|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
quote: I thought this quote was rather profound."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Always? Until forever is over, how can we know about always? We can know by inference. I am nearly convinced that your position is correct although for some reason it seems to me that there must be some aspect to reality that is universal. I concede that my examples are piss poor. How about these - things evolve or perception is relative to the observer or time is sequential? Sort of mundane I suppose but if something were universally true then I guess that it would likely appear as something obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Think about an assumption you have to make - that you can know the truth through perception. Are you saying there is no doubt here? That you are not in a Matrix, or just a brain in a jar or what have you? No, trust me, I have lots of doubt but can we not know anything for sure? Postulating a matrix is the same as invoking a god or unicorns or any other product of the imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I have lots of doubt but can we not know anything for sure? Of course, for practical values of 'sure'. Just not absolutely, for strict definitions of 'absolutely'.
Postulating a matrix is the same as invoking a god or unicorns or any other product of the imagination. It is a means to demonstrate the need for a certain degree of epistemic humility. IF the Matrix existed, and we were in it, we wouldn't know this. We cannot rule it out. Ergo, from our position of limited knowledge, there is a non-zero chance we're in a matrix, or in a divine testing grounds, or a brain in a jar tormented by an evil scientist or a demon or whatever. Thus we cannot know absolute truths, since our mind may be being deceived in our senses or in our estimates of mathematical proofs or whatever. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
Being nearly convinced is as close as you should get.
I am nearly convinced that your position is correct although for some reason it seems to me that there must be some aspect to reality that is universal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Hope you are doing well.
Ringo writes: You'll take both. There's no contradiction. Unless you are ‘Absolutely’ sure that there are no contradictions between those two statements I would like to, politely, ask you to take a second look at everything I have written about these two statements and re-evaluate your position on the question of whether or not they are contradictory.
Ringo writes: If it does exist, you can't know what it is, so it might as well not exist. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely. Both of these statements require you to be ‘absolutely’ sure you are correct to tell me that I am wrong. If you’re not ‘absolutely’ sure that your statements are correct then there is the possibility that I am correct and that you are the one in error.
Ringo writes: I'm not here to convince you of anything. Really? Because you are trying awful hard to get me to accept that: There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. for not trying to convince me of anything.
As always, great fun,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Of course. As I've said, there is always a possibility that I am wrong or that you are wrong or that anybody else is wrong. That's exactly why I say there is no absolute truth. If you can come up with an example of an absolute truth where there is absolutely no chance of you being wrong, by all means present it.
If you’re not ‘absolutely’ sure that your statements are correct then there is the possibility that I am correct and that you are the one in error. JRTjr01 writes:
I'm not trying to convince you. Somebody else reading this might understand it a little better but I don't think you will. You're too absolutely convinced that you're absolutely right.
Because you are trying awful hard to get me to accept that: There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. for not trying to convince me of anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Hope you are doing well.
Ringo writes: If you can come up with an example of an absolute truth where there is absolutely no chance of you being wrong, by all means present it. I have provided an example of ‘Absolute Truth’; it’s called the law of non-contradiction
Ringo writes: Of course. As I've said, there is always a possibility that I am wrong or that you are wrong or that anybody else is wrong. That's exactly why I say there is no absolute truth. And, of course, you are still contradicting yourself: there is no absolute truth is something that is either ‘Absolutely’ ‘True’ or it is ‘absolutely’ ‘Faults’. There is no in between when you use this statement. If it were, in fact, a ‘True’ statement it contradicts itself; because then that would be an ‘absolute truth’. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it is not a ‘True’ statement. ‘Contradiction’ is one of the first tools we use to figure out whether something is ‘True’ or ‘Faults’.
A sort lesson in Logic: In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.
Wikipedia.org If two statements contradict each other then one of the following must be true (factual):
There is no way around this; and ‘Yes’ this is an ‘Absolute Truth’
Ringo writes: You're too absolutely convinced that you're absolutely right. Not really so, If you can demonstrate (give evidence that) I am wrong (that there is ‘Absolute Truth’); I’ll state right here (and for the record) I’ll hear you out. If the evidence is substantial (outweighs the evidence I have presented) I am willing to acknowledge that I was wrong. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that something that is ‘objectively’ ‘True’ can, at the same time and in the same way, be ‘objectively’ ‘Faults’. I use the term ‘objectively’ here because ‘sub objective’ ‘Truth’ is just that ‘sub objective’. I like Chocolate Ice Cream. This is a ‘sub objective’ statement because it is dependent on who ‘I’ is referring to. ‘Objective’ ‘Truth’ is independent. The law of non-contradiction is an independent Fact; it does not depend on anyone or anything to be True; it just is. As always, Great fun,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
The law of non-contradiction is trivial. It revolves around the definition of "not" - like 2 is defined as the sum of 1 plus 1. I have provided an example of ‘Absolute Truth’; it’s called the law of non-contradiction Give us an actual practical real-world example of "Absolute Truth".
JRTjr01 writes:
What does "sub objective" mean? Do you mean "subjective"?
I use the term ‘objectively’ here because ‘sub objective’ ‘Truth’ is just that ‘sub objective’. JRTjr01 writes:
There are many things that are neither objectively true nor objectively false, like the length of a two-by-four. That's why the law of non-contradiction isn't very useful.
As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that something that is ‘objectively’ ‘True’ can, at the same time and in the same way, be ‘objectively’ ‘Faults’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined:
|
Dear Ringo,
As always it is a great joy hearing from you. I hope you are well.
Ringo writes: The law of non-contradiction is trivial. First, let me commend you on not trying to say that the law of non-contradiction is not an ‘Absolute Truth’. Second, whether you consider it to be Trivial or not is irrelevant; it is still an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist.
Ringo writes: It revolves around the definition of "not" - like 2 is defined as the sum of 1 plus 1. I’m sorry, I do not get your point; can you give me a better illustration?
Ringo writes: There are many things that are neither objectively true nor objectively false While this is very true; it has no bearing on those things that are, in fact, ‘objectively true’ or ‘objectively false’.
Ringo writes: That's why the law of non-contradiction isn't very useful. Have you ever tried to use a hammer as a screw drive; it’s not very useful either. The law of non-contradiction is a very useful tool in many areas of science including theology; it’s also useful in philosophy and has many everyday applications. However, just like any other tool, if you do not use it correctly it is not going to be useful to you or anyone. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I always use a hammer to start a wood screw. It's an old carpenter's trick.
Have you ever tried to use a hammer as a screw drive; it’s not very useful either. JRTjr01 writes:
Theology is not science. The law of non-contradiction is a very useful tool in many areas of science including theology.... As I said, the "law of non-contradiction" is trivial. "A" and "not A" can not both be true at the same time because "not A" is defined as the opposite of A. There's no profound truth involved, only definition. If you have any examples of "absolute truth" that don't depend on trivial definitions, by all means roll them out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Again, a great pleasure hearing from you.
Ringo writes: I always use a hammer to start a wood screw. It's an old carpenter's trick. A trick I have used on several occasions myself; however, that does not negate the fact that trying to use a Hammer as if it were a ‘Screw Drive’ is a very inefficient way to screw a Screw into whatever you’re trying to fasten; which, of course, was my point.
Ringo writes: Theology is not science. You seem to be awfully sure of a lot of things for believing that Everything should be doubted.
Ringo writes: I would expect someone that actually believed that everything should be doubted would not be so sure of anything. So, do you really ‘doubt everything’, or just the things you don’t want to be ‘true’? ;-} With that said:
Science: Noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. (Dictionary.com) ‘Theology’ fits at least three of the above definitions. (1, 4, and 5) I know that Atheist don’t like it but, Yes, Theology is a Science. You really should dust off your Dictionary and crack it open once in a while. If you did, you may not find yourself saying so many ridicules things; but hay, to each his own. ;-}} One last thing, I know my post is getting a little long here, but it intrigues me that you think that the "law of non-contradiction" is trivial. I see the law of non-contradiction as being the vary bases of Science, not to mention engineering. You can’t do ‘Science’ if two contradictory things could be true at the same time in the same way. Saying that the "law of non-contradiction" is trivial. is like saying that the foundation of a building is trivial. Besides all of that, as I said in my last post: whether you consider it to be Trivial or not is irrelevant; it is still an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes: Ringo writes: Theology is not science. You seem to be awfully sure of a lot of things for believing that Everything should be doubted. Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Doubt helps us weed out the bad ideas. It makes us more sure of our conclusions, not less.
You seem to be awfully sure of a lot of things for believing that Everything should be doubted. JRTjr01 writes:
As I've mentioned, most things don't have a simple either/or, true/false dichotomy. Science can determine the length of a two-by-four or the distance to a star quite nicely without reference to the law of non-contradiction. You can’t do ‘Science’ if two contradictory things could be true at the same time in the same way. So, do you have any examples of absolute truth besides the law of non-contradiction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Thanks for taking the time to continue our discussion.
Ringo writes: Doubt helps us weed out the bad ideas. It makes us more sure of our conclusions, not less. This I can agree with; the Bible puts it this way: 21 But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast. (1 Thessalonians 5:21 AMP) However, your statement that Everything should be doubted Is as self-defeating as the statement: there is no absolute truth; this because to ‘doubt everything’ would mean you could not be sure of any conclusions because you would have to doubt those as well. In other words; to truly ‘doubt everything’ one would have to doubt the validity of everything; therefore you would have to doubt that you had to doubt everything.
Ringo writes: As I've mentioned, most things don't have a simple either/or, true/false dichotomy. Science can determine the length of a two-by-four or the distance to a star quite nicely without reference to the law of non-contradiction. Well no, you don’t have to ‘reference it’ at all. However, the problem with ‘Absolute Truth’ is it is in effect whether we acknowledge its presence or not. Take your example as a case in point: even though the dimensions of ‘two’ and ‘four’ are man-made units of measurement you can’t have a 2x4x8 that is, at the same time and in the same way, a 4x6x12. Same hold true for the distance a star is from our Star. If I say that Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from us and Bob say’s ‘No, it is 6.25 light years away from us’ there are only three possibly logically correct outcomes:
So it applies even though we generally have no reason to ‘reference it’.
Ringo writes: So, do you have any examples of absolute truth besides the law of non-contradiction? We are getting to the point where we can discuss other ‘Absolute Truths’; however, I believe it would do the most good to resolve this last issue (everything should be doubted) before moving on. Always Great fun and God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024