CreateDebate


Debate Info

108
119
I agree I do not agree
Debate Score:227
Arguments:192
Total Votes:240
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree (83)
 
 I do not agree (81)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



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 agree

Side Score: 108
VS.

I do not agree

Side Score: 119
3 points

I approve of this message.

Side: I agree
2 points

Only an idiot would argue they are not the same. Wait >>>>

Side: I agree
4 points

The problem is that the symbols don't match the statement.

This side of the argument is saying that not believing is the same as believing the negative.

~belief=belief

A=~A

Your logic is flawed at the root.

Side: I do not agree
1 point

They are obviously the same, I agree.

There are people on that - - -- - > side talking about what "dead people" believe, or not, believe in. LOL

Side: I agree
3 points

Didn't you know that everybody wants to know what dead people think. Dead people think?

Side: I agree

I agree that they are the same logical conclusions but I can't agree that it settles the arguments.

Side: I agree
7 points

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.

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
4 points

The negation of a premise through saying one does not believe X is equivalent to the an positive position for the negation of X.

Side: I agree
BigOats(1449) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: I do not agree
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
2 points

How? As an example I saw someone else use. If a dead person does not believe X, that does not mean that they do believe X's negative.

Side: I do not agree
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I do not agree
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
2 points

"I [~do] NOT (believe) X is real."

"I [~do] (believe) X is NOT real."

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.

Side: I agree
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I do not agree
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I agree
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I do not agree

For a dead person,

"They do not believe that God is real." -> true

"They believe that God is not real." -> false

Side: I do not agree
timber113(796) Disputed
3 points

Dead people cannot formulate an opinion and therefore they have no stance.

Side: I agree
sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

Unless you are dead (which refutes your statement) you cannot definitively say that dead people cannot formulate an opinion.

Side: I do not agree

Right, they have no stance. They don't believe in God, which is different from believing that there is no God.

Side: I agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

"I" assumes that there is a personal aspect to it. When talking about another person, it is different

Side: I agree
1 point

Oh, how convenient. Fine, say they write notes saying "I do not believe that God is real" and "I believe that God is not real," then they die.

Side: I do not agree
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
1 point

WTF are you on about?

Whats your point?

We all die, so what's your point?

Side: I agree
2 points

My point is that those two statements are not the same. Isn't that what this debate is about?

Side: I do not agree
4 points

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.

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

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."

Side: I agree
2 points

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.

Side: I do not agree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I do not agree

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.

Side: I do not agree

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.

The dispute is resolved, thanks Cartman.

Side: I do not agree
3 points

One can be unconvinced that X is the case, without being convinced that X is not the case. I hope this helps you think more clearly. Wannabe teacher

Side: I do not agree
2 points

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.

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Technically, the logical form is real... I have already displayed it.

Side: I agree

I do not run fast.

I run not fast.

Would these be symbolically represented the same as your example?

If so, these are different statements. In the first, I may not run at all let alone fast. In the second statement I do run, but not fast.

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I agree
1 point

I guess the point is that formal logic is a limited tool. The different situation is represented the same way.

Side: I do not agree
1 point

I'm not sure why the word believe changes the situation. Run and believe are both verbs.

Side: I do not agree
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
1 point

No.

If you do not run fast, it does not matter how you (or any person) words it; you do not run fast, plain and simple!

"I do not run fast" Means you do run but not fast.

"I run not fast" Means you do run but not fast.

What are you trying to prove?

Side: I agree
2 points

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.

Formal logic is a limited tool, that's all.

Side: I do not agree
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

They are the same. I do not run fast suggests you run quite slowly, I run not fast suggests the Old English Equivalent.

Side: I agree
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: I agree
2 points

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.

Side: I do not agree

So instead of saying that I do not believe a god is real, you would prefer I say I lack a belief in god?

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

No, I'm saying that they are both the same thing. It doesn't matter what you say.

Side: I agree
1 point

So saying I lack a belief means I don't lack a belief? Sounds fishy to me.

Side: I agree
1 point

I don't believe in anything, and I'm not even an atheist. (I'm not monotheist though)

Side: I do not agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

I don't believe in anything, and I'm not even an atheist. (I'm not monotheist though)

That is a logical contradiction. You just stated that you do not believe in anything but that, in of itself, is a belief.

Side: I agree
Elvira(3446) Clarified
1 point

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".

2.Accept the statement of (someone) as true.

Side: I agree
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I agree
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: I agree
1 point

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.

Side: I do not agree
Elvira(3446) Clarified
1 point

It's the 'I have no bloody idea' standpoint, which seems to go hand-in-hand with the 'couldn't care less' view.

Indecision, confusion, insanity, detatchement.

Side: I agree
1 point

What if I believe as Nietzsche said; "God is dead"?

Is someone/ thing that is dead, real?

I do not believe my great uncle is real; since he has died he is no longer a real being.

But I don't believe my great uncle is not real; since he was a being that existed and had an effect on the world.

Side: I do not agree