• 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

Just want to dedicate this thread to Angels dishonest posting and lack of Logic may it live forever to his eternal disgrace
 
Just looking at this thread I can see that the philosophical debate has turned into some kind of name-calling contest and has failed dismally.
The problem with these threads is that the whole point is to debate, and thus no-one ever admits they're wrong. The more they argue, the more obstinate they become, and the whole thing just ends in a stalemate, with both debaters going away thinking they've won and the other person was just being stupid.
 
Marrybore said:
Just looking at this thread I can see that the philosophical debate has turned into some kind of name-calling contest and has failed dismally.
The problem with these threads is that the whole point is to debate, and thus no-one ever admits they're wrong. The more they argue, the more obstinate they become, and the whole thing just ends in a stalemate, with both debaters going away thinking they've won and the other person was just being stupid.
Click to expand...

what's your view of the conclusion drawn in post #13 in this thread?
 
Individual said:
what's your view of the conclusion drawn in post #13 in this thread?
Click to expand...

Do you mean:
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...
An absurdity is a thing that is extremely unreasonable and somewhat ridiculous. I'm not sure that's it's illogical. And is the world without explanation really absurd and illogical? Everything in the world has what you might call "an explanation", but it's debatable as to whether the world itself has one, as Angel seems to believe. The fact that it is the world may qualify it as being the only thing not to have a real explanation - perhaps explanations exist only within the world.
The main point I take issue with is the one I put in bold. The only explanation of the world is God? Really? What is actually meant by God? Does "God" in this context mean merely "whatever the explanation is" rather than the popular idea of God?
Plus, there's the point that if the world exists, then God must exist. Is God actually "part of the world" then? Or can he exist independently of the world?
 
Marrybore said:
Do you mean:

An absurdity is a thing that is extremely unreasonable and somewhat ridiculous. I'm not sure that's it's illogical. And is the world without explanation really absurd and illogical? Everything in the world has what you might call "an explanation", but it's debatable as to whether the world itself has one, as Angel seems to believe. The fact that it is the world may qualify it as being the only thing not to have a real explanation - perhaps explanations exist only within the world.
The main point I take issue with is the one I put in bold. The only explanation of the world is God? Really? What is actually meant by God? Does "God" in this context mean merely "whatever the explanation is" rather than the popular idea of God?
Plus, there's the point that if the world exists, then God must exist. Is God actually "part of the world" then? Or can he exist independently of the world?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the post I found a fault with, being it appears to resort to circular reasoning by applying one belief as the basis of proving another belief to be true.
 
Quag said:
Just want to dedicate this thread to Angels dishonest posting and lack of Logic may it live forever to his eternal disgrace
Click to expand...

It is incapable for Angel to have a rational and reasonable debate. I have tried to have rational debates with him/her and even the most basic discussion is impossible and s/he tries to redefine words and ideas to support nonsense concepts. I don't know if Angel is shockingly ignorant or this is just a pursuit of the absurd for laughs.
 
Lisa said:
It is incapable for Angel to have a rational and reasonable debate. I have tried to have rational debates with him/her and even the most basic discussion is impossible and s/he tries to redefine words and ideas to support nonsense concepts. I don't know if Angel is shockingly ignorant or this is just a pursuit of the absurd for laughs.
Click to expand...
Why not try reading this thread before you start your personal derogations? You're backing the wrong horse here.
 
Angel said:
Why not try reading this thread before you start your personal derogations? You're backing the wrong horse here.
Click to expand...

That claim is beyond rich. My irony meter just exploded with the force of an H-bomb.


Your threads about internet skeptics and the claim skepticism proves that atheists don't exist might go down as the most ignorant thread that I have ever seen.
 
Lisa said:
It is incapable for Angel to have a rational and reasonable debate. I have tried to have rational debates with him/her and even the most basic discussion is impossible and s/he tries to redefine words and ideas to support nonsense concepts. I don't know if Angel is shockingly ignorant or this is just a pursuit of the absurd for laughs.
Click to expand...

How can someone who is unfamiliar with logic have a rational or reasonable debate?
 
Angel said:
Why not try reading this thread before you start your personal derogations? You're backing the wrong horse here.
Click to expand...

The record of this thread is clear your intellectual dishonesty is on display for all to see.
 
Individual said:
Yes, that was the post I found a fault with, being it appears to resort to circular reasoning by applying one belief as the basis of proving another belief to be true.
Click to expand...

All his "arguments" do that
 
Quag said:
How can someone who is unfamiliar with logic have a rational or reasonable debate?
Click to expand...

S/he believes that they have a reasonable working knowledge of logic. Most people believe that they are logical.

This should be certain people's avatar,

fun-meter-gif-8.gif



I've never claimed to be overly intelligent because I learn more than a few facts or concepts every day.
 
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...


I wonder what the phrase an "explanation of the world" means and if I would I recognize it if I saw it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom