• 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:
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...

Yes, you make a false statement and In point it out. You incorrectly label it contrarianism in a failed attempt to dismiss it.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, you make a false statement and In point it out. You incorrectly label it contrarianism in a failed attempt to dismiss it.
Click to expand...
No false statement by me, David. You claim it was false, I gave you the opportunity to correct it, and you went into your song and dance.
If false, correct it.
 
Angel said:
Poor Descartes. His project of hyperbolic doubt could end nowhere else. At any rate, your bonafides are established, though it may be a rather hasty generalization to infer from the example of Descartes to all philosophy. I mean, were Kant and Hume circular in their argumentation? Was Plato or Aristotle? Wittgenstein?

At any rate, back to the topic.
As to your question, "Are you saying beliefs/opinions are not subjective?" -- if you mean can there be belief without mind, the answer is no, of course not.
If you mean that "belief" and "opinion" define each other without remainder, no, of course not -- that's the gravamen of my quarrel with Quag.

Here is the way I proposed to define "belief" back in post #8:


And agreement is dependent on the persuasiveness of argument.
Click to expand...

The persuasiveness of argument is dependant on the logic within and the validity of the premises upon which it is based
 
Angel said:
Poor Descartes. His project of hyperbolic doubt could end nowhere else. At any rate, your bonafides are established, though it may be a rather hasty generalization to infer from the example of Descartes to all philosophy. I mean, were Kant and Hume circular in their argumentation? Was Plato or Aristotle? Wittgenstein?

At any rate, back to the topic.
As to your question, "Are you saying beliefs/opinions are not subjective?" -- if you mean can there be belief without mind, the answer is no, of course not.
If you mean that "belief" and "opinion" define each other without remainder, no, of course not -- that's the gravamen of my quarrel with Quag.

Here is the way I proposed to define "belief" back in post #8:


And agreement is dependent on the persuasiveness of argument.
Click to expand...

Belief/opinions are all subjective.

Facts are objective.
 
A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. If it is disputable through evidence or reasoned argument, then it is no longer a fact.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
If it is disputable through evidence or reasoned argument, it is no longer a fact, however if true, it is not subjective, either by acceptance or reality.
Click to expand...
If it is not believed to be true, it is not a fact.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Only as perceived by an individual, which is (of course) irrelevant to the status of the fact, as the fact remains a fact unless disproved.
Click to expand...
A fact is a fact (a statement of a proposition) because the person or persons asserting it believe it to be true and justified, and is accepted as a fact (a statement of a proposition) by those who believe it to be true and justified.
 
Angel said:
A fact is a fact (a statement of a proposition) because the person or persons asserting it believe it to be true and justified, and is accepted as a fact (a statement of a proposition) by those who believe it to be true and justified.
Click to expand...

You're deliberately omitting the basis for determining an objective reality as a fact, that is evidence. Many believe that the Noah story is factual, but the evidence proves it is false (see my earlier point about being disproved).
 
NWO_Spook said:
You're deliberately omitting the basis for determining an objective reality as a fact, that is evidence. Many believe that the Noah story is factual, but the evidence proves it is false (see my earlier point about being disproved).
Click to expand...

More importantly he is actually shooting himself in the foot with regards to other claims he has made but I seriously doubt eh has any clue he is doing so
 
Angel said:
A fact is a fact (a statement of a proposition) because the person or persons asserting it believe it to be true and justified, and is accepted as a fact (a statement of a proposition) by those who believe it to be true and justified.
Click to expand...

The proposition that the Earth was flat was a fact until it was found that nobody fell off ever.

2528246_1.webp
 
NWO_Spook said:
You're deliberately omitting the basis for determining an objective reality as a fact, that is evidence. Many believe that the Noah story is factual, but the evidence proves it is false (see my earlier point about being disproved).
Click to expand...
The "basis" is what justifies a belief. All knowledge is justified true belief, and "fact" is a sort of honorary name for beliefs with strong justification and wide acceptance as true.
 
Angel said:
The "basis" is what justifies a belief. All knowledge is justified true belief, and "fact" is a sort of honorary name for beliefs with strong justification and wide acceptance as true.
Click to expand...


That is mere sophistry and an argument from assertion. A fact, as defined earlier, is an objective reality and personal perception is irrelevant to the nature of the fact.
 
Angel said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Angel said:
No false statement by me, David. You claim it was false, I gave you the opportunity to correct it, and you went into your song and dance.
If false, correct it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Angel said:
No false statement by me, David. You claim it was false, I gave you the opportunity to correct it, and you went into your song and dance.
If false, correct it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Angel said:
"Facts" are propositions you believe to be true.
But do keep the placards prominent as you walk picket.
Click to expand...

No, facts are not merely determined by any old beliefs. Believing something to be a fact does not make it a fact. An unjustified belief does not make something a fact. In order to be justified and true the proposed fact must pass strict criteria. Being justified and true does no mean any old belief can be called a fact. You are skipping the whole step of determining what makes a belief true and justified.
 
Angel said:
"Facts" are propositions you believe to be true.
But do keep the placards prominent as you walk picket.
Click to expand...
1+1=2
A formal proof that 1+1=2

Facts can be objectively proven.
 
NWO_Spook said:
That is mere sophistry and an argument from assertion. A fact, as defined earlier, is an objective reality and personal perception is irrelevant to the nature of the fact.
Click to expand...
Where in our exchange have I mentioned "personal perception"? Answer: nowhere. I believe this is called "the straw man argument."
And "That" (in your "That is mere sophistry and an argument from assertion") is the 2500 year-old philosophical concept of knowledge as justified true belief.
Your posts are based on a common popular and simplistic notion of "fact" ubiquitously parroted in social media and on message boards.
Have a nice day.
 
Angel said:
Where in our exchange have I mentioned "personal perception"? Answer: nowhere. I believe this is called "the straw man argument."
Click to expand...

No, you repeatedly mentioned 'belief' and 'believed' which is obviously the product of an individual's 'perception'. Do you not understand this? The fact exists outside of belief, and when belief is applied it is the product of perception (one would expect this to be obvious ~ clearly it isn't), however, your desperation is noted by the 'straw man' accusation.

And "That" (in your "That is mere sophistry and an argument from assertion") is the 2500 year-old philosophical concept of knowledge as justified true belief.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point regarding that which constitutes a 'fact'. Please try to remain focussed upon the difference between what is a fact and how an individual interprets the fact.

Your posts are based on a common popular and simplistic notion of "fact" ubiquitously parroted in social media and on message boards.
Click to expand...

I posted a definition accepted within academic circles, which I might add, you've failed to counter. However, I've become acquainted with your little tantrums whenever your claims are challenged (or when I would not indulge your derailment from my point), and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
No, you repeatedly mentioned 'belief' and 'believed' which is obviously the product of an individual's 'perception'. Do you not understand this? The fact exists outside of belief, and when belief is applied it is the product of perception (one would expect this to be obvious ~ clearly it isn't), however, your desperation is noted by the 'straw man' accusation.

Irrelevant to the point regarding that which constitutes a 'fact'. Please try to remain focussed upon the difference between what is a fact and how an individual interprets the fact.

I posted a definition accepted within academic circles, which I might add, you've failed to counter. However, I've become acquainted with your little tantrums whenever your claims are challenged (or when I would not indulge your derailment from my point), and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Click to expand...
I defined "belief" as mental acceptance of a proposition. Did you not read this?

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?

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom