• 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

AProudLefty said:
What's to be embarrassed about? Everyone understands that reaction gifs are reflection of what you are doing or feeling in response to others' comments. I was embarrassed for you and mocked your post #5, hence the gif, reflecting me mocking you for the irony in your post #5. It's a pretty simple concept. Get on with the program, please.
Click to expand...
Hey, if you're not embarrassed posting a mockery in the middle of a philosophy discussion, what can anyone say? Knock yourself out!
 
Angel said:
Hey, if you're not embarrassed posting a mockery in the middle of a philosophy discussion, what can anyone say? Knock yourself out!
Click to expand...

Hmm you're repeating so it seems that your logic circuit is broken.
 
Visbek said:
I agree with Angel in terms of the definition of the term "belief." (Ugh, I feel kinda dirty for agreeing with Angel on something :shock: )

"Belief" does not exclusively refer to "opinion" or "religious views." It's a term for a statement that is held to be true.

Quag's use of the dictionary appears to be highly selective. To wit:

View attachment 67265993


From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge.


Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
We believe that there is coffee over there; we believe the special theory of relativity; we believe the surgeon; some of us believe in God. But plausibly what is fundamental is believing that something is the case – believing a proposition, as it is usually put. To believe a theory is to believe the propositions that make up the theory, to believe a person is to believe some proposition advanced by them; and to believe in God is to believe the proposition that God exists. Thus belief is said to be a propositional attitude or intentional state: to believe is to take the attitude of belief to some proposition. It is about what its propositional object is about (God, the operation, or whatever). We can think of the propositional object of a belief as the way the belief represents things as being – its content, as it is often called.
Belief - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy


I might add, I've seen lots of people in the various religion forums act like the term "belief" is permanently tainted by its association with "religious belief," which is downright silly.

Anyway. Since this is the Philosophy subforum, I'd say you ought to use the same definition of "belief" as used routinely by actual philosophers.


On a separate note: If the demand is "Prove that God exists," then engaginging in semantic tactics to win the argument is weak sauce. Consider the following:

1) Joe believes that God exists.

2) Joe believes that "2 + 2 = 4"

3) Joe believes that air has mass.

(Obviously, 2) and 3) are not mere opinion; we treat them as truths and facts. Anyway....)

We do not verify or falsifly these statements on the basis that "belief is merely an opinion." If you want to disprove 1), it is not justifiable to proclaim "belief is opinion, so that's just, like, your opinion, man." You need to present an explanation of what qualifies as a valid proof or evidence, and then defend your choice(s).
Click to expand...


For the purposes of this discussion the term belief is only concerned with how it is used in my statement: that any argument based upon belief/opinion will result in a conclusion that is nothing more thana belief/opinion
Note that it is not limited to religious belief and the definition I provided does not say that either.
However since we are talking about what I mean by belief in my statement then obviously the definition (as found in a dictionary) is the relevant one.

Now as to my statement look at it another way.
If an argument is based upon a false or untrue premise then the conclusion (assuming the logic within is sound) will be false or untrue
Or if an argument is based upon a true premise then the conclusion (assuming the logic within is sound) will be true
Or in other words you get out of the argument the same quality as you put into it
 
Quag said:
For the purposes of this discussion the term belief is only concerned with how it is used in my statement: that any argument based upon belief/opinion will result in a conclusion that is nothing more than a belief/opinion
Note that it is not limited to religious belief and the definition I provided does not say that either.
However since we are talking about what I mean by belief in my statement then obviously the definition (as found in a dictionary) is the relevant one.

Now as to my statement look at it another way.
If an argument is based upon a false or untrue premise then the conclusion (assuming the logic within is sound) will be false or untrue
Or if an argument is based upon a true premise then the conclusion (assuming the logic within is sound) will be true
Or in other words you get out of the argument the same quality as you put into it
Click to expand...

Here is the rub with that, again purely from a philosophical point of view.

When anyone (including me) says that an argument is based on a "belief/opinion" and by extension saying the conclusion is also just a "belief/opinion," the contrast or counterargument is something offered that is not belief or opinion. The judgement of fact or truth turns the debate into whose fact is it, usually as a means to diminish the value of a the opposition as just a belief/opinion by answering whose "belief/opinion" was it.

In that context, and it is also rather superficial, the reason is to change the nature of the discussion which may or may not even answer the original question at hand. To get bogged down in the assumption of superiority in saying someone else's argument is less because you judge the input as less could be interpreted as intentionally avoiding the issue.

