How do you tell the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?

[AndrésC64]

[jshm2]

Undetectable means you know that there is a quantity detectable, but isn't - which seems like an oxymoron but isn't.

For example, one of our clients produces machines which detect viral loads like HIV in patients. If there is a low viral load then it's undetectable and deemed safe.

But doesn't mean the patient doesn't have HIV. It means the patient isn't likely to infect. But if it's critical then other tests need to be done to determine if they have HIV or not.

The non-existent on the other hand is something the Arabs consolidated when they invented the concept of zero. For example, there are zero Starship enterprises in your room right now. It doesn't mean you don't know what it looks like, but that there are zero existing in the place you are thinking of.

[AndrésC64]

So how do you tell the difference between a god that is undetectable and a god that doesn't exist? You can't. So a God that is undetectable might as well not exist.

[anylolone]

Technically you can't.

What you actually can do is test a model's predictive power.

Think QCD, the model uses virtual particles that no physicist believes exist.
So, do they exist? Are they just a math trick?
Because they are technically non-observables.

[AndrésC64]

But we do know that quantum particles exist, through experiments at such places like the LHC.

[anylolone]

Yes, but in the same way we know the existence of a lot of quantum particles, we also know about the existence of virtual particles (IE, they make the math work), but still, most physicists believe in the existence of those very short lived particles, but not virtual particles.

One group is seen as reality, another as a math trick.

[AndrésC64]

But it's not just the math that makes virtual particles work real.

"Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics."

www.scientificamerican.com/.../

[anylolone]

That's one director vs basically everyone who worked on the manhattam project.
(I'm not going to count feyman because for him, basically everything was a trick)

Don't try to deflect from the point. Specially since if you believe they are real, then you have to reject relativity, yet they are literally built from relativity.

[NathanDavis]

adjust the parameters for "margin of error" ? lol

[AndrésC64]

What do you mean? If it can't be detected, it can't be detected.

[NathanDavis]

I just choose to not see it that way...

in order to be categorized as undetectable, we first have to know that it exists and we would know that it exists because we can detect the influence or effects of something that exists but we cannot YET detect, lmao...

like quarks

as for the non-existent... if it does not exist, then it is not even in our minds, once it makes it to our minds then we made up... and then it does indeed EXIST, but it exists as something made up

[AndrésC64]

Quarks are a good example, or the Higgs boson. We don't say that something exists until we can detect it. But billions of people on earth claim that god (s) exist, yet they are undetectable. How can they make a claim about the existence of something that is undetectable?

[NathanDavis]

well... that's why they go with the metaphysical, you know... god can very well exists in your heart, and "as a verb"

god is love... it's just going with by the semantics, lol...

they do have their own definition of "exist"

and given the fact that the notion of "existing" has also been changing for science from time to time, we'll never really know for damned sure, at least not for now

after all, I'm agnostic... not really a, theist... or an atheist

[AndrésC64]

Not to nitpick, but agnostic isn't a third option between theist and atheist. One either believes, and is a theist, or one does not believe, and is an atheist. "I don't know" is not an answer to a question about belief. Beliefs is binary, "yes" or "no".

[NathanDavis]

yes, in a way it is like that...

I rather not believe for or against, because I really don't know

many think it is a position to refuse and commit but... I don't need to believe and I don't need to know

like I've always said, if god truly exists and it is a great as a god is, then he won't mind it that I had a doubt... lol, or questions

he'll know my true great better than anyone, which is the good in me... what most gods expect from a human, right?

[AndrésC64]

The reason people think that it's a position to refuse to commit is because it is. "I don't know" is not an answer to the question of whether you believe something or not. Unless you're trying to tell me that it's possible that you believe something and simply aren't aware of it.

[NathanDavis]

"I don't know" it is very much a valid answer to the question "do you believe God exists or not"

unless you are trying to force people to take an absolute and extreme and very simplistic answer to perhaps the very MOST complex, intricate, complicated and abstract question of all times

nobody should be forced to limit themselves to just two simple answers and no other...

now, if you were to ask me do I believe in gods... well, to me, is not a matter of belief, I don't go with belief or faith I do tend, for the most part to see things in a very different way

in the other hand, being myself a very smart person... and the more I know and the more I understand about science and all it is complexity the more I can FEEL (these are feelings) overwhelmed by all of it and it's INCREDIBLE nature which it starts to turn to "innatural" way too fantastic, well beyond any understanding capability I could ever have or achieve, is this sound familiar now? the more I would lean to take a "scientific" approach to all that exists, the closer I can FEEL to the idea of "there has to be a God"

as you see, it is not simple at all... lmao

when I say I don't know, is because I really don't know... and I can only be honest about my ignorance for I am only and merely human

[AndrésC64]

The only way I don't know is inappropriate answer to one about belief is If you are claiming
That it's possible to believe something but not be aware of it.

Let's try this,

1) Make a list of each and every God in which you believe.
2) Count the number of names on the list.

If N = 0, Then you are an atheist
If N >= 1, Then you are a theist

There are no other possibilities.

[NathanDavis]

I don't agree with that...

Theists do believe in god and dedicate great part of their lives to their faith

Atheists do not believe in gods and spent great time of their lives going against god and people's faith in gods

I am agnostic, and that means I just stay away from either of those takes... because I do not about either to be true or false, so I do not invest myself on trying to be wrong or right about either, without actually ignoring both

[AndrésC64]

You can disagree all you want. But you are wrong. How many names are on your list of gods in which you believe?

[NathanDavis]

I am wrong to you... because that is what you have decided for yourself

that's not me being wrong... that is just you disagreeing with my point of view, lol

there is no wrong or right about these because there are no definitive answers for this

only points of view... and then they do differ, that's all... which is fine with me, by the way

[AndrésC64]

No. There is a right and wrong. And you are wrong. Answer my question. How many names are on the list of gods in which you believe?

[NathanDavis]

right and wrong is subjective... and a matter of perspective

you're smart enough to realize that... at this point you just don't want to because for some reason you're just way too invested on this, lol

and that is fine with me, if it suits you then go ahead, choose to believe that I am wrong if it is convenient, again... to you...

[AndrésC64]

No. We aren't talking about right and wrong. We are talking about logic and definitions. A theist is someone who believes in god (s). An atheist is someone who does not have that belief. Again, belief is binary. You either DO believe, or you DO NOT believe. There are no other possibilities. Again, unless you're going to tell me that it's possible that you believe in Zeus but just aren't aware of it. That is the very nature of something that is binary. It's like being pregnant. You either ARE, or you ARE NOT. That is how logic works

[NathanDavis]

logic and religion do not go together...

you wanting to make it or force it that way is just not going to work

if you are against gods, you will make it about logic

if you are with the gods, you will make it about belief

logic and belief just won't go together... and can only clash for ever and ever

and like I said, I am on neither side of this... and I do not have any need to take one side or the other

[AndrésC64]

Okay, we're making a little bit of progress. We both agree that religion and logic are incompatible.

I'm not trying to force anything other than trying to get you to be logical. You either believe, or you do not believe. That is based on the very fundamental laws of logic.

a) The law of (non-) contradiction: A cannot be A and not-A at the same time. What this means is that a statement cannot be true and false at the same time. For instance, it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time.

b) The law of identity: everything is what it is. A is A, that is, identical with A. A=A. If any statement is true, then it is true.

c) The law of the excluded middle: A is either A or not A. A cannot equal non A or be non A.

Again I ask, how many names are on the list of gods in which you believe? It's really a very simple question.

[NathanDavis]

I'm agnostic... not a theist

[AndrésC64]

Agnostic says nothing about what you believe. How hard is that for you to understand? Do you not know whether you believe in Zeus? Thor? Tlaloc? Brahma? Xenu? Odin?

[NathanDavis]

I believe in my limited capabilities to understand the BIGGEST questions... but I do not make a religion out of that, nor a god or savior

[AndrésC64]

Stop dodging a simple yes or no questions. Do you believe in Zeus? Thor? Tlalok, Xenu? Odin?

[NathanDavis]

will you actually go through all of the different 9000 or so, gods out there... it could take a while, lol

[AndrésC64]

And yet you haven't answered one. What seems to be the problem? Or better yet, why do I need to ask you if you believe in zeus? Don't you know whether you believe in zeus? Do believe in zeus, why don't you just tell me. Why don't you just tell me whether you be leaving any god (s)? The reason you don't answer my questions is because you know that as soon as you do you will be proven wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the number of gods you believe in to be anything other than 0, or >= 1. So which is it, 0, or >= 1?

[NathanDavis]

I'm not wrong... I'm just not as bothered and invested as you are

[AndrésC64]

You may not be as bothered and invested, but you are also wrong. That's why you refuse to answer any of my questions. Because you know that it will prove you to be wrong.

[NathanDavis]

or... you only accept two possible and enforced answers...

because those are convenient to your particular bias on this matter

I said matter... that's funny

[NathanDavis]

and it is funny, because it is a round-around to my very first comment and your actual question...

matter does exist or not, it is detectable or not (as in quirks) to us... based on the parameters and margins of error

and that, is hilarious

[NathanDavis]

quarks, not quirks... I was thinking of Sheldon there

[AndrésC64]

Damn, you are dumb. How can it be this difficult for you to understand? The "switch" for belief is either ON, or it's NOT ON. That is following the most basic rule of logic that there is. But apparently it's still too much for you.

[NathanDavis]

the dumb thing to do is to narrow yourself and your mindset to fallacy posing as "basic logic" and then to try to simply the most complex of subjects reducing it to a mere "yes or no" question

that, would be dumb to do... and it's not me the one doing so

[AndrésC64]

As I have stated repeatedly, I'm not limiting myself to anything. I'm perfectly open to examining any evidence anyone has. The dumb thing to do is ignore logic and logical fallacies, and dodge very simple yes or no questions.

If I were to ask you whether you believed in Santa Claus or not, would you be confused about that question too?

[NathanDavis]

which Santa though... the real one, or the Coca~Cola one?

[AndrésC64]

Either? Still confused? Still confused?

[NathanDavis]

well, it is self-explanatory...

you should not be confused at all

[Guardian45]

Undetectable means below the level of perception.
Non-existent means zero incidences.
Its an extremely subtle and usually irrelevant distinction.

[AndrésC64]

I know that that may be the technical definition. But in reality how do you tell the difference? If you can't detect it what makes it different than something that simply doesn't exist?

[Guardian45]

Exactly! Usually, realistically no difference.

[AndrésC64]

And now I'm waiting for a theist to try to explain the difference.