Indicate the difference....

Post Reply New Topic

What is the difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I don't believe the X exists"?

ruveyn

Hi ruveyn,

What is the difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I don't believe the X exists"?

The difference is, that with "I believe that X does not exist", means that you definitely haven't
arrived at Y and Z in the alphabet, while "I don't believe the X exists" means that you have an
incomplete alphabet, or a couple pages are missing from your dictionary.

Or, depending on semantics, vice-versa.

Or do you mean on your yard-sale typewriter?

Tadzio

the second statement is more one of doubt then the first

The first expresses confidence in X's lack of existence. The second merely states lack of confidence X's existence. Is this a test?

that's the absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence thing, right?

And to be clear, I believe that available data points to the non-existence of X, not that i believe that no evidence points to the existence of X.

Last edited by blauSamstag on 26 Mar 2012, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with ruveyn's implication that these two statements are not really any different. A lot of people think that we all walk around with a bag of propositions in our heads. For example, maybe person A has the proposition "God doesn't exist" in his bag, while person B merely doesn't have the proposition "God exists" in his bag.

I don't think that it works like this at all. Rather, I think that people's "beliefs" are best classified by what they expect will happen. Person A and person B are both not expecting God to reveal himself. They both have mental models of the world that do not include God.

Au Contraire They are very different. Refusal to believe something for lack of evidence is not the same as denying that something.

ruveyn

Sorry, I guess I was projecting.

Well then, I disagree with your implication that there is a difference between them!

I agree that there is a formal distinction between "X believes not P" and "X not believes P". However, I do not think that these formal strings are actually a good model of what it means for a person to believe something. I am basically a verificationist when it comes to making sense of non-value beliefs. What I want to know is: what would surprise a person if it happened? That's what beliefs really are - they are an attempt to predict future experience.

i think there is plenty of diffference in the context of belief,

belief means different things to different people and as such trying to equate them is presumptious.

make that not X believes P or it is not that case that X believes P. This is different from X asserts that P is false.

The first is a negative statement, the second is a positive statement. That is because the first asserts what X does not believe and the second says what X asserts. One is about a belief and the other is about what X asserts or does not assert.

ruveyn

What AstroGeek said.

The first one states what is believed, and second states what isn't believed.

One is a belief and the other is a lack of belief.

Any mathematician or lawyer can tell you that that there's a world of difference between disproof and a failure to prove.

In plane geometry you cannot trisect an angle with straightedge and compasses, nor can you "square the circle." The possibility of both has been disproved beyond any means of doubt. But Beal's conjecture merely remains unproven.

And while the prosecution failed to prove that OJ Simpson killed anyone, no one has yet demonstrated that he didn't.

This.

If you assert "I have a frog in my hand", I can hold three different sentiments about the veracity of your assertion:

"I believe you."
"I DON'T believe you."
"I believe you DON'T have a frog in your hand."

The first represents theism.
The second is weak atheism.
The third is strong atheism.

Not a legal requirement. Guilt has to be proven, not innocence which is presumed.

ruveyn