The default position...

[Bunyip]

Yes one can describe it as objective, but it does incorporate belief.

Belief is the acceptance of truth. If you accept something as true, you believe it. Thus, this does deal with belief.

But it also assumes only one of the two will be correct. When you acquire sufficient knowledge to exclude one of the two beliefs: when you open the box the cat will be dead or alive. This paradox however, allows for the macroscopic world to exist in multiple states when unkown. Though, this is beyond my point.

The point here is that it is possible to accept as true, contradictory positions until sufficient information to exclude one of the positions is discovered. Thus, you would believe mutually exclusive positions.

Apparently the belief in two mutually exclusive positions is being conflated with holding a belief and not holding a belief. These are not the same thing.

Of course they are the same thing.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes one can describe it as objective, but it does incorporate belief.

Belief is the acceptance of truth. If you accept something as true, you believe it. Thus, this does deal with belief.

But it also assumes only one of the two will be correct. When you acquire sufficient knowledge to exclude one of the two beliefs: when you open the box the cat will be dead or alive. This paradox however, allows for the macroscopic world to exist in multiple states when unkown. Though, this is beyond my point.

The point here is that it is possible to accept as true, contradictory positions until sufficient information to exclude one of the positions is discovered. Thus, you would believe mutually exclusive positions.

Apparently the belief in two mutually exclusive positions is being conflated with holding a belief and not holding a belief. These are not the same thing.

I see, your argument is falling in place piece by piece.
I hope you do not mind my question asking at various statements you make, I am doing so out of curiosity more so than disagreement.

I have chosen to stay out of this argument, mostly, however; the idea you are presenting here is one I am not versed to.
My want for knowledge can make me annoying sometimes, lol.

 

[Curious George]

The central issue, that a person can not believe that there is a god, and at the same time not believe that there is not a God (which is patently absurd) you have never addressed.

Again did not state this.... But it seems you are set on saying I did based on equating what I did say to this....yet you never use my actual words, you only say that I stated this and then say they what I said equals this.

Well, prove they are equal, since by now I am sure that you understand that I was very opposed to my remarks being equated to this.

In the meantime I will try again to differentiate.

 

[Curious George]

I see, your argument is falling in place piece by piece.
I hope you do not mind my question asking at various statements you make, I am doing so out of curiosity more so than disagreement.

I have chosen to stay out of this argument, mostly, however; the idea you are presenting here is one I am not versed to.
My want for knowledge can make me annoying sometimes, lol.

I don't mind in the least, I am not one to get heated, though if my language comes across as such, call me on it...I don't mind that either. Cheers.

 

[Bunyip]

Again did not state this.... But it seems you are set on saying I did based on equating what I did say to this....yet you never use my actual words, you only say that I stated this and then say they what I said equals this.

Well, prove they are equal, since by now I am sure that you understand that I was very opposed to my remarks being equated to this.

In the meantime I will try again to differentiate.

You were opposed to your remarks being equated to what they equate to, why? I have no idea.

 

[Curious George]

You were opposed to your remarks being equated to what they equate to, why? I have no idea.

Because they do not. You are making the claim that they do, why not prove such.

 

[Curious George]

Of course they are the same thing.

X =God exists
Y= God does not exist.
Most atheist would agree that one can "not believe X" and "not state Y." I however am asserting the contrapositve which is that one can state Y and believe X.

These can be formed into a conditional statement.

Non believers of x are not always people stating y.

The contrapositve must be true by logic:

At least one person stating y can be a person believing x.

Edit* pretty sure this statement does not work... I tried again below and cannot formulate the conditional statement necessary...I will think more on the topic, and hopefully come up with something that works

 

[Curious George]

A non belief in x does not entail stating y

Stating y is possible with a belief in x.

I am not so good at rearranging these into conditional statements... I don't think I have it. But if someone could help me out, we would see that I am only saying the contrapositive and therefore logical equivalent.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Stating a contrapositive for theism-nontheism is a difficult thing to do, but I wouldn't say it's logically impossible.

maybe including another variable in concern of the two would help to advance your argument.
You would need either a soulutional evidence, such as death, or a logical inconstence, such as the inability to know.
I believe you tried the later previously but could not successfully drive in it's purpose.

So stating something along the lines of,

"From having such a lack knowledge there is a fallacy in even the idea of a God or set of Gods either 'being' or 'not being', the simplicity lies within seeing the belief defined, redefined, and watching those who either 'agree' or 'oppose'. There is no validity in either statement therefore they both are either 'true' or 'false' until proven otherwise, so there is simply no point in the display of either side nor bothering to pick a side."

would be accurate of an argument from your perspective.

I am not well antiquated with the formatting of such arguments, so please forgive the roughness.
I also prefer the argument of an "opposite yet same" position wherein death is the end variable.
A, "why bother when we have a 100% way of finding out the day our brain terminates all functions".
But that doesn't seem to fit the point you are trying to throw across.

I could also have completely missed the point and stated all of that while only understanding half of a whole belief.
In that case disregard this post in its entirety.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

X =God exists
Y= God does not exist.
Most atheist would agree that one can "not believe X" and "not state Y." I however am asserting the contrapositve which is that one can state Y and believe X.

One of the reasons mathematicians and logicians often write sentences in spoken languages that re little more comprehensible than mathematical "languages" is to limit ambiguities as much as is possible Thus for any assertion in propositional or predicate calculus, we form the negation by a single operator which is rendered into English in awkward ways, e.g.,
"God exists" in negated form is "It is not the case that God exists". Why this weird format? Because in formal logic one negates by affixing the negation operator ~ in front of that which is negated. Thus it is clear what specifically is said to be false.

Non believers of x are not always people stating y

Quite true.

I tried again below and cannot formulate the conditional statement necessary

A non belief in x does not entail stating y

Stating y is possible with a belief in x.

I am not so good at rearranging these into conditional statements... I don't think I have it. But if someone could help me out, we would see that I am only saying the contrapositive and therefore logical equivalent.

One problem is that mental state predicates like "believe", "think", "suppose", etc., can't be dealt with using classical logic. The other problem is that existence isn't a predicate, but an operator. By that I mean that if one said "God is dead", one could form the condition "if x is god than x is dead", and likewise "if x is not dead than x is not god." However, existence is denoted in logic by that backwards E ("there exists") for a reason: it is not a property the way predicates are in sentential logic. Of course, for our purposes it's not so problematic to assert informally that the proposition "god exists" can be reformulated as "if x is a god, than god exists" and therefore that "if x exists, then x is not a god." The problem is that this doesn't exactly support what I think (but could be completely wrong regarding) your argument.

 

[ArtieE]

X =God exists
Y= God does not exist.

X=I believe God exists. (Theist)
Y=I believe God doesn't exist. (Strong Atheist)
Z=I believe neither. (Weak atheist)

 

[Curious George]

One of the reasons mathematicians and logicians often write sentences in spoken languages that re little more comprehensible than mathematical "languages" is to limit ambiguities as much as is possible Thus for any assertion in propositional or predicate calculus, we form the negation by a single operator which is rendered into English in awkward ways, e.g.,
"God exists" in negated form is "It is not the case that God exists". Why this weird format? Because in formal logic one negates by affixing the negation operator ~ in front of that which is negated. Thus it is clear what specifically is said to be false.


Quite true.



One problem is that mental state predicates like "believe", "think", "suppose", etc., can't be dealt with using classical logic. The other problem is that existence isn't a predicate, but an operator. By that I mean that if one said "God is dead", one could form the condition "if x is god than x is dead", and likewise "if x is not dead than x is not god." However, existence is denoted in logic by that backwards E ("there exists") for a reason: it is not a property the way predicates are in sentential logic. Of course, for our purposes it's not so problematic to assert informally that the proposition "god exists" can be reformulated as "if x is a god, than god exists" and therefore that "if x exists, then x is not a god." The problem is that this doesn't exactly support what I think (but could be completely wrong regarding) your argument.

I understand that belief cannot be dealt with regarding the truth of the belief but belief can not be dealt with using classic logic at all...I do not understand this.

Here I am not trying to use existence as a predicate but the statement of existence. The statement here has (similar to belief) no bearing on the truth or falsity of God existing. The statement and belief here can be described as events or characteristics of a person.

While you are here...I am trying to show why it is possible to accept two truths simultaneously until evidence of the exclusion of one is discovered. I figure your background in quantum physics (or at least a portion of studies) might know a better way to prove this. Any direction you can offer here?

 

[Curious George]

X=I believe God exists. (Theist)
Y=I believe God doesn't exist. (Strong Atheist)
Z=I believe neither. (Weak atheist)

Yes, I understand this artie. I am not saying anything that really contradicts this(excepting that what I am saying requires you to add to those definitions).

 

[Curious George]

Stating a contrapositive for theism-nontheism is a difficult thing to do, but I wouldn't say it's logically impossible.

maybe including another variable in concern of the two would help to advance your argument.
You would need either a soulutional evidence, such as death, or a logical inconstence, such as the inability to know.
I believe you tried the later previously but could not successfully drive in it's purpose.

