No problem, darling. I am glad that you admit your megalomania. The next step is getting treatment ;-).


Another deflection from the substantive argument. I did not claim that Aquinas presented a characterization of God that does not involve logical bounds. More importantly, this is immaterial to the substantive debate: there is no principle, including any fundamental to logic, that is philosophically absolute. Therefore, to make claims that God, the archetypal first cause, is necessarily bounded by logic, is nonsensical. That is the claim you are making. It is nonsensical.

I would have thought that you would have picked another ruse to deflect from your failure to provide a substantive retort to this position, yet you continue to imply that I made statements to the effect that Aquinas characterized God as being unbounded by logic, knowing full well that Aquinas was operating under the same unwarranted premise as you. Lovely. Do you always use the appeal to authority fallacy when cornered? Just curious.

Better than good. Watching you roast in a stew of passive aggressive rage is priceless, and quite enjoyable. The argument has now officially recommenced. Any failure to respond with substance results in concession. Do try to keep up (I'll make every effort not to stray too far from the forums).

Fine, then I'll drop it.

No thanks, I'm not interested in your version of philosophical debate.

Yay! You're making progress!

And yet another deflection. Are you stuck on repeat mode or something? My "version"? You mean logic and ratiocination? Didn't realize there was another "version" besides that.

Suit yourself though .

How is him asking you to back up and source your claims "deflection"? You have turned to derision and ridicule instead of debating, and when asked for clarification of your position you dub the one who asks a "megalomaniac". Anyone who posts here regularly know that OrP is nothing but a gentleman in pretty much any debate.

I don't have a doctorate in philosophy like OrP, but I'm versed enough to know he has not been unreasonable in this thread. You are not doing your position any favors.

I quite enjoy watching people embarrass themselves. It's even better when they don't even realize that they're doing it.

The answer to your question has been posted numerous times over, but I'll do you the courtesy of repeating it once again: I never claimed what he is stating that I claimed, therefore what would be the point of "backing up and sourcing" such nonexistent claims? Even Original_Position understood that I never claimed that Aquinas characterized God as being beyond logic. That is why it is a deflection: because it has nothing to do with what I was arguing. Do you understand?

No, I have not turned to derision and ridicule in the slightest: I am pointing out that my opponent has made a straw man argument. That is not something I'm going to let slip by because it is a serious violation of argumentative integrity. Instead of actually reading the conversation, you automatically regurgitated Original_Position's straw man and assumed that it was a claim that I had made. Fail. Please show me where I claimed that Aquinas defended a characterization of God as being beyond logic. Show me. I'll wait.

In the meantime, allow me to summarize my actual position, which Original_Position has indeed deflected from: most simplistically, the point is that because the fundamental principles of logic lack philosophical absoluteness, it is foolhardy to hold them as absolutely inviolate. Simple, right? I find this to be an incredibly straightforward concept. Explain to me where discussion of this idea requires posting "sources" about what Aquinas thought? Please explain that to me, given that my argument does not involve Aquinas in the slightest. And then you have the gall to accuse me of "derision and ridicule"? Lovely.

I've identified Original_Position as a megalomaniac because that is exactly what he has presented himself as: instead of admitting that he has no substantive retort to my polemic, he turns to straw men and misdirection, asking me to provide sources for something I never claimed. I'm beginning to think you're a sock puppet account because your post here is borderline nonsensical: it's been made clear that, both by myself and Original_Position, that I never claimed anything about Aquinas characterizing God as being beyond logic, and now you come in with this post, out of the blue, arguing the same damn thing that has already been settled- did you just wake up or something, dude?

Original_Position used Aquinas' hefty scholarly authority (i.e., appeal to authority fallacy) to deflect from addressing the substance of what I was actually arguing, along with posting various snarky and passive aggressive quips to save face from his failure to address it. That is why I came down on him hard, and that is why I believe he is a megalomaniac. I am judging him based on my conversation with him here, not on what he has posted before, therefore your statement that everyone who knows Original_Position knows him to be a "gentlemen" does not comport with the evidence at hand: this individual had his argument dissected, and then chose to deflect with straw men, appeal to authority fallacies, and veiled ad hominem. And you're defending him? Nice.

Lastly, you make the bare assertion that Original_Position is not being "unreasonable" in this thread. So deflecting from the actual debate by appeal to authority fallacies and falsely implying that his interlocutor made claims which were never made, not to mention posting snarky passive aggressiveness, and refusing to continue the substantive discussion, is "reasonable" to you? Really? I guess I threw a monkey wrench in the whole operation here and am being painted by the OP as a persona non grata. This is how you respond, when the evidence clearly shows that I never made any kind of claim that Original_Position is stating I made, and that he still refuses to address the substantive argument? Beautiful.

Word of advice: when you're on autopilot, try not to post such silly boilerplate crap simply because you're more familiar and congenial with one of the debaters involved in the contest than the other. I don't throw around the word "megalomaniac" just for kicks and giggles: Original_Position has deflected over and over again, attempting to save face after realizing that a fundamental component of his worldview has been violated and he has no valid response..aaaand you're defending him. Ok then.

Well, it looks like our discussion has met an untimely end at the hands of a third party, good sir. Pity. Have no doubt that we shall continue it in private, but for the public's sake, let's resolve the ambiguity present in your last post: who are you referring to in your comment? As I informed you afore, a reasonable person would conclude that you are referring to me, yet you subsequently denied this and declared that you were actually referring to Original_Position. It should be noted, also, that if this is true, it presents an odd contradiction: you are implying support for my position over the position of Original_Position (say that 5 times fast!), yet you then proceeded to attack my posts. Never mind the fact that the attack itself was utter garbage and easily refuted, but given this contradiction, it seems clear that your critique has been fabricated on the spot as a defensive response to your bruised ego, as opposed to having any actual substance to it. Not too cool, Mickey.

:-).

It was intentionally ambiguous. I'm sure you're bright enough to understand that phrasing.

This would be a failure of reading comprehension. At no time did I declare what you claim I've declared.

That's because you're the one who took the bait.

Yup. Such a bruised ego. If only I had know that a valid argument must be made relative to facts or something like that. Then I'd have a massaged ego, instead. Your alma mater must be sooooo proud that they granted you a philosophy minor.

Anyway, let me be clear about one thing. Come at me in public if you're going to come at me. Your approximately 3500 word yawn-fest that you sent over 3 PMs suggests that you have a much larger intellectual instability than I had initially perceived. You're not worth my time if you can't figure out how to play the game in front of a crowd. I'm just not interested in playing this game behind closed doors. It's much less interesting without the spectators.

Ideas like this bug me. Portraying skepticism as something "ugly" is not only cheap rhetoric, it couldn't be further from the truth. Skepticism usually stems from a desire to know and explore the world, which is a very beautiful thing. You seem to be mistaking skepticism for bias; questioning one idea because you refuse to reject another.

Interestingly, your wording here is very reminiscent of China's Cultural Revolution, one of the most stifling political movements in history. It was with phrases like this that they selectively rejected the scientific ideals they saw as a threat to their "reformed society".

China, really ? When I consider the skeptical approach I think of Hume and even Kant both of whom denied the ability of the human being to ascertain or approach "truth". To them the human being was incapable of doing so by his very nature and the nature of thinking and thoughts.

There's a lot of skeptics out there who are card carrying Humean Kantists but don't know it , and I'm not Chinese.

I guess one has to consider whether this belief in skepticism , which some wrongly (in my look) call "scientific" is appropriate. One need not be a skeptic to approach truths scientifically which is more within the realm of reason than skepticism.

And yes, seeing the error in a scientific work doesn't mean that one is a skeptic; the soul has a natural appreciation of truth.There is no need to put on the skeptic cloak as the first line of defense.

An interesting example, but it doesn't really support your argument very well.

Hume's doubt towards rationalism did drive him to do the work that would make him the forefather of modern empiricism and a strong advocate of skepticism. But skepticism to Hume's ideas were a driving force behind Kant's work, where joining rationalist and empirical approaches would become an approach of its own. They both became hugely influential intellectual giants. The transformation of natural philosophy and birth of modern science were influenced by them both. Sure, the age of reason might rest more on Hume's shoulders, but today's cutting edge science does in many ways lead us towards Kant's idealism.

To discount a skeptical approach as unnecessary because we are innate "truthseekers" seems self-defeating. To test if your intuition is correct is not "ugly".

Here in RGT we moderate off-topics posts lightly - if the discussion is worthwhile or there is sufficient interest then I'll typically allow it. As specified in the RGT Rules:

In general, off-topic discussions with substantive merit or user interest will be left if they are at least somewhat RGT relevant. However, acrimonious personal discussions will almost always be deleted. Try to keep your off-topic discussions on a RGT relevant theme: about the thread topic or a related one rather than about the person you are talking with and their ability to argue.

Well, if nothing else this thread has taught me that the phrase "You're such an idiot!" can be lengthened to Proustian proportions.

I've asked for this thread to be locked. Nobody needs flames in the form of shoddily written essays.

Not that it is my decision, but I think the original discussion was interesting and it is obvious that very little of merit is going to come from what is going on now.

If the desire is to perform in front of audience, a little more wit would have gone a long way.

Obv need to reprise the formal debate thread idea

Sure. If there are people who want to do so, it is an option.

I don't see the need for the thread to be locked or for there to be heavily moderated debate threads. The problem seems fairly simple: certain people have a repeated, proven propensity to spout proustian versions of "you're an idiot" at every opportunity, in direct violation of forum rules. They know from years of experience with this pattern the worst case scenario is a subset of the rule violating posts being deleted, and are so confident of this that they will do so immediately after being warned about the forum rules.

I meant we could lock those two in a debate thread and forget to open it really, but mostly I think I was calling this conversation as useless as the first debate thread of years gone by. Or something like that

RGT unchained, perhaps

Useless debate is the heart of this subforum.

Am I misremembering I thought yours and Allin Flynn's was the second.

You may be right. Obv I have no memory of any inferior debates

Me neither.

Or I could just be pointing out that your debate was the useless one.