Statements of fact and statements of belief/opinion still have the same onus for the purposes of dealing with any question along these lines anyway, and amplifies why it is so difficult for Philosophy (or any other academia) to really answer the question... does God exist?

It would be argumentative to suggest the nature of the question was to exclusively give method to nullify belief/opinion, and we are talking about a question that was only delivered to Philosophy because of the nature of belief/opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I tend to lean system of process and would rather have empirical data, statistics, something given to us via a study of something as a means to draw conclusion from. But if we are stuck in the mentality of devaluing belief/opinion in some of these more difficult questions then you also nullify the point of Philosophy.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Here is the rub with that, again purely from a philosophical point of view.

When anyone (including me) says that an argument is based on a "belief/opinion" and by extension saying the conclusion is also just a "belief/opinion," the contrast or counterargument is something offered that is not belief or opinion. The judgement of fact or truth turns the debate into whose fact is it, usually as a means to diminish the value of a the opposition as just a belief/opinion by answering whose "belief/opinion" was it.

In that context, and it is also rather superficial, the reason is to change the nature of the discussion which may or may not even answer the original question at hand. To get bogged down in the assumption of superiority in saying someone else's argument is less because you judge the input as less could be interpreted as intentionally avoiding the issue.

Statements of fact and statements of belief/opinion still have the same onus for the purposes of dealing with any question along these lines anyway, and amplifies why it is so difficult for Philosophy (or any other academia) to really answer the question... does God exist?

It would be argumentative to suggest the nature of the question was to exclusively give method to nullify belief/opinion, and we are talking about a question that was only delivered to Philosophy because of the nature of belief/opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I tend to lean system of process and would rather have empirical data, statistics, something given to us via a study of something as a means to draw conclusion from. But if we are stuck in the mentality of devaluing belief/opinion in some of these more difficult questions then you also nullify the point of Philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have to disagree.
Philosophically speaking when one makes an argument the intention is to convince someone else of something. The need to have premises that are not considered merely beliefs or opinions is paramount otherwise there is no reason for anyone to accept the argument.
As to the question of does God(s) exist it isn't difficult at all, it is impossible to answer that question with anything other than belief. However my statement was not just about God(s) existence but any argument
 
Quag said:
Yeah I have to disagree.
Philosophically speaking when one makes an argument the intention is to convince someone else of something. The need to have premises that are not considered merely beliefs or opinions is paramount otherwise there is no reason for anyone to accept the argument.
As to the question of does God(s) exist it isn't difficult at all, it is impossible to answer that question with anything other than belief. However my statement was not just about God(s) existence but any argument
Click to expand...

Your answer is what I am getting at.

I am not trying to be mean about it but if you were right Philosophy would have closed these questions a long way back under the likely confines of the answer you are hinting at. The God question, the Truth question, etc.

But as an academia they do not and for good reason. Questions may be answered and closed in your opinion. But that is all that is, your belief/opinion that a question is closed.

You would not be alone in that determination of suggesting someone else's belief/opinion is voided by the logic you bring to that question, and you all would be doing the same thing to the very academia (or processes) you rely on.

At no time was Philosophy put into a category where the only accepted answers were from the methods you (or I) exclusively agree with. I.e. system of process or science answering the question so far as it could be answered with what systems of process attempt to do.

And speaking of the other pitfall you dropped into, even science does not answer a question with arrogant certainty and never revisit the subject. Systems of process are entirely based on question, and doubt. The continual improvement of knowledge based on a process to get to new understanding from a question.

Like Philosophy, all of which you are discarding with your "to the question of does God(s) exist it isn't difficult at all." Pretend all you want that your belief/opinion ends the debate, we have several systems of process and elements of various academia that disagree. Again, not about who is right or wrong but your foolish assumption that for Philosophy the question is closed.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Your answer is what I am getting at.

I am not trying to be mean about it but if you were right Philosophy would have closed these questions a long way back under the likely confines of the answer you are hinting at. The God question, the Truth question, etc.

But as an academia they do not and for good reason. Questions may be answered and closed in your opinion. But that is all that is, your belief/opinion that a question is closed.

You would not be alone in that determination of suggesting someone else's belief/opinion is voided by the logic you bring to that question, and you all would be doing the same thing to the very academia (or processes) you rely on.

