Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

[Angel]

What do you mean like what?
Like anything that is proven as opposed to just claimed to be true without any reason to accept it as such

Are you really just gonna divert this rather than deal with the glarinmg propblem with your proofs?

First of all, nothing is proven. Even closed systems like math and formal logic must rely on unprovable assumptions in their proofs.
Second, all proposition assert beliefs of varying levels of acceptance.
Third, there is nothing that can be asserted that is not a matter of belief.
Fourth, if beliefs are merely opinions, as you assert (which assertion is also a belief by the way), then all argument is open to your criticism of "mere opinion."

 

[Quag]

First of all, nothing is proven. Even closed systems like math and formal logic must rely on unprovable assumptions in their proofs.
Second, all proposition assert beliefs of varying levels of acceptance.
Third, there is nothing that can be asserted that is not a matter of belief.
Fourth, if beliefs are merely opinions, as you assert (which assertion is also a belief by the way), then all argument is open to your criticism of "mere opinion."

So according to this you are amitting that you cannot prove God and all your efforts to do so were a waste of time. Good you can now stop making so many pointless threads
But ill play along with this and rephrase my statement
The quality of any conclusion in an argument is equal to the quality of the premises

 

[Angel]

The quality of any conclusion in an argument is equal to the quality of the premises

"Value" is a better word than quality since in logic it is the truth-value of the premises that determines the truth-value of the conclusion.
But I've already acknowledge as much in a previous post.
The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
Here, again, is your post on this score:

I will stick to my definition of belief which is really nothing more than opinion
Any argument based on a belief or opinion results in a conclusion that is a belief or opinion

 

[Quag]

"Value" is a better word than quality since in logic it is the truth-value of the premises that determines the truth-value of the conclusion.
But I've already acknowledge as much in a previous post.
The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
Here, again, is your post on this score:

It doesnt affect it at all in any way that you want it to
So either we can move on from this or go round and round as you try to make strawmen that I will not accept

 

[Quag]

First of all, nothing is proven. Even closed systems like math and formal logic must rely on unprovable assumptions in their proofs.

So according to this you are amitting that you cannot prove God and all your efforts to do so were a waste of time. Good you can now stop making so many pointless threads

 

[Angel]

It doesnt affect it at all in any way that you want it to
So either we can move on from this or go round and round as you try to make strawmen that I will not accept

The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
The question is NOT: Does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form in the way I've suggested?

 

[Angel]

So according to this you are amitting that you cannot prove God and all your efforts to do so were a waste of time. Good you can now stop making so many pointless threads

Irrelevant. We're here to discuss our philosophical differences on certain key issues.
If you rephrase your assertion as a question, however, I'll be glad to answer it.

 

[Quag]

The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
The question is NOT: Does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form in the way I've suggested?

My definition does not affect it in any way you want it to

 

[Quag]

Irrelevant. We're here to discuss our philosophical differences on certain key issues.
If you rephrase your assertion as a question, however, I'll be glad to answer it.

Not irrelevant as you are now claiming your multiple threads are just a waste of time
Decide what you want your statements to mean dont try to redefine mine to make strawmen

 

[Angel]

Not irrelevant as you are now claiming your multiple threads are just a waste of time
Decide what you want your statements to mean dont try to redefine mine to make strawmen

Your opinion of my threads is irrelevant to our discussion. Your answer to my question, on the other hand, is relevant to our discussion, and yet you won't answer the question. Indeed, you're dodging vigorously in order to avoid answering.

So I repeat:

The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
The question is NOT: Does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form in the way I've suggested?

 

[Angel]

My definition does not affect it in any way you want it to

We want to know in what way YOU see it affecting logical form. YOU. We don't want to hear your dismissal of my answer to this question. We want YOUR answer.

 

[Quag]

Your opinion of my threads is irrelevant to our discussion. Your answer to my question, on the other hand, is relevant to our discussion, and yet you won't answer the question. Indeed, you're dodging vigorously in order to avoid answering.

So I repeat:

The question is: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?
The question is NOT: Does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form in the way I've suggested?

The only relevant part is that you have admitted your "proofs" are not proofs just beliefs on your part, yet you insist on making multiple threads trying to prove something you claim cannot be proven

 

[Quag]

We want to know in what way YOU see it affecting logical form. YOU. We don't want to hear your dismissal of my answer to this question. We want YOUR answer.

I have already stated it multiple times the only problem is you keep trying to change what I sais rather than discussing what I said

 

[Angel]

My definition does not affect it in any way you want it to

The bolded portion of your post is non-responsive. The question to you EXCLUDES what I "want it to."

 

[Angel]

Not irrelevant as you are now claiming your multiple threads are just a waste of time
Decide what you want your statements to mean dont try to redefine mine to make strawmen

Show us all where I am "claiming [my] multiple threads are just a waste of time."
I am not redefining your statement -- I am showing the consequences of your statement.

 

[Angel]

The only relevant part is that you have admitted your "proofs" are not proofs just beliefs on your part, yet you insist on making multiple threads trying to prove something you claim cannot be proven

Quit dodging the question: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?

 

[Angel]

I have already stated it multiple times the only problem is you keep trying to change what I sais rather than discussing what I said

Really? Well, what have you said and what have I said that changes what you have said?

 

[Quag]

The bolded portion of your post is non-responsive. The question to you EXCLUDES what I "want it to."

????????

 

[Quag]

Show us all where I am "claiming [my] multiple threads are just a waste of time."
I am not redefining your statement -- I am showing the consequences of your statement.

No you have claimed all premises are beliefs and you agreed with my statement . Thus you are stating that you have
never proven anything ergo al the threads you make trying to prove God are a waste of time

 

[Quag]

Really? Well, what have you said and what have I said that changes what you have said?

You keep trying to change the definition I am using of belief in my statement

 

[Quag]

Quit dodging the question: How does your definition of belief affect this mutually acknowledged characteristic of logical form?

Nope you are trying to make a strawman why would anyone allow another person to dictate what they say in a discussion?

 

[Angel]

No you have claimed all premises are beliefs and you agreed with my statement . Thus you are stating that you have
never proven anything ergo al the threads you make trying to prove God are a waste of time

I have claimed that all premises are beliefs, yes. Check.
I agreed with your statement that the value of the premises determines the value of the conclusion in a valid logical argument, yes. Check.
I have pointed out to you that strictly speaking nothing is ever "proven," yes. Check.
Now show me where I have said or implied that my threads are "a waste of time." I have never said or implied any such thing. That is your claim.

 

[Angel]

????????

What "I want" your definition to imply is not in question -- I've already stated what I believe your definition implies. The question you keep dodging is what do you see as the implications of your definition?

 

[Angel]

You keep trying to change the definition I am using of belief in my statement

I'm not trying to change anything in your definition. You are on record as saying that belief is nothing more than opinion. I'm trying to get you to see the implications of that definition.

 

[Quag]

I have claimed that all premises are beliefs, yes. Check.
I agreed with your statement that the value of the premises determines the value of the conclusion in a valid logical argument, yes. Check.
I have pointed out to you that strictly speaking nothing is ever "proven," yes. Check.
Now show me where I have said or implied that my threads are "a waste of time." I have never said or implied any such thing. That is your claim.

That is the logical conclusion of those 3 statements