According to your own insistent categorizations, your belief about my beliefs is nothing more than your personal opinion about my personal opinions, and so there is not only nothing more to say, but there was nothing to say in the first place, even if we wasted a great deal of time saying it, and no point in wasting any more time over our differing personal opinions about God or anything else.
That's how it works out in your universe pf discourse. You've eliminated burden of proof.Thats not how it works, the burden of poof remains with you no attempt by you to reverse it will succeed.
It isnt a difference of personal opinion it is a difference of fact. You claim to have proof of God but all you have done is made long winded statements about your personal beleifs noithing even approaching a proof.
Philosophical arguments on necessity only deal with metaphysical necessity and cannot be shown true either way as they are outside our ability to gather objective evidence for.Please acquaint yourself with the philosophical distinction contingent/necessary before proceeding.
That is what you are trying to doThat's how it works out in your universe pf discourse. You've eliminated burden of proof.
Is that an attemot at a strawman?A fact is a belief and a belief (according to you) is an opinion, and opinions are personal and subjective and indisputable.
Since you will not and cannot show your premises to be anything other than your personal beleifs/opinions logic dictates that they are nothign more than that.I presented arguments for the existence of God, and according to you all my premises are personal beliefs and mere opinions.
No discussion is possible in your universe of discourse, just differences of opinion.
What sort of objective evidence is needed to show that a triangle has three sides?Philosophical arguments on necessity only deal with metaphysical necessity and cannot be shown true either way as they are outside our ability to gather objective evidence for.
I'm not reversing anything. I'm accepting your terms and showing their consequences.That is what you are trying to do
Is that an attemot at a strawman?
Since you will not and cannot show your premises to be anything other than your personal beleifs/opinions logic dictates that they are nothign more than that.
All your attempts to reverse the burden of proof are doomed to fail just all all your proofs are doomed to fail because you will not and cannot prove the premises they are based on
I'm not reversing anything. I'm accepting your terms and showing their consequences.
What you call "an attempt at a strawman" is simply a statement of the terms of discourse you've insisted on.
If beliefs are only merely opinions, discussion is impossible.
Reality determines it; philosophy analyzes it.
Terminology
God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Contingency : Examples and Definition | Philosophy Terms
Thus Spake Zarathustra.Reality does not determine any such thing. Philosophy is what assigned the terms necessary or contingent to something, but it wasn't reality. What was it? It wasn't about god.
These, of course, are your beliefs, your opinions, about burden of proof, about a straw man, and you have a right to them, to your opinions, your beliefs, but no right to impose them on others. Moreover, the previous sentence is what you believe about belief. And finally, this belief of yours makes all argument useless and all discussion less than useless.I have made not terms and you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.
As to a strawman, your last line makes it obvious that you are in fact trying to make a strawman.
Apparently you dont seem to understand burden of proof, try looking at thisThese, of course, are your beliefs, your opinions, about burden of proof, about a straw man, and you have a right to them, to your opinions, your beliefs, but no right to impose them on others. Moreover, the previous sentence is what you believe about belief. And finally, this belief of yours makes all argument useless and all discussion less than useless.
I do understand burden of proof. You don't seem to understand how your idiosyncratic view of "belief" eliminates burden of proof from the universe of discourse.Apparently you dont seem to understand burden of proof, try looking at this
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia
You attempted strawman remains a strawman
No it doesnt but you seem to want to mnake that strawman in an attempt avoid the burden of proofI do understand burden of proof. You don't seem to understand how your idiosyncratic view of "belief" eliminates burden of proof from the universe of discourse.
And along with it, the concept of argument.
And with that, debate.
You don't get it, do you? You don't get the impasse you've created: all arguments, long-wounded or short, are, on your view, are mere beliefs, that is, mere opinions. Discourse is over on your view of discourse.No it doesnt but you seem to want to mnake that strawman in an attempt avoid the burden of proof
Until you meet it your so called arguements are nothing more than long winded statements of your beleifs anbd fail to prove anything at all
You don't get it, do you? You don't get the impasse you've created: all arguments, long-wounded or short, are, on your view, are mere beliefs, that is, mere opinions. Discourse is over on your view of discourse.
What strawman? There's no strawman. There's only your definition of belief as opinion. With that definition in place and enforced at will, no argument, no discussion, no discoutse is possible. You've made all argument like trying to argue taste.There you go with your strawman. There is no impasse created and no, all arguments are not mere beleifs.
There is no discousre possiblel as long as your continue to try and avoid it by making strawmen and attempt to try and reverse the burden of proof
What strawman? There's no strawman. There's only your definition of belief as opinion. With that definition in place and enforced at will, no argument, no discussion, no discoutse is possible. You've made all argument like trying to argue taste.
If it is false to claim that "With that definition in place and enforced at will, no argument, no discussion, no discoutse is possible. You've made all argument like trying to argue taste," then show your claim that it is false to be true under your definition of belief.There you go with the strawman, bolded is false.
If it is false to claim that "With that definition in place and enforced at will, no argument, no discussion, no discoutse is possible. You've made all argument like trying to argue taste," then show your claim that it is false to be true under your definition of belief.
No strawman. Here is what you said about belief:There you go with your strawman again...
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...
No strawman. Here is what you said about belief:
No what I'm saying is that you' said that all beliefs are opinions, and I'm saying that given that all premises are beliefs, discourse on your terms is terminated.Yes a strawman because you are taking that statement and pretending I said that ALL premises are beliefs/opinions which is false
You are still trying to make a strawmanNo what I'm saying is that you' said that all beliefs are opinions, and I'm saying that given that all premises are beliefs, discourse on your terms is terminated.
All premises are beliefs. If that shows that your use of the term "belief" must be revised, so much the better.You are still trying to make a strawman
All premises are not beliefs as I used the term as you well know
All premises are beliefs. If that shows that your use of the term "belief" must be revised, so much the better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?