At no time was Philosophy put into a category where the only accepted answers were from the methods you (or I) exclusively agree with. I.e. system of process or science answering the question so far as it could be answered with what systems of process attempt to do.

And speaking of the other pitfall you dropped into, even science does not answer a question with arrogant certainty and never revisit the subject. Systems of process are entirely based on question, and doubt. The continual improvement of knowledge based on a process to get to new understanding from a question.

Like Philosophy, all of which you are discarding with your "to the question of does God(s) exist it isn't difficult at all." Pretend all you want that your belief/opinion ends the debate, we have several systems of process and elements of various academia that disagree. Again, not about who is right or wrong but your foolish assumption that for Philosophy the question is closed.
Click to expand...

Yes and philosophy doesn't answer the God question. It can ask but it cannot give THE answer, just answers none of which are any better than the others. So anyone who claims they can prove God exists or anything else basing their argument on a belief or opinion is factually incorrect.
 
Quag said:
Yes and philosophy doesn't answer the God question. It can ask but it cannot give THE answer, just answers none of which are any better than the others. So anyone who claims they can prove God exists or anything else basing their argument on a belief or opinion is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Outside of Philosophy and in just about every other academia of discussion known I would agree, and I've often rejected timidity about that position and join you in being harsh on claims based exclusively on systems of belief.

Inside this area of discussion it is just not that concrete, nor do many facets of Philosophy even allow for that.
 
Quag said:
For the purposes of this discussion the term belief is only concerned with how it is used in my statement: that any argument based upon belief/opinion will result in a conclusion that is nothing more thana belief/opinion
Click to expand...
You specifically stated that you use "dictionary definition." When I point out that you are wrong about the actual definition of the term, especially as used in philosophical debate, you now insist that we all use your personal definition? Hard Nope.

To put it another way: If you're talking about opinion, then you should use the term "opinion." Not "belief."

And again: You can't define your way to victory. If you claim that the statement "God exists" needs to be proven, then you have to explain what qualifies as valid forms of proof; why those types of proof are in fact valid; why other forms that you reject might not be valid; then apply the proofs. Merely stating "it is your opinion that God exists" is only a valid claim if the person you're talking to is, in fact, adhering only to opinion and refusing to defend the claim.

Now, if Angel or someone else says "God exists, I do not need proof, I only require faith," then you have a separate question about the validity of relying on faith to justify beliefs. Attempting to degrade the term "belief" to exclusively mean "opinion" still doesn't help you here, because the real issue is whether faith can justify the purported claims to veracity.
 
Quag said:
Believing in God doesn't make on logical or illogical any more than not believing in God makes one logical or illogical
Click to expand...

Sounds like a tie...should there be a overtime ?
 
Angel said:
Something along these lines perhaps:

The world without explanation is absurdity.
Absurdity is illogical.
Therefore, the world without explanation is illogical.

But the world is logical.
The logic of the world implies explanation.
Therefore, the world has an explanation.

But the only explanation of the world is God.
The world has an explanation.
Therefore, God is the explanation of the world.

God is the explanation of the world.
If the world exists, then the explanation of the world exists.
The world exists.
Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...

Good post.
As you know (here) there's no such thing as a happy ever after ending.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Outside of Philosophy and in just about every other academia of discussion known I would agree, and I've often rejected timidity about that position and join you in being harsh on claims based exclusively on systems of belief.

Inside this area of discussion it is just not that concrete, nor do many facets of Philosophy even allow for that.
Click to expand...

And why you cannot prove anything even in philosophy when doing so.
 
Visbek said:
You specifically stated that you use "dictionary definition." When I point out that you are wrong about the actual definition of the term, especially as used in philosophical debate, you now insist that we all use your personal definition? Hard Nope.
Click to expand...
I is the dictionary definition. I even provided the link. As to using it rather than Angels nebulous one well that is down to the fact Angel claims to want to talk about my statement.

