1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Jul '14 17:361 edit
    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.
  2. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    03 Jul '14 17:541 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    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.
  3. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 Jul '14 18:01
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    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.
    Perhaps truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    At least in this case.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    03 Jul '14 18:02
    a) I believe all cats are tortoiseshell.
    b) I believe my cats are tortoiseshell.

    a) implies b)
    I actually hold b) but not a).
    They are not the same.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    03 Jul '14 18:05
    Originally posted by josephw
    Perhaps truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    At least in this case.
    No. There is no doubt whatsoever that the two statements are significantly different.
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    03 Jul '14 18:07
    Originally posted by josephw
    Perhaps truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    At least in this case.
    That may work for aesthetic claims, but we are talking about basic logic here. If A implies B but B does not imply A, then it cannot be the case that A and B are identical claims.
  7. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110786
    03 Jul '14 18:13
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    FAIL
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    03 Jul '14 18:19
    Originally posted by josephw
    Perhaps truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    At least in this case.
    Theist debate tactic #1:
    Logic doesn't apply to us.
  9. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Jul '14 18:58
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    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 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.
  10. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93434
    03 Jul '14 19:02
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    Otherwise both statement say the same thing, to wit, the claimant doesn't believe God exists.

    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.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    03 Jul '14 19:091 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    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.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    03 Jul '14 19:19
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    The 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.
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    03 Jul '14 19:29
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    Wow...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)
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Jul '14 19:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    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.
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    03 Jul '14 19:332 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    Actually had the ordering been reversed josephw would merely have claimed the first was redundant by following up with the second!

    Worse is the fact that a request to point out any differences. between the two was patently obvious.
Back to Top