A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that god was identified inferentially by statement A.
Therefore statement B is redundant, and the two statements are only superficially different by the addition of 6 words in statement B, and the omission of 2 words in statement A.
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.
Originally posted by josephwYes, the two claims are clearly different. In the first, the claimant is asserting that all god-conceptions fail to be instantiated, whereas in the second the claimant is only asserting that a particular god-conception fails to be instantiated. Yes, of course these are different claims. The first claim basically implies the second, but obviously the second does not imply the first. So they must have different content; they are different claims.
[b]A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that go ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.[/b]
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloPerhaps truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, the two claims are clearly different. In the first, the claimant is asserting that all god-conceptions fail to be instantiated, whereas in the second the claimant is only asserting that a particular god-conception fails to be instantiated. Yes, of course these are different claims. The first claim basically implies the second, but obviously the second does not imply the first. So they must have different content; they are different claims.
At least in this case.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwFAIL
[b]A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that go ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.[/b]
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwActually, there is a distinction.
[b]A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that go ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.[/b]
You're looking at it from the standpoint that if the claimant states A it would be redundant to also state B.
That part is true, and given the order of the statements (regular form never numbers or letters a statement without attendant statements), this sloppy formatting lends itself to confusion: why state the further case and then state the case more near?
However, if the claimant only states B, he doesn't necessarily state A.
The claimant ought to have completely separated the two in order to clear up the confusion, instead of putting them in sequential order implying they were two statements from the same person.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwOtherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.
[b]A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that go ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.[/b]
nope. the statements are completely different. statement 'a' is a statement only an atheist could make. statement 'b' could be made by an atheist or a theist.
03 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe claimant was perfectly clear and asked what the difference was between the two statements. Everybody except josephw understands perfectly well what was being asked - even you got it. At no point was there any implication that they were to be taken as two statements made simultaneously by the same person.
The claimant ought to have completely separated the two in order to clear up the confusion, instead of putting them in sequential order implying they were two statements from the same person.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe claimant, who formatted those two statements did so on the latter half of the 4th page of the op`s atheist debating tactics thread. Indeed to save himself the wasted effort of trying to justify a position impenetrable to the other side, he asked if the other side could discern the difference between the two statements given in this thread. The formatting is well justified by the intent.
Actually, there is a distinction.
You're looking at it from the standpoint that if the claimant states A it would be redundant to also state B.
That part is true, and given the order of the statements (regular form never numbers or letters a statement without attendant statements), this sloppy formatting lends itself to confusion: why state the further c ...[text shortened]... tead of putting them in sequential order implying they were two statements from the same person.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwWow...this is one hell of a grim analysis! I`ll take a shot at defeating this argument, by contradiction, when I get back to my laptop (long phone posts suck)
[b]A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"
The claimant states with certainty that no type of god or gods exist in statement A.
Statement B is merely a reiteration of the same claim. The only difference is that the claimant identifies a certain god, but that go ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.[/b]
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever it was understood by everybody when it was presented by someone else is conjecture.
The claimant was perfectly clear and asked what the difference was between the two statements. Everybody except josephw understands perfectly well what was being asked - even you got it. At no point was there any implication that they were to be taken as two statements made simultaneously by the same person.
It was presented in such a manner as to allow confusion by virtue of its inclusion of sequential ordering.
Had the original poster presented them without that ordering, I am fairly certain that it could not be misconstrued.
03 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually had the ordering been reversed josephw would merely have claimed the first was redundant by following up with the second!
However it was understood by everybody when it was presented by someone else is conjecture.
It was presented in such a manner as to allow confusion by virtue of its inclusion of sequential ordering.
Had the original poster presented them without that ordering, I am fairly certain that it could not be misconstrued.
Worse is the fact that a request to point out any differences. between the two was patently obvious.