This expression is contingent upon the fact that we assume that no being would have the necessary full knowledge to design such a system. I agree that no being outside of an omnipresent omniscient observer would.
So you concede that it is probable (even if to the most minimal degree)?
No, I concede that it is theoretically possible, but it is maximally improbable. I don’t want to fly in a plan that is theoretically airworthy.
That is a contingent statement based on so many variables, not an essential statement.
Again, you use the word objective. I do not think that you know what that fully encompasses…
Only when you tie it to a modal system (mathematics). That’s the point of statistical analysis.
But any plane that is 100% theoretically possible is at least probable to a minimal degree.
Possibility and probability are both low that a plane without testing will be safe. In any case that something is possible based on insufficient data to show that it’s impossible really says nothing about how probable the thing is.
It is possible that the proverbial teacup is orbiting the sun out beyond the orbit of Pluto, based only on the fact that we can’t examine every square foot of space out there to prove that it isn’t. But it is so unlikely that probability shouldn’t even be part of the discussion.
(Last comment for today)
But even if probability is low, it still could be given a sufficient person who could construct it.
The teacup example is a false equivalence as the teacup hasn’t been shown to be 100% theoretically possible.
It’s an analogous comparison, the word imaginary is key. We can produce logically consistent arguments for imaginary things, deities for example. Analogies will always have variables, this doesn’t negate the similarity used or it’s significance.
Teacups are 100% objectively and nomologically possible, I have one in my hand right now? We can demonstrate offices where they are designed, and factories where they are manufactured, it’s objectively and nomologically possible for them to exist in space.
It’s just an example of an unfalsifiable claim, also this is an analogous comparison, so not a false equivalence as they are not being claimed to be equal, like your false equivalence, where you asserted that god = objective reality, then added some arbitrary question begging to define a deity in certain ways, ignoring the fact that there were fundamental differences as well, thus not equal.
Comparing tow things need not be a false equivalence, literally asserting two things are equal, as you did, when they clearly are not, is a false equivalence.
I think I’ll ask the mods to change your username to missdapoint.
The fact remains logical arguments are not superior to empirically validated evidence if one’s conclusions must reliably reflect objective reality.
Nope, missdapoint again…
Empirical data has already enabled planes that can fly, even without this desperate moving of the goal posts.
This bare claim is not superior to a method that can already construct planes that will fly…QED…
Do I really have to spell it out for you? Without empirical data, there would have been no electromagnetic theory, no quantum mechanics, no radio, no TV, no computers, no smartphones, no Internet, no discussion foras, no GPS, etc. Both electromagnetism and quantum mechanics have empirical observations at the bottom. Without empirical observations showing mysterious behaviour involving magnets, electrochemical potentials, etc. you cannot deduce Maxwells equations. And without having observed the mysterious way light behaves both according to a wave model and a corpuscular model, there would be no incentive to explore the avenues that eventually end up giving important input to quantum mechanics. You couldn’t have known about the negative charge of electrons without J.J. Thompsons experiments. And even if you favoured atoms on a philosophical level, you could not have foreseen Rutherford’s result on the atomic nucleus. All modern physics is based on empirical observations in some way or another. Physics theory builds on top of those observations. And if you deduce a theoretical framework that does not fit empirical data, it will for practical purposes be worthless, although it might have some rest value as an exercise in model building.
TL;DR: You cannot force fit empirical data to support a faulty theory, but empirical data decides whether a theoretical construct is correct or not. Thus: Shit in, shit out. Empirical data is king.
Pay close attention here: Only if your assumptions are correct. And you get your assumptions from observing reality, i.e. from empirical data. Shit in, shit out. Empirical data is king.
Exactly. It does not tell us anything about reality because the assumptions it makes do not reflect reality. Shit in, shit out. Empirical data is king.
Edit: minor adjustments.
Meh. Russel’s teapot is indeed 100% theoretically possible. It could have been put there in secret in the early stages of the space race. Or put there by Nazi scientists during WW2. Or it could have been put there by an alien species a long time ago. Or it could have spontaneously been assembled through natural processes. But the probability of that is, of course, vanishingly small. But not impossible.
You can’t cure or eradicate a disease, or build a plane or any technology without it, so you’re talking nonsense, despite the bullish and hubristic delivery, and despite tacking words like logic onto your religious spiel, you’re still ultimately peddling unevidenced magic.
Objective reality = objective reality, and the best method to objectively test and evidence it, uses objectively verifiable and testable (see falsifiable) empirical data, none of which has any apologist ever done for any deity or the woo woo pseudoscience of panpsychism.
Don’t get me wrong, you are free to believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but don’t bring your toys here and expect anything but doubt about your claims, we’ve seen them all before.
Like Godel’s ontological argument then. Since it makes unevidenced assumptions in its premises that amount to question begging.
Again this is a widely levelled criticism of that argument, so our friend will need something more than his own biased hubris in favour of theistic belief to convince most people here the argument has any merit.
A faulty analogy. You are comparing a proposed contingent reality to a proposed essential reality.
In the same manner, deities are at best necessarily contingent. They are not essential in themselves. You keep conflating God (a proposed essential reality) with deity (a proposed contingent reality). They are not the same.
Teacups are 100% objectively and nomologically possible contingent to the area and dimensions that they occupy. Teacups are not 100% objectively and nomologically possible essentially to all areas and dimensions. A teacup possesses only contingent, not essential, nomological possibility: it can exist under specific spatial-temporal and physical constraints, but there is no necessity that it could exist in all possible domains of space-time.
Teacups are 100% objectively and nomologically possible contingent to the area and dimensions that they occupy. Teacups are not 100% objectively and nomologically possible essentially to all areas and dimensions. A teacup possesses only contingent, not essential, nomological possibility: it can exist under specific spatial-temporal and physical constraints, but there is no necessity that it could exist in all possible domains of space-time.
No. The Banach–Tarski Paradox concerns the mathematics of sets, geometry, measure theory. Godel’s OA concerns modal metaphysics, logic, and analytic theology. Godel’s OA is a proposed essential whereas the Banach–Tarski Paradox is a proposed contingent.
Banach–Tarski proposes no metaphysics, doesn’t posit any new objects, and paradox arises from measure theory and non-measurable sets, not from metaphysical claims. Gödel OA is metaphysical, concerns essential properties, and is an ontological (metaphysical) argument encased in formal logic.
Banach–Tarski is Model-Relative, but Gödel’s OA claims reality.
Banach–Tarski’s result:
“If Euclidean space = a mathematical continuum AND AC is true, THEN paradoxical decompositions exist.”
This is model-relative. It does not assert that:
actual physical space is a continuum
AC is a feature of physical space
non-measurable sets physically exist
Thus, no physical claim follows.
Gödel’s argument:
“If the axioms of positive properties are true, THEN a maximally great being exists necessarily in all possible worlds.”
This is world-relative, not model-relative. Its conclusion, if accepted, is not:
“Inside this formal system, a Godlike being exists.”
Instead, it aims for:
“A Godlike being exists in reality (because reality is a possible world).”
Goal posts ahoy…
Subjective opinion ahoy…
Just skip all this nonsense and say “a deity exists because I think it does”, and have done with it.
I don’t believe your unevidenced subjective claim. Do you really imagine you can simply repeat these claims and skip past where we insist you demonstrate them objectively.
Wrong ding ding ding, I am an atheist, I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, the only thing I can compare them to is other imaginary things, and only in that context, as there is no objective evidence they exist outside the human imagination.
Oh why didn’t you say so, all I needed was your bare unevidenced assertion. 
This might sink in at some point, but your unevidenced subjective opinion isn’t going to cut it here.
Ah, be a dear and examine every inch of space in the analogous unfalsifiable argument for us, and then demonstrate you have done this, I may have mentioned, your bare assertions are not going to swing it for me.
Straw man fallacy.
Like buses….
I never said they were the same see, like does not mean equal to.
When will you be demonstrating that? Oh and if they were true, you’d not need the argument of course, what a pickle.
Again this is subjectively defining a deity, in a vague and unevidenced fashion, it amounts to question begging, in order to define a deity into existence, and again were this true, the argument would be largely moot anyway.
Seriously 3 posts a day, are you really going to use them all to needlessly repeat the unevidenced subjective claims, and Godel’s failed argument, that you started with?
At what point will you recognise repetition is meaningless if the core objections are not addressed with something more than handwaving and semantics.
Rhetorical at the end there…
I don’t / won’t accept your bare claim that any deity is a necessary or essential being, you would need to objectively demonstrate that else I must disbelieve the claim in the premises, and the argument is then not sound.
He is allowed 5 posts I think Shelley. Cyber is an experienced and generous mod.
That they are all going to be reiteration of his utterly fanciful and unevidenced assertions is, by past experience an odds on bet.
Edit: to make bet odds realistic.
If a teapot somehow was naturally assembled (by whatever freak processes) as an atom by atom clone of a teapot made by humans on earth, they would — by the principle of identical/indistinguishable particles — be indistinguishable. Thus, the naturally assembled teapot circling a random star somewhere in the galaxy would be an actual teapot. It naturally couldn’t currently be used by any of us for serving tea, due to the difficulties involved in retrieveing it. But IF it could be retrieved and put to use, there was no way you could figure out it was not a teapot of earthly origin. Whether this teapot is necessary or unnecessary or essential or nonessential or whatever random (and, quite frankly, irrelevant to me) philosophical label you care to slap onto it, it could theoretically happen that such an object existed. The probability would be tiny or negligible, but not zero. And if it exists, it would be a teapot, as it is an atom by atom clone of one. And you couldn’t figure out which is which.
What’s hilarious here, is that we know teapots exists as an objective fact, yet this is being qualified in order to deny an unfalsifiable claim about them, while he is simultaneously asserting without any evidence at all a raft of claims about deities / a deity.
I have said it before and I will say it again, apologists are irony impaired.
You can’t cure or eradicate a disease or build a plane or any technology without the foundational modal systems upon which you assume your observations on. If anything, it is hubris and nonsense to think that empiricism is self-justifying system unto itself.
Again, there is no claim being made for a subjective deity here, Sheldon.