To put it another way: If you're talking about opinion, then you should use the term "opinion." Not "belief."
Click to expand...
Works either way

And again: You can't define your way to victory. If you claim that the statement "God exists" needs to be proven, then you have to explain what qualifies as valid forms of proof; why those types of proof are in fact valid; why other forms that you reject might not be valid; then apply the proofs. Merely stating "it is your opinion that God exists" is only a valid claim if the person you're talking to is, in fact, adhering only to opinion and refusing to defend the claim.
Click to expand...
That's would be angels trick to try and define himself to victory

Now, if Angel or someone else says "God exists, I do not need proof, I only require faith," then you have a separate question about the validity of relying on faith to justify beliefs. Attempting to degrade the term "belief" to exclusively mean "opinion" still doesn't help you here, because the real issue is whether faith can justify the purported claims to veracity.
Click to expand...
If Angels said that I would have no problem with that. but Angles claims top have proved God exists. He is wrong (as always)
 
Quag said:
And why you cannot prove anything even in philosophy when doing so.
Click to expand...

You want to take another stab at that?
 
Quag said:
I is the dictionary definition. I even provided the link.
Click to expand...
...and again, you're being unjustifiably selective in your definition, and trying to use your selective definition to win the argument.


That's would be angels trick to try and define himself to victory
Click to expand...
Two wrongs do not make a right.


If Angels said that I would have no problem with that. but Angles claims top have proved God exists. He is wrong (as always)
Click to expand...
Well, you're going to have to address his specific points, rather than say "you used the word 'belief' therefore you lose!!!"
 
Visbek said:
...and again, you're being unjustifiably selective in your definition, and trying to use your selective definition to win the argument.
Click to expand...
Not at all its my statement so I can use any accepted definition I want. However it maks no real difference as my statement works with different definitons as well I just see no reason to get bogged down with Angles pointless bickering about definitions
Ill rephrase my statement for you
Any argument with a premise based on X will result in a conclusion that is also X. Yo may consider X to be belief/opinion/fact/truth/error/myth etc etc. The logic is the same.


Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...
Agreed



Well, you're going to have to address his specific points, rather than say "you used the word 'belief' therefore you lose!!!"
Click to expand...
See above.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then you are either deliberately being obtuse or nullifying your earlier comments on your exclusive judgement on what is a valid belief/opinion argument (and only by manipulation of the meaning of those words.)
Click to expand...

Not at all
 
Enough said.
My personal thanks to Visbek and OrphanSlug for their posts, posts which kept the philosophical spirit alive in a moribund thread.

Visbek said:
...and again, you're being unjustifiably selective in your definition, and trying to use your selective definition to win the argument.
...
Well, you're going to have to address his specific points, rather than say "you used the word 'belief' therefore you lose!!!"
Click to expand...
OrphanSlug said:
Then you are either deliberately being obtuse or nullifying your earlier comments on your exclusive judgement on what is a valid belief/opinion argument (and only by manipulation of the meaning of those words.)
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
Enough said.
My personal thanks to Visbek and OrphanSlug for their posts, posts which kept the philosophical spirit alive in a moribund thread.
Click to expand...

No angel instead of actually debating my statement you did you typical evasion trying to debate definitions
You failed. My statement stands as you refuse to even try to debate it

Your continued inability to comprehend simple, logic will always lead your failure

I am still willing to debate but you have never ever been willing to do so in any thread.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Enough said.
My personal thanks to Visbek and OrphanSlug for their posts, posts which kept the philosophical spirit alive in a moribund thread.
Click to expand...

...Remarkable responses and support. Quag's supporters should be arriving soon(tongue in cheek). However I will assume he will say " I do fine by by myself. "
 
Quag said:
Same problem as all your other arguments just a bunch of unproven premises based on beleif
Click to expand...

Just a list of unsubstantiated assertions and emotional reactions. So much for dialogue. Angel doesn't do dialogue, just preaches under the guise of philosophical arguments. And these aren't even valid arguments.

Angel seems to think that arguments create reality, rather than exist in that reality.
 
devildavid said:
Just a list of unsubstantiated assertions and emotional reactions. So much for dialogue.
Click to expand...
What in tarnation are you on about here?
devildavid said:
Angel doesn't do dialogue, just preaches under the guise of philosophical arguments. And these aren't even valid arguments.

Angel seems to think that arguments create reality, rather than exist in that reality.
Click to expand...
Quag's and devildavid's favorite subject: Angel.
I'm flattered by the attention, to be sure, but after two years it grows tiresome in sooth.
 
PTF said:
...Remarkable responses and support. Quag's supporters should be arriving soon(tongue in cheek). However I will assume he will say " I do fine by by myself. "
Click to expand...
Water seeks its own level, as they used to say. I'm sure someone will blunder into the thread to bluster and bloviate off topic and personal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom