Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:36:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1102 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> Richard has put his finger exactly on the problem, but I was interested in the
> underlying logic of the questaion and decided to go ahead anyway for clarity's
> sake.
I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they
have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is
contemptable.
> > > It is a misrepresentation for you to claim that I, as an atheist, *believe*
> > > in the nonexistence of something. There are those who may indeed believe
> > > that God doesn't exist, but you are correct to identify such belief as a
> > > statement of faith.
>
> > Are they inherently different? 2 + !2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = !5
> >
> > Both equations are superfluously different, but inherently they are stating
> > the same thing.
>
> I'm afraid that this notation is unfamiliar to me, so I can't comment on it in
> this format. 8^(
You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not'
2 + not 2 = 4
2 + 2 = not 4
So that we're clear.
>
> > Whether you say "I believe that God does not exist" or "I don't believe that
> > God exists", you are, in fact, stating the same thing--that you believe in
> > something. Rearranging the equation doesn't change the results--The word
> > 'believe' is still there. Believe is akin to the equal sign in thr
> > mathematics expression above. Whether the 'not' comes before or after the
> > believe (equal) is just personal preference--the equation has the same
> > results.
>
> Assuming that "gubb" and "not-gubb" are actual things, consider these two
> statements:
>
> A: I have a not-gubb.
> B: I do not have a gubb.
>
> Under statement A, it is not possible for me to have *no* thing at all, because
> I have a not-gubb. It is also possible for me to have a gubb, as long as I also
> have a not-gubb.
>
> Under statement B, it is possible for me to have *no* thing at all, and it is
> also possible for me to have all things *except* a gubb.
>
> Statement A is a declaration of what I have, while statement B is a declaration
> of what I do not have.
>
> Now take a look at the following:
>
> A: I have the measles.
> B: I do not have the measles.
>
> Are these statements equivalent, differing only in my preference? I would
> suggest that they are certainly not equivalent.
>
> I submit that the phrase "to have the belief that..." is equivalent to the
> phrase "to believe that..." If you disagree, let me know, and I'll formulate
> another example. Otherwise, look again at my original two statements, this time
> with slight, clarifying additions.
>
> A: I have the belief that God does not exist.
> B: I do not have the belief that God exists.
>
> Statement A is a declaration of belief. Statement B is a declaration of the
> lack of belief. The lack of a thing can hardly be said to be equivalent to the
> thing itself.
And we get into the grammar. It's the noun that's being defined--not the
verb--grammar rules do not necessarily follow the sequence of the line.
"I have a belief that there's no God" or "I do not have a belief that God
exists"
It's the noun "I" that "has", or the noun "I" that does "not have".
It's the noun "God" that "is" there (exists), or the noun "God" that "is not"
there (does not exist).
The word "Belief" is the connecting verb, and is not modified.
The noun gets modified (is/is not), the verb connects, and it's the other noun
that, again, gets modified (is not/is).
Grammar pretty much works like an algebra equation
I + have =(believe) no God
I + no have =(believe) God
>
> Here's another formulation. (I'm not commenting on the mathematical feasibility
> of either statement, but I can't recall my pure Boolean notation well enough to
> write in that format.)
>
> A: X + Y = not-Z
> B: X + not-Y = Z
>
> Statement A indicates that X plus Y can equal any sum, as long as that sum is
> not Z. Another way to phrase it is to say that any two values X and Y will
> yield any sum except Z. No matter what you do, X plus Y will never equal Z.
>
> Statement B, by contrast, indicates that any value of X plus any value *except*
> Y will yield sum Z. No matter what you do, X plus any value except Y will
> always equal Z.
>
> Statement B can only ever yield answer Z, whereas statement A can never yield
> answer Z. Clearly, the two statements are not equivalent.
Too true--they're not equivalent.
And we can add to the mix
C: not-X + Y = Z
which is the same rationale as statement B. But these are not entirely
accurate, just me looking at it now--not a direct interpretation of the actual
questions
I believe that God does not exist
I = not God
I do not believe that God exists
Not I = God
(the equal sign is the word believe)
And in 'math-ese' these two equations are similar--you can move the "Not" around
by basic algebra
> So here's my original claim once again:
>
> A: I believe that God does not exist.
> B: I do not believe that God exists.
>
> We may, of course, infer additional information given the two statements, but
> based solely on the information given:
>
> what may we conclude that the speaker believes?
>
> Given Statement A: We may conclude that the speaker believes that
> God does not exist.
> Given Statement B: We may not make any conclusions regarding what
> the speaker believes.
>
> and what may we conclude that the speaker does not believe?
>
> Given Statement A: We may not make any conclusions regarding what the
> speaker does not believe.
> Given Statement B: We may conclude that the speaker does not believe
> that God exists.
You go from the premise that the word 'believe' is the one modified--verbs
aren't modified--it's the nouns
We skip the interm words, but properly constructed,
"I do believe that God does not exist"
"I do not believe that God does exist"
the verb "do" "does" apply to the noun "I" and "God"
What it is the nouns do (or do not) is where the transitional verbs come
in--they transition from one side of the equation to the other side (like
algebra)
"Believe" is a transition from what the noun "I" does to what the noun "God"
does"
Taking it further, we could say that your idea of belief could be
incorporated--To state that one doesn't believe in something is stating a belief
in and of itself--I believe in my non-belief of the existence of God.
I believe in God
Dave! believes in his non-belief in God
Either way, it's a belief.
Wow, you write that word out so much it appears to lose all meaning ;)
> Does this help?
>
> Dave!
Hope mine helps more :)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