So stating something along the lines of,

"From having such a lack knowledge there is a fallacy in even the idea of a God or set of Gods either 'being' or 'not being', the simplicity lies within seeing the belief defined, redefined, and watching those who either 'agree' or 'oppose'. There is no validity in either statement therefore they both are either 'true' or 'false' until proven otherwise, so there is simply no point in the display of either side nor bothering to pick a side."

would be accurate of an argument from your perspective.

I am not well antiquated with the formatting of such arguments, so please forgive the roughness.
I also prefer the argument of an "opposite yet same" position wherein death is the end variable.
A, "why bother when we have a 100% way of finding out the day our brain terminates all functions".
But that doesn't seem to fit the point you are trying to throw across.

I could also have completely missed the point and stated all of that while only understanding half of a whole belief.
In that case disregard this post in its entirety.

I think that the assumption that either proposition is true or false works, but I was trying to show that believing God does not exist does not entail not believing God exists.

I was trying to do this by showing that this is the contrapositive of a well accepted notion that one can lack belief in x without holding the belief that not x is true. I.e. the default position.

What I am stating is essentially the contrapositive of that notion. But turning it into a conditional statement and dealing with the negations is proving vexing. I think I might have to deal with it one piece at a time unless legion steps in and uses some other method of proof.

 

[outhouse]

X=I believe God exists. (Theist)
Y=I believe God doesn't exist. (Strong Atheist)
Z=I believe neither. (Weak atheist)

Strong atheist A= no belief and has knowledge god is a man made creation backed with credible evidence only man defines gods.

Another form of weak atheism B= no knowledge of deities equals implicit atheism.


The definition is no a simple as you posit.

 

[ArtieE]

Strong atheist A= no belief and has knowledge god is a man made creation backed with credible evidence only man defines gods.

Strong atheism nothing to do with knowledge only belief.

Another form of weak atheism B= no knowledge of deities equals implicit atheism.

All implicit atheists are weak atheists. Stop talking about knowledge when discussing atheism. Knowledge has to do with agnosticism.

 

[Bunyip]

Because they do not. You are making the claim that they do, why not prove such.

There is nothing to prove, they are just two slightly different ways of writing the exact same thing (as I have said to you many times.).
1. Believing in God
and 2. Not disbelieving in God

Are equivalent, they mean the same - but 2. is poorer English,

 

[Bunyip]

X =God exists
Y= God does not exist.
Most atheist would agree that one can "not believe X" and "not state Y." I however am asserting the contrapositve which is that one can state Y and believe X.

Sorry George, that sentence was unreadable. You are trying so hard to spin that your sentences lose all meaning. By 'asserting the contrapositive', you mean 'not asserting' I think - why not write it that way instead of adding all the double, triple and quadruple negatives?[
'Contrapositive'? Does that mean 'negative'? Why are you inventing words?

These can be formed into a conditional statement.

Non believers of x are not always people stating y.

Sure George, they may not be STATING 'Y', but they obviously hold that belief. If they do not believe God exists, they must therefore believe he does not exist. That is elementary logic.

The contrapositve must be true by logic:

At least one person stating y can be a person believing x.

No George, they are patently two mutually exclusive positions.

Edit* pretty sure this statement does not work... I tried again below and cannot formulate the conditional statement necessary...I will think more on the topic, and hopefully come up with something that works

There is a reason for that George - you are trying to argue for the impossible. You will not be able to state it in a rational argument, because it is contradictory.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry George, that sentence was unreadable. You are trying so hard to spin that your sentences lose all meaning. By 'asserting the contrapositive', you mean 'not asserting' I think - why not write it that way instead of adding all the double, triple and quadruple negatives?[
'Contrapositive'? Does that mean 'negative'? Why are you inventing words? Sure George, they may not be STATING 'Y', but they obviously hold that belief. If they do not believe God exists, they must therefore believe he does not exist. That is elementary logic. No George, they are patently two mutually exclusive positions. There is a reason for that George - you are trying to argue for the impossible. You will not be able to state it in a rational argument, because it is contradictory.

Lol no contrapositive is not a made up term.

Google it. The contrapositive is true if the conditional is true.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol no contrapositive is not a made up term.

Google it. The contrapositive is true if the conditional is true.

George it applies to formal logical arguments - proofs and disproofs. This is about BELIEF George, not hypothesis, not possible states, not probability, not knowledge BELIEFS.

Now please respond to the rest of my post. Please don't just ignore it all again.