Cosmological Argument - Discussion

[Individual]

No, there was a question there. You need to go back a couple of posts to find it, but it is there. Must I hunt up these previous posts for you?

Not in the post I just responded to. And if you were not satisfied with my response in an earlier post, rephrase the question.

 

[Angel]

Not in the post I just responded to. And if you were not satisfied with my response in an earlier post, rephrase the question.

Oy!

Here's what led up to our latest posts:

And do your beliefs have proof?

Because IMO spreading beliefs as factual truths is dishonest.
What belief are you referring to?

Well, let's start with your belief that "spreading beliefs as factual truths is dishonest."

 

[Divine_Wind]

No, your belief accepts the proposition as fact. Every fact is a matter of belief. ...

Wow. Do you know the medical term for a person who thinks reality is whatever they believe is "fact"?

I didn't ask you to discuss religion, but thanks for an excellent example of you trying to shape "reality" with your beliefs even though they don't jibe with what others are seeing.

You are using a circular argument. You just said yours is a belief. If it was a fact, you'd say so. It's not up to others to prove or disprove your beliefs. If you want them to believe, then it's up to your to persuade them to do so.

That's why spiritual matters are a matter of faith, not fact. A matter of belief, not proof.

Since you believe in God, why do you think God did it this way? Do you think God is powerful enough to implant the truth beyond all doubt in everyone's brain? To write the Bible into our DNA? Onto the surface of the Moon or in the Stars?

 

[Angel]

Wow. Do you know the medical term for a person who thinks reality is whatever they believe is "fact"?

Can you give us an example of a proposition you accept as fact but don't believe?

I didn't ask you to discuss religion, but thanks for an excellent example of you trying to shape "reality" with your beliefs even though they don't jibe with what others are seeing.

Here's your question. It's a question about a religious version of God:

Since you believe in God, why do you think God did it this way? Do you think God is powerful enough to implant the truth beyond all doubt in everyone's brain? To write the Bible into our DNA? Onto the surface of the Moon or in the Stars?

 

[Individual]

Oy!

Here's what led up to our latest posts:

Well, I'm not the one claiming to have proof for any of my beliefs.

So, once again...
Does that mean you give up trying to prove the existence of a God to be anything more than an unproven/unprovable belief?

 

[Angel]

Well, I'm not the one claiming to have proof for any of my beliefs.

So, once again...
Does that mean you give up trying to prove the existence of a God to be anything more than an unproven/unprovable belief?

Now it seems as if the crux of your criticism is aimed at the word "proof." Well, I've addressed my use of the term a score of times in this and other threads, probably in reply to you at some point. There are no "proofs" of anything except in mathematics and logic. I use the word to speak the loose lingo of the Internet Skeptics I am addressing, yourself included. A When in Rome choice. Strictly speaking, we are talking about argument and evidence.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Can you give us an example of a proposition you accept as fact but don't believe?


Here's your question. It's a question about a religious version of God:

How can I not believe something that I accept as fact? That's nonsensical question.

I asked about your belief, not your religion. Obviously you don't want to answer and you'd rather play word games. Fine. My point is made and everyone who cares to look can read your posts and mine then decide for themselves who is being honest and factual.

 

[Angel]

How can I not believe something that I accept as fact? That's nonsensical question.

That's my point. All facts are beliefs, but not all beliefs are facts (as you tried to spin my point earlier).

I asked about your belief, not your religion. Obviously you don't want to answer and you'd rather play word games. Fine. My point is made and everyone who cares to look can read your posts and mine then decide for themselves who is being honest and factual.

You asked about my belief in the nature of God -- this is a religious question. You also mention the Bible. Yes, I'm quite content to let the record of our exchange of posts speak for itself.

 

[Individual]

Now it seems as if the crux of your criticism is aimed at the word "proof." Well, I've addressed my use of the term a score of times in this and other threads, probably in reply to you at some point. There are no "proofs" of anything except in mathematics and logic. I use the word to speak the loose lingo of the Internet Skeptics I am addressing, yourself included. A When in Rome choice. Strictly speaking, we are talking about argument and evidence.

Actually you are using rather loose lingo devoid of rational logical reasoning.
It would appear to me that the crux of all criticism is aimed at your refusal to engage in civil discussion about your philosophical proof.

Is that a proven/provable fact?

 

[Angel]

Actually you are using rather loose lingo devoid of rational logical reasoning.
It would appear to me that the crux of all criticism is aimed at your refusal to engage in civil discussion about your philosophical proof.

Is that a proven/provable fact?

Okay. Now you're just being coy and trying to be cute. From here on your game is solitaire, mate.

 

[Individual]

Okay. Now you're just being coy and trying to be cute. From here on your game is solitaire, mate.

And for you I would suggest "Truth or Consequences."

 

[Angel]

And for you I would suggest "Truth or Consequences."

Beulah the Buzzer went off on you many posts ago, boss.

 

[devildavid]

And again the misuse pf "ad hominem"!

But your disagreements are baseless, automatic. That's contrarianism.

My disagreements are valid and solid.

 

[devildavid]

Do you or do you not believe the propositions called "facts"?
If I'm not discussing geraniums, I'm not answering questions about geraniums.

Facts are not propositions.

 

[devildavid]

First, my reply was to that member's assertion that my belief is false, to wit:

Someone says what you say is false, asking him on what basis he ascribes falsehood to what you say is perfectly in order.

Second, what we call facts are beliefs as well.

Third, I am not doing religion in my threads or posts. I am not interested in discussing the nature of God as this or that religion has proposed, just the existence of God.

You state that facts are beliefs. Is that a fact?

 

[Individual]

Beulah the Buzzer went off on you many posts ago, boss.

A real philosopher would know how to accept defeat gracefully and perhaps even try to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Angel]

My disagreements are valid and solid.

No, they're obvious contrarianism.

 

[Angel]

Facts are not propositions.

Man alive! Is there no end to what you don't know and yet post confidently on?

 

[Angel]

You state that facts are beliefs. Is that a fact?

You can take that to the bank.

 

[devildavid]

No, they're obvious contrarianism.

No, they are valid and solid disagreements.

 

[devildavid]

You can take that to the bank.

The bank does not accept three dollar bills and wooden nickels.

 

[devildavid]

Man alive! Is there no end to what you don't know and yet post confidently on?

Facts are not propositions.

 

[calamity]

Man alive! Is there no end to what you don't know and yet post confidently on?

I know that there is no god behind it all. But, I am not so sure a Green Leprechaun isn't playing a giant trick on us.

 

[Angel]

I know that there is no god behind it all. But, I am not so sure a Green Leprechaun isn't playing a giant trick on us.

They're a mischievous lot. Especially the green ones.

 

[Angel]

No, they are valid and solid disagreements.

It's Pee Wee Herman Time again, I see.