logical proof

[Anonymous No.2285805]

Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me write a logical proof..

I am trying to express that "Belief that God exists" and Belief that God does not exist is a false dichotomy, because there is the possibility that someone can lack a belief in both propositions..

I am not sure exactly how to do this..

pic not related

[Anonymous No.2285809]

are you askinf sci to argue pro religion? O_o

[Anonymous No.2285814]

>>2285809
No, actually, I am trying to argue that the term Atheism does not imply a belief that God does not exist.. Only a lack of belief that God exists...

The person I am arguing with believes that non-belief in God = belief that God does not exist...

I am trying to prove logically that this is a false dichotomy.. Because the two propositions are mutually exclusive, but not jointly exhaustive..

I dont know how to express this in a logical proof..

[Anonymous No.2285818]

Not knowing is the same as not believing. Because if you don't know then how can you possibly believe? You can't, therefore you don't believe in a god.

Also I suspect this is a troll thread.

Also I have a question of my own:

How is it that believing in a god is not considered a mental disorder? I mean, if I told you I believe in a santa claus then you would label me insane, but if it's a god then it's all fine and i'm not mental? Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous No.2285822]

>>2285814

"Atheism" means literally, "without theism". If you don't know or don't believe in a god then you are without theism.

[Anonymous No.2285828]

Does it look like a religion board to you?

saged and reported, enjoy your ban.

[Anonymous No.2285837]

Right.. I am an Atheist.. I am "Without Theism".. In other words, I am "without the belief in God"

That does not mean, I am "With the belief that God does not exist"..., I could not justify that claim...

So I lack a belief in God...

This is why I say "Belief that God exists" Vs "Belief that God does not exist is a false dichotomy..

Does anyone know how I could express that in a logical formula??

[Anonymous No.2285848]

>>2285837
if you explain it like that, and your friend doesn't get it. He's an idiot.
I'm sorry I'm not good at logical logic things. But what you're saiyan seems pretty logical to me.

[Anonymous No.2285854]

>>2285828
What a dumb ass..

I dont want to talk about religion..

I just want to know how to mathmatically prove a false dichotomy...

[Anonymous No.2285862]

>>2285837

You can't prove a negative; and the very premise of God being disproved is impossible; how do you disprove something that can do anything (i.e. disappear from you seeing it yet still exist. GOD IS DARK MATTER)

[Anonymous No.2285864]

>>2285862
that's not what he's trying to prove

[Anonymous No.2285876]

>>2285854

Oh, okay then. Thank you for contributing a quality and original science thread to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2285929]

>>2285876
OP here, Sorry if you are the anon who I was being hostile to...

I am just looking for a simple way to express to the person I am talking to that the nonbelief of one claim does not imply the acceptence of it's negation... And that nonbelief is a viable third option...

I have stated this in plane english, but he wants to see it in a logical proof... And I am not exactly sure how to do this..

[Anonymous No.2285967]

It's kind of like the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You are asking someone to prove an unprovable proposition. Same thing like the principle- you can never know the answer of the position of a quantum particle, because your interaction changes the outcome.

Make sense?

Something like this-

X has a value of either 0 or 1.
Both 0 and 1 are equally possible values of X.
It is impossible to determine the value of X.
Because it is impossible to determine the value of X, both 0 and 1 remain equally possible values.

[Anonymous No.2285976]

>>2285967

samefag here, responding to earlier post-

Use the heisenberg uncertainty principle as a real world example of what you are trying to tell him- that there are real world examples of definitively unknowable values.

Schrodinger's Cat paradox is sort of the inverse of what you are trying to prove- that you can describe a situation where BOTH states exist simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.2285999]

>>2285976

Same fag, yet again

Probably not the case, but just pointing out after reviewing entire thread that if you are saying you take no position as to whether or not god exists, you are not atheist, you are agnostic

[Anonymous No.2286011]

Easily done, they're both non zero values of belief. one is a 1 and the other -1 someone with 0 belief would have no notion a god could exist.

It's like I might believe a friend was a slut, another friend believe she wasn't a starving african has no opinion on her. see?

[Anonymous No.2286025]

OP, you're going to have to stick to definitions to clarify your point. >>2285822 is right. This is the dictionary definition of atheism, and the etymology is sound. Tell your opponent that lacking a belief is simply not the same as asserting a lack of existence of something. Someone who says that god does not exist could be termed an 'anti-theist'. I believe Hitchens describes himself as one.

You may be accused of being an agnostic instead of atheist. Tell your opponent that such labels are not an either or as gnosticism and agnosticism speak to knowledge, whereas theism and atheism speak to belief.

Most atheists would be described as agnostic atheists. The term is often referred to as 'weak atheism'. It's why most simply identify as simply atheists.

I try to avoid using the word atheist when discussing my beliefs, simply because it carries with it a lot of baggage. Sam Harris said correctly that the argument that Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were atheists isn't going away. No matter how specious a claim it may be, no matter how weak an argument it may be. This isn't a tactic I take out of shame of my position, but out of a need to clarify and open up discussion about belief.

When someone asks me what religion I am, I simply tell them that I don't subscribe to any religious tradition. If they ask how I was raised, or what I believe I explain it to them what I believe and why. I then turn it around on them and ask them what they believe and why. Normally, by the end of the conversation I've gotten them to think about what it is they believe and why they do. Most religious people are never called upon to consider their beliefs, and it ends up being a real eye-opener for them.

[Anonymous No.2286043]

>>2285999
OP here.. I don't believe that God exists.. But I also can't justify the belief that God does not exist..

But since I lack the belief that God exists, I consider myself an Atheist..

Because only theists believe God exists, if I am not a Theist, then I must be a nontheist (Atheist)

Anyway, is there a way to write this in a formula

(T) = Theist
(A) = Belief that God does not exist

I am trying to prove that it is possible to be (not T) and (not A) at the same time

[Anonymous No.2286054]

>>2286043
OP again... I know it is kinda obvious.. But the person I am arguing with demands to see it in the form of a logical proof... I think this is the only way to shut him up...

[Anonymous No.2286067]

"i do belive in god"
"i do not belive in god"

is not the same as

"I know god does exists"
"I know god does not exist"

"I know god does not exist, but i belive in god"
"I know god does not exist, and i do not belive in god"

[Anonymous No.2286072]

>>2286043
Does this work:
If...
(T) = Theist
(A) = Belief that God does not exist

A+T = false
not A+T = true
Not T+A= true
not T+ not A = true

I never really studied propositional logic..

[Anonymous No.2286088]

>>2285805
Agnostic, you're welcome.

[Anonymous No.2286092]

This is the argument he is giving me (Which is obviously fallacious)

But he is asking ME to refute it in the form of a logical proof..

"If a thing exists then it does not lack existence.

You do not believe that God exists.

Therefore you do not believe that God does not lack existence.

Therefore you do believe that God does lack existence.

Therefore you believe that God does not exist"

Again.. forget that we are talking about God.. I just want to know how to prove that this is a false dichotomy..

Is there a way to show that these options are not collectivly exhaustive???

[Anonymous No.2286096]

>>2286092
See
>>2286088

[Anonymous No.2286111]

There are at least 3 stances on whether or not God exists...

A: "I believe God exists"
B: "I believe God does not exist"
and
C: "I do not believe God exists"


Now... it is possible that B and C are logically equivalent although I do not consider them so... but heck I might be wrong (I've been wrong in the past and I'll be wrong in the future).

Anyway let us consider a situation in which while talking with a Theist you state, "I don't believe in God" and they responded "pffft, you mean you believe God does not exit"...

They either believe that B and C are different statements, hence the need for them to put words into your mouth and attempt to make your position a belief...

OR they actually believe that B and C are logically identical... in which case why are they making an issue of the difference?


If someone asks you, "Do you believe in God/Magic/Voodoo/Unicorns?", then your response will generally be in the form "No, I don't believe in that/those"...


Do you believe Pie is rational?
No I don't believe Pie is rational, in fact I believe it is irrational.

Do you believe God exists?
No, I don't believe god exists.(END OF LINE)

[Anonymous No.2286122]

>>2286111
You forgot
D) "I do not believe that God does not exist"
An agnostic would have to hold (non)positions C and D.

[Anonymous No.2286150]

>>2286092
Why would you argue religion at all? It is a matter of personal belief.

The existance of god can not be proven.
The nonexistence of god can not be proven.

An unstoppable force vs an inmovable object.

I quote you:

"If a thing exists then it does not lack existence.

You do not believe that God exists.

Therefore you do not believe that God does not lack existence.

Therefore you do believe that God does lack existence.

Therefore you believe that God does not exist"

/end quote
That my friend, is saying the same thing in different ways. Keep it simple.

>>2286111
B and C are the same. you just worded it differently.

>>2286122
"I do not believe that God does not exist"
this is the same as above posts B and C options.

Keep it simple gais.
There is no need to overcomplicate.

[Anonymous No.2286183]

This isn't logic, it's semantics. And those two positions are identical. "I lack a belief in the tooth fairy," and "I believe the tooth fairy does not exist" mean the same exact thing. If you need to fine-tune your position beyond that, you need extra words, like, "But I haven't read all of the arguments FOR the tooth-fairy," or "But I'm really not that certain about the tooth-fairy one way or another."

But your original statements mean the same thing. "Weak atheism" and "Strong atheism" are useful shorthand ways of clarifying your--for lack of a better word--certainty on the subject, but it's not like they differ in kind or anything. I'm a weak atheist when it comes to deism's god (I just don't feel that the concept explains anything, and in fact only confuses the issues), and I'm a strong atheist when it comes to the wide variety of crazy-ass Muslim and Christian gods who hate gays and practically everyone else but are still all-loving.

[Anonymous No.2286196]

>>2286111
I appreciate the conversation.. But could someone please put this in the form of a logical proof?

It is possible to not believe in something is true, but also not believe something is false at the same time...

Like the results of a coin toss which we havent seen... I dont believe the coin has landed heads up, but I also dont believe the coin landed tails (or on its side)

Is there a way to express this mathematically?

[Anonymous No.2286220]

To the question of whether or not god exists there are two possible answers: yes or no.

[Anonymous No.2286251]

>>2286196
that coin example is saying "i dont know, i cant say onething or another".
with this in mind lets look at math.

Math is fact. Its eighter this or that.
Lets make math of your claims.

1 + 1 = 2
-1 + 1 = 0
1 + -1 = 0
-1 + -1 = -2

positive = god exists
negative = god does not exist.
0 = not positive, not negative

your question is essencialy, what is 0.

Have i defined this right, OP?

[Anonymous No.2286404]

>>2286196
OP here, to be honest, at this point, I am kinda just making this up as I go along..

I am trying to show that there are more than just two options.. I managed to come up with 4:

b(G) = Belief in Gods existence
¬b(G) = Nonbelief in Gods existence
b(¬G) = Belief in Gods nonexistence
¬b(¬G) = Nonbelief in Gods nonexistence
..
... How could I go about showing that nonbelief in Gods existence, and nonbelief in Gods nonexistence are compatable?

[Anonymous No.2286406]

>>2286150
>B and C are the same. you just worded it differently.

I think there is a subtle difference in the wording to be honest... HOWEVER I'm willing to concede that they maybe logically equivalent BUT that does raise a question, why do people often try to force you to switch from one to the other?
T: Do you believe god exists?
A: No, I don't believe god exists.
T: HA! you mean You believe God doesn't exist!
A: ... um either they mean different things, in which case I stand by what I said or they mean the exact same thing, in which case you're actually just being a jerk...

[Anonymous No.2286407]

Not math or science.

Also, meaningless semantics.

[Anonymous No.2286415]

>>2286150
>this is the same as above posts B and C options.
B "I believe God does not exist"
C "I do not believe God exists"
D "I do not believe God does not exist"

are three different statements with different meanings. B is the only one that expresses a belief. C and D both deny beliefs, but they each deny a different belief. C denies a belief that God exists and D denies a belief that God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2286423]

>I am trying to argue that the term Atheism does not imply a belief that God does not exist..

That's not true, though.... the term comes from "atheos" plus "ism" not "a" plus "theism".

[Anonymous No.2286424]

>>2286092

He's dividing by zero... seriously.
Well kind of...

>"If a thing exists then it does not lack existence.
>You do not believe that God exists.
>Therefore you do not believe that God does not lack existence.
FAIL! Divide by zero error! (kind of)
>Therefore you do believe that God does lack existence.
>Therefore you believe that God does not exist"


a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1

[Anonymous No.2286430]

>>2286423
and in either case, there is a belief/belief system held which is the foundational structure of the atheistic position(s). This "natural" or "neutral position" marketing ploy is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2286431]

>>2286196
Logical proofs can only operate on propositions. They don't operate on statements of belief or disbelief. You can have a proposition A: God exists or a proposition B: God does not exist. But logic doesn't deal with statements, "I believe A is wrong" or "I don't believe that A is right" (two differing statements).

You could set up some axioms maybe, like if B() is a belief function, you could specify
~(~B(A)=>B(~A))
That is, not believing in proposition A does not imply belief that proposition A is false. That is a true statement, but there's no way to prove it without defining what belief and lack of belief are.

[Anonymous No.2286445]

>>2286404
From the axiom that ¬b(A) and ¬b(B) are compatible for all A and B. In other words, there are incompatible beliefs, but there are no incompatible lack of beliefs.

Sorry, I don't know how to prove it, it's just the nature of non-belief. It's sort of like a non-statement. Two non-statements can never contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.2286466]

quoting >>2286150

"The existance of god can not be proven.
The nonexistence of god can not be proven."

From an objectiv pov, there is yes or no.
From a personal pov its, well, what you belive in.

Do not mix up those two.

This is a utterly pointless topic to discuss due to the lack of evidence and fact. This is a discussion based on beliefs only.
Beliefs do not hold in the court of law.

[Anonymous No.2286468]

>>2286092
>Therefore you do not believe that God does not lack existence.
>Therefore you do believe that God does lack existence.
So he's saying that
¬b(G) => b(¬G)
It's fallacious because it's not supported. If you got rid of the belief function, so it was just
¬(G) => (¬G)
Then it would be true. But a lack of belief doesn't imply a belief in the opposite. Unless you were to spuriously define belief that way.

[Anonymous No.2286517]

The existence of god can not be proven.
The nonexistence of god can not be proven.
The existence of god can be proven.
The nonexistence of god can be proven.

This is a matter of belief, not a matter of maths.

Neither you or your friend can prove nor disprove anything.

[Anonymous No.2286559]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

This video explains what you say, just calls it agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.2286601]

>>2286517
to be fair, the existence of god can be proven.
I mean, if suddenly a guy appeared and said he was god, and it passed all the tests to be god, then yes, there could be a good.
Now, to prove there is NO GOD, that's harder, you'd have to search the whole universe.

[Anonymous No.2286641]

>>2286601
Since God is defined as omnipresent, you do not have to search the whole universe. You can hypothetically test any one spot for God. Sort of like how we tested for the aether and proved it didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.2287054]

OP here,

Not trying to prove God doesn't exist...

Just trying to prove that lack of belief in God doesn't imply the belief that God doesn't exist...

I know what angnosticism is...

[Anonymous No.2287108]

>>2287054

OP you have to define what it means to exist.

You have to show that the object "God" is beyond the category of existence.

If you can show that it is possible for God to neither exist nor not-exist, then the two positions you stated create a false dichotomy and it is possible to gave a third position and rationally suppose that God is neither an existing being nor a non-existing being. (This is not to say that he exists and doesn't exist at the same time, instead it says that such a being doesn't belong to the category of existence)

However this is extremely hard to do, existence seems to be a binary position.

Usually there are only two rational positions to hold regarding the existence of an object: either object X exists or does not.

You have to show that there is a third position, object X neither exists nor does not exist.

Good luck

[Anonymous No.2287137]

>>2287108

Strictly speaking there is no false dichotomy between
those two beliefs.

Existence is binary.

If someone lacks belief in both those statements, then he holds the belief that an object (God) neither exists nor does not exist. Which violates the principle of excluded middle.

You have to show how existence is not binary and that there is a third and perhaps forth position:

A thing can exist and not exist at same time (typically contradiction)

A thing can neither exist nor not exist (typically violates excluded middle)

OP has to come up with a new foundation for what it means to exist.

[Anonymous No.2287166]

>>2287137
>there is the possibility that someone can lack a belief in both propositions..

A false dichotomy occurs when there is a third option, that is rational.

For example, there is no third belief-option when it comes to someone's marriage status.


You believe X is a bachelor or not-a-bachelor.
The fact that you lack a belief about X's status doesn't mean those two are false dichotomies, it just means you can't form a belief.

They are only false dichotomies, if it is possible for X to be married and not-married at once, or neither married nor not-married.

Which are absurdities.

[Anonymous No.2287174]

>>2287166
>>2287137
>>2287108


/thread

[Anonymous No.2287249]

HEY OP
i think i have what youre looking for:

1 l B => E (belief => faith he exists)
2 l B => N (belief => faith he doesn't exist)
--------------------------------------------------
3 l l B (auxilary assumption)
------------------------------------
4 l l E (conditional elimination, 1, 3)
5 l l N (conditional elimination, 2, 3)
6 l l E & N (conjunction introduciton, 4-5)
7 l B => [E & N] (conditional introduciton, 3-6)
8 l ~B v [E&N] (implication, 7)

Thus, you either dont believe in the faith regarding his existance, or you have faith in an existential status