• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

Angel said:
I defined "belief" as mental acceptance of a proposition. Did you not read this?
Click to expand...

Which would be based upon perception, id est, how one perceives said fact and integrates it into one's belief system.

My view is that facts are statements of propositions and do not exist outside of knowledge and that knowledge is justified true belief. Do you not understand this?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, and I disagree as I've explained: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

There is no "desperation" on my part and no "tantrum." If you persist in this kind of internet baiting our exchange of posts will be over pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

It's not baiting, as they are cogent observations, however I'm good with your choice not to engage me further on the subject, for experience tells me there is little merit in such a pursuit.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Which would be based upon perception, id est, how one perceives said fact and integrates it into one's belief system.

Yes I do, and I disagree as I've explained: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

It's not baiting, as they are cogent observations, however I'm good with your choice not to engage me further on the subject, for experience tells me there is little merit in such a pursuit.
Click to expand...
Your defense of your baiting remarks as "cogent observations" is yet another baiting remark. This sort of thing is the resort of someone with an inflated self-concept finding himself out of his depth. As for our late exchange, your replies have been unresponsive and made of straw. Enjoy rereading them.
 
Angel said:
Your defense of your baiting remarks as "cogent observations" is yet another baiting remark.
Click to expand...

So you would perceive it, however I have experience as evidence.

This sort of thing is the resort of someone with an inflated self-concept finding himself out of his depth.
Click to expand...

Again, so you would perceive it, however, I simply attribute it to experience from the very first moment you engaged me on this site.

As for our late exchange, your replies have been unresponsive and made of straw.
Click to expand...

So you cannot challenge my responses with a cogent rebuttal?

Enjoy rereading them.
Click to expand...

As an exercise, that would be completely unnecessary.
 
devildavid:
There is no impersonal force behind all of reality. There is no force at all. Defining god as an impersonal force does not make it any less made up than all other concepts of god.

Angel:
How do you know this?
devildavid said:
Because I know all concepts of god are the product of man's imagination. Nothing resembling any of these concepts has been shown through evidence to be any more than that.
Click to expand...
So let's get this straight. Is devildavid claiming that God does not exist because man's concepts of God are concepts of God?
Is that the claim?

devildavid said:
Even if I were to humor you that some force is behind the universe, there is no reason to think it is sentient, let alone impersonal or personal. Physical forces are likely the cause of the universe. It is not likely that this force is sentient and decided to act. So to describe it as a god of any kind is grossly inaccurate. It is no more a god than the forces at play in the universe today.
Click to expand...
Where did you get all this straw? It doesn't come from my barn.
 
NWO_Spook said:
So you would perceive it, however I have experience as evidence.

Again, so you would perceive it, however, I simply attribute it to experience from the very first moment you engaged me on this site.

So you cannot challenge my responses with a cogent rebuttal?

As an exercise, that would be completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Ah! I forgot that you're a Last Wordist. The strain of solipsism in your posts should have been a dead giveaway.
Have at it, and then have a nice day.
 
Angel said:
devildavid:
There is no impersonal force behind all of reality. There is no force at all. Defining god as an impersonal force does not make it any less made up than all other concepts of god.
Click to expand...

Love.
 
devildavid said:
Just because I disagree with almost everything you post does not make me a contrarian. It just means you post mostly things I disagree with. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
Disagreement for disagreement's sake is contrarianism. You simply post contradictions of whatever I have claimed; your contradictions are not backed up by reasons; you simply assert the contrary.
 
Angel said:
Ah! I forgot that you're a Last Wordist.
Click to expand...

As you must always have the last word, and with it including a personal attack, the irony of your claim isn't lost on me. Do you realise that you are actually confirming my earlier point here?

The strain of solipsism in your posts should have been a dead giveaway.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, does not exist. Do you understand the term? Anyway, back to the point, I take it you have no counter argument to my statements regarding facts and belief?

Have at it, and then have a nice day.
Click to expand...

See you!
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
So let's get this straight. Is devildavid claiming that God does not exist because man's concepts of God are concepts of God?
Is that the claim?
Click to expand...

No, obviously he is clearly claiming that all concepts of god are simply products of man's imagination.
 
devildavid said:
Arguments do not first define truths. If they did, there would be no purpose for the argument. An argument proposes something and tries to show it to be valid and logical. Arguments may attempt to find truths, but they don't begin by defining a truth. If something is a truth, that already says it he been established as w truth. No argument required.
Click to expand...
If an argument concerns truth, then if it is to be a cogent argument it must define truth.
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, obviously he is clearly claiming that all concepts of god are simply products of man's imagination.
Click to expand...
He does more than that. He asserts an ontological claim as well:
There is no impersonal force behind all of reality. There is no force at all. Defining god as an impersonal force does not make it any less made up than all other concepts of god.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
He does more than that. He asserts an ontological claim as well:
Click to expand...

Which is obviously an exposition on his original claim.

Angel said:
If an argument concerns truth, then if it is to be a cogent argument it must define truth.
Click to expand...

He said 'truths', not 'truth' which refers to facts held to be true, not 'truth' itself. In the context of an argument, 'truth' itself doesn't require definition. For example, we can employ the theory of relativity within a premise and accept it as true without defining the term 'truth'.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
That's right. Traditionally, belief would have to satisfy certain epistemic criteria before rising to knowledge, such as that the belief be true and justified.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
So how do you determine what makes a belief true and justified? True to who and justified by who?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
An argument that defines truth and sets forth the reasons to believe.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Arguments , philosophical or otherwise, do not define truth.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
This is silly contrarianism. This is usually where our dialogues come to a quick end.
So, tell us, before we sign off, what defines truth.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Arguments do not first define truths. If they did, there would be no purpose for the argument. An argument proposes something and tries to show it to be valid and logical. Arguments may attempt to find truths, but they don't begin by defining a truth. If something is a truth, that already says it he been established as w truth. No argument required.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
If an argument concerns truth, then if it is to be a cogent argument it must define truth.
Click to expand...

NWO_Spook said:
...He said 'truths', not 'truth' which refers to facts held to be true, not 'truth' itself. In the context of an argument, 'truth' itself doesn't require definition. For example, we can employ the theory of relativity within a premise and accept it as true without defining the term 'truth'.
Click to expand...
I here post the entire exchange for you. We're talking about the concept of truth.
 
Angel said:
Whether an "exposition," as you call it, or an extrapolation, as I see it, it is unjustified.
Click to expand...

Well, you could demonstrate how it is unjustified (and an extrapolation, for that matter) instead of merely asserting thus.
 
Angel said:
Let's see you prove one outside subjectivity then.
Click to expand...

Prove one what?
Outside what subjectivity? Not following.

Fact is proven.
You can believe 1+1=3, and if you believe it hard enough, it is true to you. But it is not fact. Just your belief.
 
NWO_Spook said:
But do note he said 'truths' not truth (see the first line of the sixth quote).
Click to expand...
Noted. He's often just firing from the hip in his posts, and accuracy of expression is not to be expected from him.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Well, you could demonstrate how it is unjustified (and an extrapolation, for that matter) instead of merely asserting thus.
Click to expand...
That was our second dance here at DP. Don't you remember?
 
Angel said:
That was our second dance here at DP. Don't you remember?
Click to expand...

No, I don't remember, so what are you saying? That you feel you demonstrated it then, so you don't have to now? That you didn't demonstrate it then and you can't now? That you haven't/can't demonstrate(d) either?
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
No, I don't remember, so what are you saying? That you feel you demonstrated it then, so you don't have to now? That you didn't demonstrate it then and you can't now? That you haven't/can't demonstrate(d) either?
Click to expand...
I'm saying we've been over this before. You didn't feel like discussing it at the time. Do you feel differently now? My thesis is that debunking this or that concept of God does not debunk the existence of God. Our friend devildavid, along with New Atheists generally, thinks that debunking the Judaeo-Christian concept of God debunks the existence of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom