If you remember the context of why I posted them was that you noted in response: "this of course is fallacious reasoning" .
I was pointing out it was an accepted (although contested), scientific perspective and thus it is hard to make a rational case that it is obviously fallacious.
While I never used the word obviously, I will accept that characterization.
Here is the context;
You stated in post #172
We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).
In post #185 after quoting the above for context,
I stated:
By this logic you have to accept any proposition you are able to comprehend; this of course is fallacious reasoning.
You are always free to reject any proposition that fails to meet a reasonable burden of proof.
Which you have subsequently agreed with:
Yes, you do have to accept it, although you can subsequently reject it.
Yes, although it would be corrected milliseconds later as it is obviously incorrect.
The fact “
you can reject it” means that you
do not “have to accept it”.
My rational case that the statement;
“We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general)”,
is fallacious reasoning is this:
_______________________________________
If we believe a proposition, it may affect any future thoughts or deliberations.
If we disbelieve a proposition, it may affect any future thoughts or deliberations.
So, “whether we can remain unaffected” or not has no bearing on if the proposition is believed or disbelieved, and thus no detrimental or beneficial or differential consequences.
So the statement “We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we are able to comprehend
(or sensory experience in general)”, is in fact fallacious.
You have agreed, the idea can be rejected.
Even if we take your hypothesis as correct (for arguments sake), and grant that at one point in time a person were to have held the belief that god/s exist (whether for at least a moment sufficient to comprehend the idea, a la Spinoza, or for years while the person may have been a theist), and has subsequently, after deliberation, concluded that the preponderance of any and/or all available relevant evidence fails to be sufficient to be judged most probable by a rational mind to warrant the belief that god/s exist (in other words, fails to meet the burden of proof to be considered true);
then that person could, as you have conceded, reject that belief.
As result, they would no longer hold that belief.
They would comprehend the proposition that
god/s exist.
They would disbelieve that god/s exist.
They would therefore have a lack of belief in the proposition that god/s exist while fully comprehending the proposition.
Definition of disbelieve
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief
Synonyms:
Incredulity
nonbelief
unbelief
Definition of nonbelief
: absence or lack of belief
especially : absence or lack of religious belief // nonbelief in God
Antonyms
belief
credence
credit
Therefore the statement:
“We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).”
is fallacious reasoning.
Definition of fallacious
1: embodying a
fallacy
2: tending to deceive or mislead :
DELUSIVE
Definition of fallacy
1a: a false or mistaken idea
b: erroneous character :
ERRONEOUSNESS
2a: deceptive appearance :
DECEPTION
bobsolete :
GUILE,
TRICKERY
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Synonyms
- illegitimate,
- illogical,
- inconsequent,
- inconsequential,
- invalid,
- irrational,
- nonrational,
- unreasonable,
- unreasoning,
- unsound,
- weak
Antonyms
Definition of reasoning
1: the use of reason
especially : the drawing of inference or conclusions through the use of reason
2: an instance of the use of reason :
ARGUMENT
Definition of reason
1a: a statement offered in explanation or justification
b: a rational ground or motive
c: the thing that makes some fact intelligible :
CAUSE
d: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense
2a(1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways :
INTELLIGENCE
(2): proper exercise of the mind
(3):
SANITY
b: the sum of the intellectual powers
_______________________________________
so there is no functional difference between stating you "believe X doesn't exist" and stating you "don't believe X exists".
Yes, I understand there is a grammatical difference, but I do not believe that reflects any cognitive difference.
This laughable……
What happened to;
We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).
Do you consider the words “belief” and “disbelief”
to be synonymous?
Do you consider the difference between them to be gramatical or cognitive?
Lets check those definitions again:
Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Synonyms
Antonyms
Definition of disbelief
: the act of
disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Synonyms
Antonyms
Merriam-Webster defines them as being antonymous.
[All definitions from:
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary ]
Words have meanings.
The way words are strung together creating sentences, is how we impart ideas.
Granted, sometimes the way words are arranged in sentences can sometimes have nuances that are not always apparent at fist glance.
However, there are times that sentences appear very similar, yet have significantly different meanings; as in this case.
Let’s review that actual sentences in question here.
I believe gods don't exist
These two sentences are very similar, but there is a slight difference.
Both state a positive belief (something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion).
The first that “no gods exist”.
The second that “gods don’t exist”.
These two sentences have a grammatical difference, but are synonymous in meaning
Both declare a belief (a positive), about denying the existence of gods (a negative), equaling an overall positive belief statement.
Since rationality demands that beliefs be justified, they would require a justification. (A burden of proof)
Notice if the first portion of the sentences included a negative i.e. “I don’t believe…”, the statement would have then contained double negatives, which would render the overall statement as a positive. (The ol’ double negatives make a positive.)
i.e. “I don’t believe gods don’t exist” which would render the statement to mean: “I believe gods exist”.
Now, let’s examine the statement which you claim to be synonymous with your two statements above, and only grammatically different.
“I don’t believe any gods exist”
This does not declare a belief, instead it is a rejection of a belief (a negative), about the existence of gods (a positive), equaling an overall negative belief statement.
Since no positive statement was made there would be no burden of proof necessary.
I exceeded the word limit: This will continue on the next post.
