if you know

Isn't it irrelevant for Borg?

So I think too, Cystem. I agree. Something seems fishy; it's almost like we aren't getting the full story.

28 pages to go.

Kant uses the terms a priori and empirical to define our perception of things, the first relating to things we establish as fact through intuition which is "pure", the second things we establish by observation and experimentation.

His comments become extremely involved, so once again I would ask any who are interested in continuing this interesting discussion to please go to my subject "Absolute truth is..." in the "off topic" forum.

I don't think we were discussing absolute truth, just belief. Suppose there is an issue I know nothing about. If you asked me, "Do you believe it is true?" I could say "No, I hold no belief." Similarly, if you asked, "Do you believe it is not true," I could still say, "No, I hold no belief." If you then asked, "Do you therefore believe it is equally likely to be true and untrue," I could still say, quite frustrated, "No sir, I do not hold any belief whatsoever with regard to this issue, because I don't even know what it is."

This is why you can not believe in something while still not believing its inverse.

Not holding a belief about something is not the same as not believing in it.

You can not hold a belief about something, and out of necessity you will also not hold a belief about its inverse.

You cannot, however, not believe in something and simultaneously not believe in its inverse.

Yes, a very important distinction: truth and belief. As we've discussed in another forum, the absolute truth must be something that 1) is falsifiable and 2) that passes all tests indefinitely. A belief is quite different and cannot really be treated scientifically.

For those interested, here is the link to the other forum where this is discussed

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/absolute-truth-is?lc=1#last_comment

In deference to Phobetrix's point above I'd like to restate -- you should not believe in something and simultaneously believe in its inverse.

That said, people hold conflicting beliefs all the time.

I'm sorry TheGrobe, but I fail to understand the difference between a belief about and to believe in. Obviously, this failure is related to me not being sufficiently fluent in English

Holding a belief about something says nothing about what that belief is, just that you have one.

Holding a belief in something means that you believe that thing to be true.  Not holding a belief about something is the agnostic position -- declaring that you do hold a belief about that thing, on the other hand, merely states that you either believe in it or you do not, just not which.

That's probably even less clear....

Yes, I mean no, I wait for your answer...and we're back to the original post

TheGrobe is probably the only sane person here... Now that I think about it, does it have meaning if that compliment comes from one who is not sane?

I wait to everyone's anwer.

'I don't believe in x' could mean that I am not convinced about the existence of x. (It may not be technically correct, but I think it is fairly common to use this expression in that way.) On the other hand, 'I do not believe x exists' does indeed mean that I do believe x does not exist.

Also, when given a choice whether to believe x exists or does not exist, I choose not to believe either, It is generally because I believe the truth cannot be known, or I believe there is not enough information to make that choice.

This is what I believe anyway, and I'm sticking to it.I think it's been well discussed already, but I thought I might as well try my hand at it while we wait to kurogkug 's. next post.

If I was anything close to sane would I still be posting in this thread? 

Explain guy 

Can anyone answer this?

My king was on g3, and then the bishop took. It then said it was stalemate, but my king was on g3 and could have moved to h3,  or take on f4. I think it was a servers error.

?