately replaced by another explanation/cause.

I don't think the same can be said about God. I think there are substantial Gaps in our knowledge that seem unlikely to be explained by science like First cause and the infinite regress of causes and issues like consciousness, mental representation, emergent properties etc.

I think it is a straw man to present God in a way that seems easy to disbelieve like portraying God as the Flying Spaghetti monster which ridicules the notion of God so people forget about the more sophisticated arguments like causal role/explanatory Gaps.

I think there are substantial Gaps in our knowledge that seem unlikely to be explained by science like First cause and the infinite regress of causes and issues like consciousness, mental representation, emergent properties etc. — Andrew4Handel

I think this is a very common belief and the source of half the threads here. The god's of the gaps are a well known fallacy. But I'm as averse to impoverished scientism and quantum woo as I am to theistic non-answers.

I've very comfortable with the words, 'I don't know'. No need reach for a magic man or universal consciousness whenever there is an unanswered question or a stumbling block in knowledge. I'm comfortable with the notion that humans may have limited capacity to understand what they assume is reality - we are clever apes who use language to manage our environment. I'm not even sure half the questions we ask are any more than flawed inferences, mystifications of language and category errors. But this angle of 'gaps' has been flogged to death here and answered so nicely by a particularly adroit member: .

I think there's a potential new title for the forum. Repeating Ourselves To Death. :wink:

Well, if one asks for a reason, atheists are big on reason, the only one that seems to me appropriate is to withhold belief until such a time as strong evidence is found to swing the scales of truth.

Notice though that atheism is also the stance that god doesn't exist which is a belief. Clearly, this is inconsistent with atheism being a lack of belief, unless, as you seem to think, withholding belief = belief that false.

I think the term "God of the gaps " is deflationary and not a true representation of the type of gaps in our knowledge.
There is difference between a gap filler and a fundamental role.
My point in relationship to this thread is that disbelief in gods is a disbelief in a causal need or role for gods so it is an evaluation about the lack of need for gods. In comparison, lack of belief in santa is based on a causal role being completely filled.
I am agnostic based on my beliefs about the explanatory limitations of current paradigms.
I think it is large claim to make that physicalism science will one day satisfactorally explain everything.

Again, is theism true or not true? What are the truth-values of its claims? If any or all of them are not true or undecidable, then isn't theism as a concept empty or not true (i.e. there may be a deity but it is not "theistic")? I conclude that theism is not true.

Forget about "god", amigo, and focus on theism (and its static shadow deism). Why is that so hard for you/them? Or maybe it's my 'focus on theism instead of "god"' that's misguided and you or somebody smarter than us both, Smith, – like @Gnomon or @Wayfarer or @Gregory or @Sam26 – can explain it to me/us. :point: