CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A predicate logic lesson for atheists:
"I do not believe that God is real." "I believe that God is not real." They are the same thing.
In predicate logic form, the former reads as followed: ~(Rg)
In predicate logic form, the latter reads as followed: (~Rg)
If you apply the negation to the former, then it reads as followed: (~Rg)
They are the same thing.
From now on, if you say that they are not the same thing, then you will be considered ignorant, illogical, or stubborn.
I sincerely don't agree. One is an active position, one is not. I also don't understand how you don't see that, but am willing to listen to your reasoning and explain mine as best it can be explained if you are going to listen as well.
The problem is, both of these statements do not have a uniquivocal translation into predicate logic.
The problem is with the word "beleive". It is not a variable, and cannot be treated as a predicate either, on its own. The predicate will have to be P = "believes in God". But you cannot get inside it, when doing the negation. The negation will just be ~P ("does not beleive in God").
If you want to interpret "belief" on its own, apart from the object of belief, than I guess you need to use the relation: B(P,E(G)) = Person "P" believes in the existance God.
E is the predicate meaning "existance".
The rangespace of B will be boolean, rangespace of P is the set of existing "people".
The negation of B will be another relation, ~B(P,E(G)). It is not equivalent to B(P,~E(G)).
To prove that they are not equivalent, I just have to provide one example.
And the example is:
If a person does not beleive in anything, then, he does not beleive that God is either real, or not real.
1. OK, I now understand that belief here is actually a dyadic predicate:
B(P,S),
where P is the believing person
and S is the statement in which he believes.
And it therefore belongs to second order predicate logic.
If E is the existence predicate, then your statement translates to the following:
((~B(P,E(G)) AND B(P,~E(G))) OR ((B(P,E(G)) AND ~B(P,~E(G))). Now how can you prove that, using only second level logic terms, and not referring to the meaning of B?
2. If I don't believe Snark is real , that doesn't mean I believe Snark is not real.
Do you believe in the White Queen? or LKADJfhgfjdk?
You're misunderstanding the issue entirely and are not making real logical formulations (or at least the ones that I learned). Premise 1: God is real. Premise 2: God is not real. One intrinsically must take up, or believe, a position, whether positive or negative.
If I don't believe Snark is real , that doesn't mean I believe Snark is not real.
Do you believe in the White Queen? or LKADJfhgfjdk?
I do not believe them to be real, which means I believe to not be real.
I only translated your initial statements, into predicate logic form.
Since, semantically, belief means there's a believer and the object of belief (statement), then belief translates from natural language, into a dyadic predicate.
For example, I believe that perestroika in Russia was a result of master- of -puppets technology, used by the former KGB in cooperation with the CIA.
This is the statement S, and let's use the variable P to represent me.
Then my particular belief translates into: B(P,S).
If we are talking about belief in the existence of God, then we also need to use a predicate to represent existence. If the object is X, then its existence translates into E(X), its non - existence into ~E(X).
So, putting all this together, the statement "Person P believes in the existence of God" translates into:
B(P,E(G)), where G stands for the object we refer to as God.
It's negation is: ~B(P,E(G)).
When a person believes in non - existence of God, this translates to: B(P,~E(G)).
Now, what you're implying is that those two formulas are equivalent:
~B(P,E(G)) is equivalent to B(P,~E(G)).
Since I cannot use quantor symbols on this forum, I used AND and OR, to mean just that: logical AND and OR.
Equivalence of S1 and S2, in predicate logic, is by definition (S1 AND S2) OR (~S1 AND ~S2).
So, your main statement translates to:
(~B(P,E(G)) AND B(P,~E(G))) OR (B(P,E(G)) AND B(P,~E(G))) (1)
So far, can you point to a wrong logical formulation?
Anyway, in predicate logic, there is no way to prove or disprove the above formula, without introducing additional statements.
In your case, the statement you (unknowingly) introduce, is:
One intrinsically must take up, or believe, a position, whether positive or negative. This translates to:
(B(P,S) AND ~B(P,~S)) OR (~(B(P,S) AND B(P,~S)) (2)
You either believe something is true, or you don't believe it's untrue.
And yes, if (2) is true, then (1) can be proved in predicate logic.
But you haven't proved (2) to be true, its based on you personal opinion
There is no way to prove or disprove it in predicate logic.
It's just a statement you've introduced, based on your understanding of the semantics of "belief".
In fact, there has already been a good argument in this debate, which proves that (2) is not true:
If a person P does not know anything about the object M, then he doesn't believe it to be real, but doesn't believe it not to be real, either. So, it is natural to assume that the statement:
"There exists a person P1, and an object M, for which:
~B(P1,E(M) AND ~B(P1,~E(M))", is true in our world.
This means that your statement (2) is false.
And that returns us to the situation, when you cannot either prove, or disprove statement (1), in predicate logic.
It is completely different. Believe is simply the notion of the undertaking of a variable/premise. For a dead person it is a completely different concept.
What you are saying is true of bi-valued logical systems. But you are applying such a bi-valued system to a situation that is not bi-valued. Negation of theism does not imply that one believes in non-existence. There is a difference between saying that 'I don't believe in God' and saying that 'I believe God doesn't exist'.
The latter is a metaphysical claim about the nature of God. The former is the statement that one hasn't been convinced that God exists. To say that one hasn't been convinced that God exists, is not the same as saying that God doesn't exist. If you want to apply predicate logic you will see that the position of the negation is the crucial point here. Atheism negates belief, not existence.
To say that negation of belief (i.e. I don't believe in God) is equal to negation of existence (I believe God doesn't exist) is simply wrong.
This is untrue. Both sides of the coin, "I do not believe that God exists" and "I do not believe that God does not exist", would be so for someone; however, simply because one has not been convinced of X does not mean that they do not intrinsically hold to X (know or being convinced of something, and believe should not be equivocated here). Believe is simply the undertaking of a variable, while everyone undertakes one variable or the other, whether positive of negative: God exists or God does not exist. Atheism, therefore, negates the belief, which negates the positive position being believed, which means that one intrinsically must believe the other one: "I believe that God does not exist".
God either exists or does not exist; there is no in-between. One either believes that God exists or believes that God does not exist, whether that belief is backed up with evidence or not, which means regardless of whether one is actively or passively holding to the opinion. Therefore, if one does not believe X, then one is saying that they do not believe the positive position of X. If one does not believe the positive position of X, then one must intrinsically hold to the position of the negation of X. It is straight forward illogical and impractical and impossible for one to not hold to not hold to one belief or the other.
One either believes that God exists or believes that God does not exist
Just not true. I may believe that God is neither real or unreal. There is nothing illogical about it; the idea that I should decide simply doesn't occur to me, because both propositions appear impossible to infer to me.
It is straight forward illogical and impractical and impossible for one to not hold to not hold to one belief or the other.
Sure, when I lie in my bed at night trying to sleep I may feel inclined to believe that God doesn't exist, but when I am discussing this topic I actively put myself in this position called atheism. For all practical purposes you have to listen to what people are saying; assuming you have completely knowledge about their mental attitudes just makes you a douche bag.
God either exists or does not exist; there is no in-between.
Well, that's just like your opinion, man. Basically everybody accepts that there is a third position called unknown. God's existence is either true, false or unknown.
There, I made it simple for you to understand Quocalimar.
They are the same within logic. There is no escaping this, it is impossible. The value (the belief or not belief in X, Y, Z) still stands. You're being picky for no reason other than your own.
We took a long path to get to the conclusion that disbelief in one thing is not belief in the one thing's opposite. So I hate to say this, but this argument is a lost cause, my explanations are wasted on you all, and your explanations are wasted on me.
If you do not believe God exists, then you surely believe God does not exist.
This debate at hand is hardly questioning the value of disbelief and belief.
This debate inevitable speaks loudly that if a person has no belief in anything, they surely believe something doesn't exist.
Where is my proof? You, me, everyone.
Like I've said before, human beings are strictly species of belief and disbelief, yet the root word and context IS BELIEF, not DISBELIEF < - - - this is my fucking proof. This proof is undeniable. This is the proof and if you deny, then you still BELIEVE that you are right. And so, there it is.
None inactive, it is negative, true inactivity is to have never heard of the belief. Think of an animal or baby, they have true inactivity in belief because they cannot formulate opinions on the matter and are therefore not having another active stance.
That is exactly my point. If never having the knowledge of any existence to not have to believe it, then you would never need to believe it's non existence. That is exactly the case with people who don't believe. They just don't believe since if the idea had never been presented believing would have never been an option.
You finally say it. They disbelieve in him, not believe he doesn't exist. For them to believe he doesn't exist would require proof of his potential existence or nonexistence in the first place.
Yeah, but those people are not atheists because they have no negative position because the argument has never been presented. They neither believe in religion either, better put it is a state where the individual has no idea either arguments exist. That is like a baby, can you call a baby an atheist?
Are you trying to change the definition of atheism? It is defined as not having a belief in God. If you never heard the idea of God, for instance a baby, a foreigner, someone with literally no senses at all, you are an atheist. Yet none of those people belief he doesn't exist. They don't believe he exists. A dead person does not believe anything that does not mean a dead person believes the opposite of anything. I don't see your argument at all as valid.
What about animals, are they considered atheists because they have a neutral position. I am arguing that atheism is not an expression of neutrality, but one of negative assertion.
No, animals are not atheists they are apathiests. An atheist is anyone that does not believe in a deity. You are confusing the negative position as having to believe the opposite.
-The negative position is not believing.
-The positive position is believing.
-Then the neutral position is not knowing, and admitting that, or not caring, apatheism.
His roadblock is a generic misunderstanding of how atheism and terms like agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Amazing that he ended our discussion after being explained all this and yet is elsewhere raising the same contentions.
I never ended our discussion, even after reading up on your perspective on the flavours of atheism the argument remains the same. Explain to me how an opinion cannot be a belief.
I did explain it to you. For one, it isn't my opinion that I don't believe in god it's a fact. Two, because atheism is not mutually exclusive to terms like agnosticism there is more than one way to fulfill the atheist position just as there is more than one way to not run fast( not running at all, running slowly). The only way your contention can remain the same is if you disregard this and continue to use your incorrect understanding of these important terms.
Leave it to an atheist to say something is fact only because it is. I do understand the terms, but they do not change the fact that a stance is an opinion.
Leave it to an atheist to say something is fact only because it is.
Pardon? It is a fact that I don't believe in god. Your ill-supported argument is that my position necessitates affirmative disbelief. I have presented to you exactly how that is not the case, and instead of addressing the content of my argument and showing that you actually do understand these terms(which at this point is painfully obvious to not be the case) you fall back on this weak generalization very lacking in substance and relevance.
do not change the fact that a stance is an opinion
My stance is that an American school bus is yellow. Is that an opinion? And again, one final attempt to get you to understand the very simple breakdown of your failed argument's logic:
"I am running fast"- I am running fast, with no other variable
"I am not running fast" - I could be running slowly, or not at all.
Apply these to the atheist label:
"I believe in god" - Easy enough
"I do not believe in god"- Affirmative disbelieve(gnostic atheism), neutrality on the assertion( agnostic atheism), refusal to even regard the question(ignostic atheism), lack of care to address the question(apathetic atheism).
Oh, well I thought you were saying that God is not real, that is a fact. My bad and I am sorry for that.
I have presented to you exactly how that is not the case, and instead of addressing the content of my argument and showing that you actually do understand these terms(which at this point is painfully obvious to not be the case) you fall back on this weak generalization very lacking in substance and relevance.
I have argued against you on it, by saying an affirmative position is an opinion. A lack there of is just apatheism, i.e. you have not given much thought on it and therefore have no stance.
My stance is that an American school bus is yellow. Is that an opinion?
No it is not an opinion but since we are talking about opinions it is irrelevant.
"I am running fast"- I am running fast, with no other variable
"I am not running fast" - I could be running slowly, or not at all.
The third makes no sense, if you wanted to say you were not running this is what would be said: I am not running. If no speed is present then fast cannot be used. In other words, if someone is moving at 0 kilometres an hour then there speed is just zero- it is neither negative or positive which is the physics equivalent of describing speed. You cannot put a description on nothing besides nothing.
"I do not believe in god"- Affirmative disbelieve(gnostic atheism), neutrality on the assertion( agnostic atheism), refusal to even regard the question(ignostic atheism), lack of care to address the question(apathetic atheism).
Affirmative disbelief- you are running slowly.
You= pronoun. running=belief? Slowly=description of belief. The affirmative disbelief lines up and is in conjunction with the positive action of running. If you have an affirmative disbelief in God and it is dependent upon another belief then it is essentially a belief. Like how you running slowly is you running; the only difference is that it is a different flavour of running. I know you understand ontological value and all I have to say is that they both ARE.
Neutrality on an assertion is you being an apatheist, not an agnostic atheist. Let me show you neutrality on an assertion.
A: This band is so awesome.
B: I am not sure if this band is awesome or not.
Agnostic atheist now: don't believe this band is awesome but I have not really listened to them that much so I won't say anything to A.
If you refuse to regard a question how can you express belief or disbelief?
A: do you think I left the lights on?
B:shrugs
Se what I did there?
You can't care to not adress the question and be an atheist. The question was already adressed.
Is a form of atheism. Apathy towards a theistic claim.
No it is not an opinion but since we are talking about opinions it is irrelevant.
My lack of belief isn't an opinion, it is a fact that I am an agnostic atheist.
The third makes no sense, if you wanted to say you were not running this is what would be said: I am not running
The pragmatic response makes no difference. We are talking about a logical deconstruction. In a conversation yes, you probably would specify the exact nature or your activity. But that doesn't change that the intrinsic implication of the statement, "I am not running fast" doesn't exclude both the action of running slowly and not running at all.
someone is moving at 0 kilometres an hour then there speed is just zero
And thus not running fast........
You cannot put a description on nothing besides nothing.
Stationary, static, ect....
Neutrality on an assertion is you being an apatheist, not an agnostic atheist. Let me show you neutrality on an assertion.
Apatheism is lack of care for the question of the existence of a diety. I care about the question, hence I identify as an agnostic athiest.
You can't care to not adress the question and be an atheist. The question was already adressed.
But an assertion was not made and care was not applied. Apatheism.
Is a form of atheism. Apathy towards a theistic claim.
Apathy towards a claim does not constitute disbelief towards the claim.
A: What do you think about the new democratic president, Barack Obama.
B: Who the hell cares about Barack Obama?
My lack of belief isn't an opinion, it is a fact that I am an agnostic atheist.
It is a fact you have an opinion, the opinion you have isn't a fact. That is all I am trying to say.
But that doesn't change that the intrinsic implication of the statement, "I am not running fast" doesn't exclude both the action of running slowly and not running at all.
I already spoke about the intrinsic implications. Adding the third meaning is too much a stretch to make a proper implication. I said that there is no possible way we can use words of speed to describe no speed.
And thus not running fast........
The bulk of the argument was avoided as to why this is impossible.
Stationary, static, ect...
These all suggest inaction and when used properly are synonyms of nothing.
Apatheism is lack of care for the question of the existence of a diety. I care about the question, hence I identify as an agnostic athiest.
I was not talking about you, I was saying in general that an apatheist is not an atheist.
But an assertion was not made and care was not applied. Apatheism.
Which is not atheism because an assertion of disbelief was not made.
Apathy towards a claim does not constitute disbelief towards the claim.
No, but apatheism specifically is a lack of belief brought about by lack if care for addressing the question.
It is a fact you have an opinion, the opinion you have isn't a fact. That is all I am trying to say.
Wrongly so. My lack of assertion is not an opinion.
I already spoke about the intrinsic implications
Wrongly so, you used the pragmatic application as if it superseded the actual instrinsic implication.
Adding the third meaning is too much a stretch to make a proper implication
A third meaning isn't added, there are 2 possible implications to the statement "I am not running fast".
I said that there is no possible way we can use words of speed to describe no speed.
Which is wrong, we describe the lack of motion when discussing things like Absolute Zero(the cessation of molecular motion and thus the cessation of speed) and quantamn.
These all suggest inaction and when used properly are synonyms of nothing.
They describe the lack of running. Lack of running neccessarly means lack of running fast.
I was saying in general that an apatheist is not an atheist
Apathy- without care
Atheism- without belief in a diety
Apatheism- describes atheism with the specific foundation of not caring about the question of theistic propositions.
Which is not atheism because an assertion of disbelief was not made.
An atheist is one who lacks a belief in god. If the athiest lacks a belief to due just not caring to intelectually address the question, he is an apatheist.
The baby neither knows or admits then, so the baby is an apatheist which is true disbelief in anything.
Yes my apologies.
The negative and positive positions excercise belief.
This is true if the positive position is I believe. While the negative position is I believe not.
Why is it so offensive to atheists when people say they believe?
It's not that it's offensive it's that it wrongs. A theist believes. An atheist doesn't believe.
If atheists were to try to use your logic, they would say "I do not believe God exists" while theists would say "I do not believe God does not exist" that is backwards logic. One is believe, one is not believe. Not believe is not the same as believe the opposite.
I have no problem with the bottom logic, except for on the theist part a double negative is being used. It isn't really backwards. Double negatives negate each other so the theist essentially says he is in belief of God, which is positive.
By your logic though both those would fall under the same category of not believing.
So now you admit to it. If not for it being improper as far as English goes that is how it would be said. Atheists don't believe, while theists don't not believe.
I never admitted to it but you just pointed out that no matter how the sentence is said, the meaning is kept. So saying theists don't not believe is like saying they do believe. Saying atheists don't believe is like saying they believe it is not.
I have no problem with the bottom logic, except for on the theist part a double negative is being used
That sounds like an agreeing statement to me. You have mo problem with the logic, just the way it's worded. You don't admit that it's wrong, but I'm sure you know if it was presented to any unbiased ear, or eye, they would agree it's wrong.
Okay, fair enough I suppose. However the entire dead man argument should be thrown out the window since neither can state whether or not dead people can feel.
No, it still shows that "I do not believe that God is real" is different from "I believe that God is not real." If you don't like a dead person being involved, then say the person just hasn't made up their mind about God.
Actually it is. The "I" shows a personal aspect to it. "Believe" is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise. Therefore, when one is talking about another person, then it could be taking away from the notion of the premise all together, which is what you have done here with the dead person. The dead person does not believe that God is real and he does not believe that God is not real: He doesn't do anything. It is a completely different notion than the personal aspect of "I" and is a straw man.
How about this? You ask a five year old, "Do you believe in Obamacare?" They say "No," because they don't know what Obamacare is. Does that mean they believe in the negation of Obamacare?
"Believe" here is being equivocated and changes the topic to a different one. Also, that "no" is the same stance as the dead person because the child does not have a belief in it or a belief against it. There is no belief in regards to it at all, neither the positive nor the negative.
People hold the stance that either God is real or that God is not real. There is no in between. Agnostic is holding the stance that they do not know; however, being agnostic is illogical, as demonstrated in the ontological argument, and still reverts into siding with the positive or the negative because one either believes in God or does not. Thats what I was saying that the example you gave was equivocation. No belief at all only applies to things that are not capable of holding the positive or the negative, which is to say someone being ignorant or dead or dumb or etc.
Just as a clarification, I changed the notion of "No belief at all only applies to things that are not capable of holding the positive or the negative, which is to say someone being ignorant or dead or dumb or etc." I now hold that even they, except for dead people, hold that a position that they do not believe is a positive belief of the negation.
Where no action is possible, such as with a dead person, lack of action cannot equal the active position. But where action is possible, such as with "I", it is not necessary that any given action be taken.
A person who has no knowledge of the topic of God can't be said to be an Atheist, neither do they believe in God.
One intrinsically either believes something or believes the negation of it. One either believes that Santa is real or believes that he is not real. Whether they have no knowledge of the issue or not, if one is personal, which is the topic and does not include dead people, then the person believes one or the other. Believe is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise. Therefore, if one does not have enough information, then one undertakes intrinsically the negation. Therefore, atheists believe that God is not real and they do not believe that God is real.
One either believes that Santa is real or believes that he is not real. Whether they have no knowledge of the issue or not
HAHA! Ask the bushman his position on Santa and he isn't going to have one.
Like I said in another post, logic is a tool that has limits. As far as a discussion of Atheists is concerned, your logical form seems applicable. There are situations where it isn't applicable.
Tell me something, do you believe that what I am currently thinking is true or false?
People don't function that way. There are countless things that I am not exposed to in the universe. I don't think they don't exist. I hold no position on them. If you assume that it isn't real because you have never heard of it, You undercut your logical foundation.
"Get outa here with your black swans! Those don't exist!"
One intrinsically holds a position with or without having heard of X.
You can keep saying that I hold a position about X, but it just isn't true. I haven't even heard of it. If I imagine X, I can hardly claim to be unfamiliar. There is no way to measure psychic morality.
"I do not believe that God is real." OR in other words "I believe that God is not real."
"I do not believe that I can fly." OR on other words "I believe that I cannot fly."
You're being very particular for no reason. Since, and because, both statements are getting the value (or point) across, coming to the same conclusion, I believe it does not matter which way either statement is said; it is obvious that the person does not believe that God is real.
Again, I believe this debate is unnecessary, and not informative. And I also do not believe that is debate is necessary, nor informative.
Well, at least you're saying they're practically the same.
I don't believe that John Jonathan was a great man. Why? Because I don't know who he was. That's different from believing that John Jonathan was not a great man. Maybe he was, but I have no belief one way or the other.
It is like you're assuming that no person "knows" God (in this debate question), therefore, one cannot establish nor distinguish, if they truly know any God (due to obvious reasons), further, because of this one ought to say "I have no belief either way." Am I correct?
As far as your example goes.
How many times tdo you say "That person is horrible, or this or that" without knowing the person? (create debate is hardly a place to "KNOW" anyone). You may not know a person yet I'm sure you've got judgement, nonetheless. People still have beliefs in X, Y, Z, regardless of whether they know a person, or not. If you deny my claims, you're in denial of reality. People have beliefs and claims for everything in this life. It's not to say each and every one of those claims and beliefs are true, though there is still a moral and ethos standard involved. Isn't there? People still have an internal "ethos compass" that which "guides" them this way or that.
You still must make a choice, whether it's going on this side or that, or in "the middle", you're still making a choice and a claim. The significance of this is that not one person that understands this can "ethically" claim that they "have no belief one way or the other.."
Are you taking the agnostic view with this particular question/debate at hand?
A human having no opinion is physically/psychologically impossible; humans always have an opinion, even when they say they have none.
"Assurity" only means belief, and neutrality means no belief in anything, which like I said, is not possible got a human. My evidence? Psychopaths, Sociopaths, normal people, and everything in between, there is always an agenda, there is always a belief, in one way or another. So claiming "nothing" is to claim that you're "trying" to be separated from humanity, which is impossible.
This is why the opposition of the debate OP makes no sense.
I was arguing with hodthemayo, not you, I am in total agreement with you. But you can sometimes not have an opinion on a specific topic until you have knowledge on it. Same with John Jonathan, he has no opinion because he has no knowledge on the topic. My point is, opinions are only present when knowledge is present.
I think your predicate logic is incorrect. Let B mean a belief, and R God being real. Not believing God is real, is like not (believing and real God), so ~(B^R). Believing God is not real is like B^~R. Since ~(B^R) is not the same as B^~R, these statements are different.
Believing is not a variable. It is the undertaking of a variable/premise. A problem arises with your forms: it assumes that one can not believe. This can only arise if dead, which takes away from the personal aspect of the premises and is, therefore, unequal to the situation. One intrinsically either believes that God is real or that He is not real because there is no in-between. Therefore, one cannot simply not believe the positive nor the negative of a variable or premise unless dead. An ignorant person, such as a child, would still be believing because it is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise.
However, if you want to say that it is, then the former logical formulation is incorrect: it is not in correct form and the form that you have it in assumes that (non)belief and variables are mutually exclusive, which they are not in accordance with the issue. It would have to read (using your symbols) like so: (~B^R). That would then translate to "not believing and real."
It would mean "not believing and Real god". He said what R stands for.
This is the crux of the matter. lolzors model only depicts Gods relation to reality. It is an improper model for discussing belief which is the variable in question. Cartman fixed it.
Whoever down voted me apparently didn't understand that when Cartman said: "I think your predicate logic is incorrect. Let B mean a belief, and R God being real. Not believing God is real, is like not (believing and real God), so ~(B^R). Believing God is not real is like B^~R. Since ~(B^R) is not the same as B^~R, these statements are different." he actually defeated himself. Either the variable of God being real or not real is fact or the variable is a belief. If it is reality, then the matter at hand has taken a change of direction to say that atheism is completely illogical in the first point; if it is a belief, then how can one not believe but then state a belief right after that? Please check your logic before down voted, whoever you are.
It has to be a variable, because your predicate logic is the same as the discussion of whether God is real at all. Your predicate logic is for God is not real, and there is no God. If you add belief in there, it changes things, thus it is a variable.
Please explain how the predicate logic for god is not real, and there is no God is exactly the same as believing there is no God and not believing in God. Shouldn't the logic be different?
Believe cannot be mutually exclusive from the variable itself that is believed, which is what you did before.
~Bi(Rg) says "I am not believing that God is real."
Bi(~Rg) says "I am believing that God is not real."
However, God is either real or not real and one intrinsically takes up one of the variables: Bi(Rg)vBi(~Rg) says "I believe that God is real or I believe that God is not real." Believe is not equivalent to "know"; it is simply the undertaking of a variable and to hold is as true (like an opinion), which means that it necessarily falls into one or the other regardless of how one has thought about it.
Therefore, because one says negates the first believe, then you apply a disjunctive syllogism to the the third premise and you get the second one.
I'm not sure about "negating the former" and how it applies to formal logic, but if it means deleting the first one and being left with only one then it isn't a good method.
I thought I had forgotten my logic course. Now I'm just sure that you are right. Belief is a variable. His model depicts God not being real and God being a not real thing, which of course is the same. But it has nothing to do with belief.
Saying "I do not believe that God is real", looking at it in a technical sense, can either mean that they do not have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion or that they just do not have the belief. Saying "I believe that God is not real", looking at it in a technical sense, means that you have analysed both possibilities and have came to that conclusion. One has come to a conclusion while there's a possibility the other has not.
They both would be the same symbolically. They both demonstrate that fast running is not being done. Also, it is a different situation because believe is not in the equation.
Believe is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise. God is either real or not. One either believes He is real or not. Therefore, if you do not believe that God is real, then you believe that He is not real. It is completely different.
It's relevant when it all looks the same in formal logic.
"The logical form is real" you have displayed it.
If the formal logic isn't necessarily true in other verbal situations, you need a different logical structure to show it is relevant to this particular verbalization of the symbols used.
If the formal logic isn't necessarily true in other verbal situations, you need a different logical structure to show it is relevant to this particular verbalization of the symbols used.
Not at all. There is no need of it. Believe, as I have already addressed, can only apply to the personal. The logical form is true; the issue is whether or not the believe is applied correctly.
Believe is not a special word that gets special rules in formal logic. It was the "I" in your statement that made it personal. I before any verb makes it personal. I don't believe in Mercury in the atmosphere in Saturn. But I won't say its not there.
If by personal you meant only applicable to people then, your wrong.
You assume that absence of belief is impossible. It is not (see Bushman about Santa).
Your formal structure shows Gods relation to reality. Your wrong assumption about the possibility of lack of belief is unrelated to your model. Your formal structure doesn't use belief as a variable which is precisely the variable in question.
The only reason you think that Cartmans formal structure is wrong is because it depicts that there is such a thing as lack of belief, which there is (Bushman/Santa).
"Not accepting" a variable does not equal "Refusal to accept" a variable. This is the cause of all the confusion, you incorrectly verbalized your model.
Your model should say "God is not real" and "It is not the case that God is real". When your formulated the sentence you wrote"I do not believe that God is real." and "I believe that God is not real." Your sentence makes belief a variable that is not included in your model.
IF you believe God is not real, you necessarily believe that it is not the case that God is real. IF meaning you don't necessarily do it. The bushman does not believe in Santa because he does not have a belief. It does not mean that he has a belief that Santa is not real.
Belief, as i have told you multiple time now, is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise. To say I believe something is for me to say that I have undertaken a variable/premise, which is either that God is real or that God is not real.
Bushmen have a belief that Santa is not real. Belief does not necessarily mean an active acceptance of something; for it is intrinsic. One necessarily must either believe X or believe not X. Whether that belief is active or not is pointless.
There is only one way to believe there is no God. But there are various ways to not believe in God. Though they have the same truth value one is open ended. Though they both apply to Atheists, they do not both apply to everyone.
My point is that the statements are different. One statement has only one way about it while the other has many ways. Even though they hold the same truth value, they are not the same thing. I am not arguing against logic, I am arguing for understanding it.
Actually, it is not the same for many other verbs. The first one suggests that running fast is not happening, which means that running could be happening or not be happening. The latter is affirming that running is happening necessarily.
Belief, though, is different from other verbs because there are only two options for it, in a personal sense. One can only believe that God is real or believe that God is not real. Belief happens intrinsically and is not necessarily an active process. Moreover, there is no in between in regards to a belief in God or a belief in not God. Therefore, if one does not believe something, then they believe the negation of it.
Do you believe there are an odd number of hairs on my head?
If you do, please provide evidence.
If you do not believe there are an odd number, by your logic, you believe there are not an odd number, meaning you believe there is an even number. Again, please provide evidence.
You saying you lack a belief confirms your belief in something else. i.e. I lack the belief in gravity will prompt you to do stupid things because you have a confirmed belief in floating/flying.
You saying you lack a belief confirms your belief in something else
It does no such thing. Nor can it, as the proposition in question, atheism, regards only the question of gods or god. So unless a different topic altogether is addressed, the atheist position can only address the following: Gnosticism and agnosticism. The premise of this debate wrongly asserts that Gnosticism is the only atheist position that can be held. I've yet to be convinced.
i.e. I lack the belief in gravity will prompt you to do stupid things because you have a confirmed belief in floating/flying.
I don't buy this for a second. Even if I disagree with the conclusions of the scientific body about gravity, the effects of some force on objects is still directly observable and still behaves in a consistent manner. It is not logical to assume that an individual with sound cognitive capacity would partake in such ill-advised behavior in light of such a directly observable pehenonena. And even disregarding this, even as children we develop the ability to perceive depth and respond accordingly(I'm pretty sure such development is now considered one of the major milestones of child development). So even in an all natural setting(where accidents and other mid-actions may occur) we behave according to the information we have gathered through observing this force classified as gravity.
It does no such thing. Nor can it, as the proposition in question, atheism, regards only the question of gods or god.
Which means that a negative position can only be taken at the given point. Either for or against, which means an opinion is formulated and therefore means a belief is made.
Gnosticism and agnosticism. The premise of this debate wrongly asserts that Gnosticism is the only atheist position that can be held. I've yet to be convinced.
You and I have a different understanding of gnosticism and because of the gap I do not know what to say to that.
I don't buy this for a second. Even if I disagree with the conclusions of the scientific body about gravity, the effects of some force on objects is still directly observable and still behaves in a consistent manner.
It does not matter if you believe it or not because people exist who do not believe in gravity. There was a man named Alexander Bedward who believed he could fly. One day, he got up and jumped off a high area and broke his neck and died. He was real and his disposition to believe he could fly without necessary propellant or use of physics caused him to not believe in gravity. If you asked him he would either say "I do not believe in gravity" or "Gravity does not act on me." So his strong belief in something contrary to gravity and physical laws forced him to disbelieve in the ever working power of gravity.
Which means that a negative position can only be taken at the given point
For the gnostic yes, but again, Gnosticism is not the only flavor of atheism.
Either for or against, which means an opinion is formulated and therefore means a belief is made.
Neutrality is a great invention, presumably invented by the Swiss.
You and I have a different understanding of gnosticism and because of the gap I do not know what to say to that.
Perhaps this is the cause of this entire debate. While theism regards belief, Gnosticism regards knowledge. The gnostic asserts knowledge, the agnostic withholds the assertion of knowledge or more simply: " I don't know or I don't declare". As you can see, the sides are quite distinct and from what I can tell, Gnosticism does not equal agnosticism despite the gnostic( ;) ) claim of the debate.
So his strong belief in something contrary to gravity and physical laws forced him to disbelieve in the ever working power of gravity.
Again, his disbelief is all fine and dandy, but gravity or what we classify as gravity is a force that behaves consistently in reality. If he refuses to use the cognitive tools provided by nature to identify the consequences of actions relative to observable phenomena, then I wouldn't classify him as an individual with " sound cognitive capacity". Would you? It's not as if we are discussing subjective interpretations of a miracle, we are discussing something that objectively acts regardless of anyone's willingness to discuss the factor of belief on it.
This whole debate is an attempt to grand straw-man the athiest position. A tactic the apologetics whine about day and night when used by atheists. A bad methodology in different hands is still a bad methodology. Lack of belief doesn't necessitate any conclusion, affirmative disbelief does.
For the gnostic yes, but again, Gnosticism is not the only flavour of atheism.
I disagree, anything else you might call a flavour I call something completely different. Unless Atheism has its denominations now.
Neutrality is a great invention, presumably invented by the Swiss.
Being on the fence is the only way to not express belief at all that is my argument. Simply do not form an opinion and no I do not think atheists can be neutral.
The gnostic asserts knowledge, the agnostic withholds the assertion of knowledge or more simply: " I don't know or I don't declare". As you can see, the sides are quite distinct and from what I can tell, Gnosticism does not equal agnosticism despite the gnostic( ;) ) claim of the debate.
True but agnostics are not atheists.
If he refuses to use the cognitive tools provided by nature to identify the consequences of actions relative to observable phenomena, then I wouldn't classify him as an individual with " sound cognitive capacity".
It does not matter how sound his cognitive capacity is. The fact is that in different realities, different beliefs are expressed and because of this one may not believe what is commonly taught to be true.
This whole debate is an attempt to grand straw-man the athiest position. A tactic the apologetics whine about day and night when used by atheists. A bad methodology in different hands is still a bad methodology. Lack of belief doesn't necessitate any conclusion, affirmative disbelief does.
Not straw man sir, on contrary this is an attempt for atheists to stay above all with there pompous attitude.
anything else you might call a flavour I call something completely different
And you'd be wrong.
Unless Atheism has its denominations now
It kinda does. Ignostic, agnostic, gnostic, however many most ics you can find.......
Being on the fence is the only way to not express belief at all that is my argument.
So unless there is a typo in those words, you agree that agnostic atheists fulfill the criteria for lacking a belief not equaling affirmative disbelief.
no I do not think atheists can be neutral.
And you'd be wrong, given that ignostics and agnostics are defined by their neutrality.
True but agnostics are not atheists
Ah! There it is. Although I have already done this, allow me to reiterate. Gnosticism is a statement of knowledge. You can be gnostic or agnostic about any claim. In the context of a religious debate, agnosticism refers to the refusal to make an affirmative claim on the existence of a diety, as opposed to gnostic atheism, the affirmative claim that there is no god. Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are starkly different, but both are atheists by merit of not believing in a diety.
The fact is that in different realities,
You have insight of realities other than this one?
are expressed and because of this one may not believe what is commonly taught to be true
What difference does what is taught make? The effects of what you and I call gravity are observable absent of any knowledge of scentific theory or even science in general. Yet still in the absence of information we behave according to the observations we make and those that do stupid things out of a true failure to utilize the cognitive functions that separate us from the rest of the food chain cannot be taken seriously as an example.
Not straw man sir, on contrary this is an attempt for atheists to stay above all with there pompous attitude.
"Their" pompous attitude said the pompous athiest ;). But seriously, why diminish the quality of this exchange by using such words? I look back on earlier agruments where I mindlessly through out such unnecessary terms and cringe at how unintelligible they make one appear.
Since atheism is not that very organised, you cannot confirm it has factions and beliefs.
It kinda does. Ignostic, agnostic, gnostic, however many most ics you can find
Nope, it doesn't. All these beliefs are not exclusive to atheism.
So unless there is a typo in those words, you agree that agnostic atheists fulfill the criteria for lacking a belief not equaling affirmative disbelief.
You are assuming I agreed with what you said when I don't. Agnosticism is not a form of atheism. Even if you were to say someone was an agnostic atheist the argument still stands firm.
You can be gnostic or agnostic about any claim. In the context of a religious debate, agnosticism refers to the refusal to make an affirmative claim on the existence of a diety, as opposed to gnostic atheism, the affirmative claim that there is no god. Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are starkly different, but both are atheists by merit of not believing in a diety.
So in other words, what you call an agnostic atheist believe in the non existence of God while a gnostic atheist proves God to be not real to himself. At the end of the day these are still active positions of belief. So you do believe in something.
You have insight of realities other than this one?
Nope, but apparently other people do based on how they act.
Yet still in the absence of information we behave according to the observations we make and those that do stupid things out of a true failure to utilize the cognitive functions that separate us from the rest of the food chain cannot be taken seriously as an example.
Idiocy/acting differently does not make them any less examples.
"Their" pompous attitude said the pompous athiest ;).
I see what you did there.
But seriously, why diminish the quality of this exchange by using such words? I look back on earlier agruments where I mindlessly through out such unnecessary terms and cringe at how unintelligible they make one appear.
Fine then, my apologies for upsetting you with my childish behaviour.
Except I can and sort of have. I'm not quite sure what the difficulty is here.
Nope, it doesn't. All these beliefs are not exclusive to atheism.
Where did I say they were? Whatever "nostic" label you use refers to the type of claim of knowledge one makes. Agnosticism in a arguement over gods existence lends itself to atheism for reasons that should be quite obvious.
Agnosticism is not a form of atheism. Even if you were to say someone was an agnostic atheist the argument still stands firm.
An agnostic athiest is an athiest that takes an agnostic position on god's existence, which is to say they don't assert to know. Think of the label like "Liberal" democrat or "social" conservative. The label serves as a clarification of the particular position you hold. And I don't see how the argument stands in light of the agnostic or even the ignostic athiest.
So in other words, what you call an agnostic atheist believe in the non existence of God while a gnostic atheist proves God to be not real to himself. At the end of the day these are still active positions of belief. So you do believe in something
I have already presented the angnostic model of atheism. They don't assert the existence nor non-existence of a diety. It is no a position of belief, it is the withholdal of judgement on the issue. The gnostic athiest may well fall into this straw man, but his agnostic and ignostic conterparts quite clearly don't.
Idiocy/acting differently does not make them any less examples.
It kinda does in this context, where you were addressing the causal link between behavior and disregard for gravity. If the example doesn't use his cognitive capacity , how can he be indicative of any trend deduction of a rational populace?
It seems like you still are assuming the definition of atheism as one hard position with no variants. That is like me going around saying everyone's catholic and when someone claims another denomination I just deny them and assert their Catholicism.
It is not contradictory: I think there might be (many) gods, but I do not have belief in it. I do not have belief that I can know anything for sure, therefore I cannot accept anything for true- even my own statements which I am writing now. That's where logic falls apart and language starts to destabilise a little, it seems.
1.Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of: "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story".
Belief is not necessarily active, in which one conscientiously accepts a variable/premise. Belief can be passive, in which one does not actively accept a variable/premise but instead intrinsically acknowledges it to be true. There is God or there is not God: you cannot believe both and one intrinsically falls to one or the other.
I don't believe either. I think it's highly unlikely monotheists are right. But I don't actively or passively believe it because I probably have no way of proving it for myself at the moment. It would be slightly arrogant to accept a truth I can't prove either way.
One of the two is true at this time and place unless something is seriously messed up with the universe, yes. But if I asked you does the LAKELAND BIG BLACK CAT exist? You will not say yes/no, as the information either way is subjective. You will most likely say no if I go on to say the LBBC is a Cait Sidhe, (a mythological creature) ~ which is where atheists come in.
But you really don't know, right? It would not be right to say it does exist, when the proof is doubtable- and it would not be right to say it doesn't exist, when it still could exist.
Therefore I don't believe either~ I don't have full confidence in my own knowledge to say yes or no yet.
I don't know but that does not stop me from believing. You are mixing up know and believe; believe is simply the undertaking of a variable/premise with or without adequate knowledge of the issue. I would believe that the black cat is not real and I would not believe it to be real. There is no in between. I don't know if the black cat is real or not; however, I believe it not be true.
I don't accept either as true: that is believing. One will be true. And I will not let myself believe something unless it is certainly true, so I don't believe anything because I keep questioning things deeper than they maybe should be questioned.
There are things I accept as true in a way you do to work out a mathematics problem so I don't go mad- but I don't fully accept them, like I don't believe there's a guy called John who wants to paint a wall 4x by 23x by 1/2x, that paint costs £15 a 100ml tin... but I don't disbelieve it either.
Leaning towards something is not accepting it as true. I.e. if acceptance as truth is over 75% certain, 58% is leaning towards it, but not accepting it as true.
People are always defining things narrowly and as one definition... Stop defining things how one wants it and look at the connotation of it! There are other definitions of believe than the one you are saying.
If you look at the next definition on the website that you posted, then you would see that it is not necessarily accept as truth: it is to hold as opinion. Opinions are not necessarily true and are not necessarily things that people accept as fact. Take believe in connotation; otherwise you will be picking and choosing which one you want to believe.
The problem is belief is never a true negation, i.e. it is never non-existent in an intellectual being. If you can develop a stance on it, then you develop the opposing factor to it. The only way to not believe instead of believing the opposite is to never have heard of it, there for a stance is not developed on it.
I would even say that people who have never heard of a concept believe it to not be true. People do not know everything; however, from the stance that people must side with one or the other necessarily, then they must believe that X is not real. Believe is not necessarily active, which means that if I do not hold a position, then I believe the position to not be true. I can imagine some random thing that I have never thought of, such as Benjamin Franklin riding a purple unicorn on Mars and picking cucumbers. Before I came up with this notion, then I believed it to not be true; for we believe everything that we have not heard of to not be true, intrinsically, not actively.
Someone can ask you about a popular subject and ask what your beliefs are. You could say "I don't know" which is the same as not believing but not the same as believing the opposite. Believing that you don't have enough information to take a position is simply not taking a position. It's Agnostic.
Saying "I don't know" is different from belief. Saying this is equivalent to saying that one does not know which variable is correct: the positive or the negative. However, that does not stop one from actively or passively believing a notion; for one either believes God is real or believes that God is not real. Even agnostics have a siding on variables.
You said that belief is the acceptance of a variable. Accept is verb like any other.
Not believing is not passively believing. One cannot passively believe something, you made up this notion to fit into you botched debate proposition.
Believe is a verb like any other. Trying to give it special status to make your poorly presented logical formation more presentable does not help your future status in debate.
Believing is different from other verbs. I have already talked about this: one either undertakes the notion that God is real or that God is not real, regardless of it being passive or active.
Believing something passively is to say that one has not researched it or heard of it: they hold a passive notion of the premise.
Riding is a verb; however, it is different from belief because it one does not necessarily have to be riding anything. Believing, as I have said yet again, is simply the undertaking of a variable or premise, whether it be active or passive. Therefore, one always has a notion of belief for everything, whether it be positive or negative.
Simply saying it and then repeating it won't make it true professor. You presented your argument improperly. Rather than accepting this, your are making up things to hold your point.
"My logical argument holds true because my words are special cases". Your words are not special, believe is not a special word. It is perfectly possible to not believe.
Put it this way: belief is simply the undertaking of a premise or variable. There are only two variables about God's existence:
(1) God is real.
(2) God is not real.
For every issue, one must hold to the notion that the issue is positive or negative: people either believe in God or do not believe in God. If someone believes in God, then one sides with premise one; if someone does not believe in God, which means that it is not premise one, then one sides with premise two necessarily because one must hold to one notion or the other, whether it be active or passive: if one does not believe that God is real, then one necessarily has to fall into the second premise.