|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Yup.
Are you going to stick with "There is no absolute truth? JRTjr01 writes:
No. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely.
In which case you’re denying any (pardon the pun) ‘real’ possibility of ‘Absolute Truth’. JRTjr01 writes:
Yup. If it does exist, you can't know what it is, so it might as well not exist.
Are you going to go with the possibility that absolute truth may exist; however, you doubt it? JRTjr01 writes:
You'll take both. There's no contradiction.
I’ll take on either one. JRTjr01 writes:
Everything should be doubted.
Absolute: 4. undoubted;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
You couldn't have picked a worse example. I often don't know what day it is.
Are you saying that we can not know for certain that today is the day after yesterday or other simple facts that are absolutely true? ProtoTypical writes:
I'm fairly certain that I'm reading them. Who wrote them is less certain.
Is it not absolutely true that I have written these words? ProtoTypical writes:
No.
Are you not absolutely certain that you are alive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
It's defined as true. It's trivially true.
Isn't today always the day after yesterday? Isn't this absolutely true? ProtoTypical writes:
Perception has everything to do with what we think is true. What we do - i.e. "reality" - is based on what we perceive as true, not on what "is" true.
What does belief have to do with truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Good for you. That's a start.
ringo writes:
Well, I doubt that. Everything should be doubted. JRTjr01 writes:
I'm not here to convince you of anything. Because, unless you can convince me that they are not contradictory, I will continue to state that they are (in fact) contradictory statements. I have explained why there is no contradiction: until evidence of Bigfoot is shown I will say there is no Bigfoot; until evidence of absolute truth is shown I will say there is no absolute truth. There remains a possibility that Bigfoot exists and a possibility that absolute truth exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
An atom with one proton is called "hydrogen". That's its name. It's no more an absolute truth than your screen name is.
When we say that any atom with one electron is a hydrogen atom is that a tautology? ProtoTypical writes:
Always? Until forever is over, how can we know about always?
Is F=MA not always true? ProtoTypical writes:
Sure there's a connection but not an absolute one-to-one relationship.
Are you saying that there is no connection between what we perceive is real and reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 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’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
You love chasing your tail, don't you? You should try EvolutionFairyTale. They love that kind of argument over there. 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. Doubt doesn't mean never making a decision. It means never being over-sure of your decisions. At some point you have to decide whether your decision is working.
JRTjr01 writes:
IF absolute truth was in effect, it wouldn't make any difference whether we acknowledged it or not. However, you have not established yet that there is such a thing as "absolute truth" beyond trivial definitions such as "black is black and white is white". it may be "absolutely" true that black can not be white but is that a useful truth?
However, the problem with ‘Absolute Truth’ is it is in effect whether we acknowledge its presence or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The God of the Bible can't seem to make up His own mind about that. He's always saying He's there for you but when it comes time to move the furniture He's out of town. Some think that humans are best left alone in order to fulfill their destiny and maximize their potential. As Billy Graham put it, "God always answers prayer. Sometimes the answer is 'no'." I can do that too: I promise you a million dollars. (The cheque is in the mail.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
No it isn't. Doubting everything continues after we make a decision. Asking yourself if the decision was a good one is doubt.
ringo writes:
I absolutely agree; of course, this is just the opposite of ‘doubting everything’. Doubt doesn't mean never making a decision. It means never being over-sure of your decisions. At some point you have to decide whether your decision is working. JRTjr01 writes:
Exactly. Something is "true" only if it works in the given situation. It might not work in another situation, so it is "false" in that situation.
to ‘doubt everything’ is to not accept anything as true. JRTjr01 writes:
I don't expect anything from you.
You can hold on to the idea that ‘the Law of Non-Contradiction’ is somehow ‘trivial’, that’s your prerogative; but don’t expect me to treat it as anything less than paramount. JRTjr01 writes:
That's not a case of black is white; it's a case of black being mistaken for white. if you buy a can of White paint at the store, and when you get it home and open it and it turns out to be Black paint, you thing that may make a difference? That's why we should doubt everything. Does the can labeled White really contain white paint? I doubt it. If I didn't, I'd just stick a brush in it and slap it on the wall without checking.
JRTjr01 writes:
So show us some examples of "absolute truth" that don't depend on the Law of Non-contradiction.
I have already shown you two other ‘real world’ instances of how ‘the Law of Non-Contradiction’ works from examples you gave me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
You may be missing the subtlety but there's no contradiction.
We haven’t been able to get passed the Law of Non-Contradiction because you keep contradicting your own statements. JRTjr01 writes:
I say you're chasing your tail because your reasoning is circular. Everything you say is based on the assumption of absolute truth.
And what gets me is; you recognize that what you’re saying is circular reasoning because you accused me of ‘chasing my tail’ when I was pointing out the ridiculousness of ‘Doubting Everything’. JRTjr01 writes:
I've already explained why it isn't. Let me try again: ... you seam awful sure that you’re right about ‘Doubting Everything’; which, of course, is a contradiction in and of itself. When we form a hypothesis about anything, we automatically doubt that it's correct. That's why we call it a hypothesis instead of The Truth. When a hypothesis passes our testing, we become more confident that it approaches "truth". However, we are always testing our hypotheses. We are never completely sure that our theories are The Truth. We always doubt their perfection. People like you, who believe in Absolute Truth, are wrong so often because you don't doubt your conclusions enough. So can you, once and for all, give us any examples of "absolute truth" that are not trivial? I doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I've told you before, if I mean absolutely, I'll say absolutely.
Are you absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’?? JRTjr01 writes:
That's not how science and critical thinking work. When we have tested a hypothesis with all available evidence we look for more evidence. Scientists try to falsify their own hypothesies. (If they don't do it themselves, somebody else will do it for them.)
ringo writes:
Actually, when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise. When we form a hypothesis about anything, we automatically doubt that it's correct. JRTjr01 writes:
That's exactly what I'm saying; they didn't doubt their conclusions enough.
Many people have gotten themselves in ‘Scientific Hot Water’ (so-of-speak) because they have thrown out a presupposition as ‘Fact’ only to find out they did not know enough about the situation to make that claim, and it turned out to be either invalid or not ‘true’ in all situations/respects. JRTjr01 writes:
How so? Everything we know about reality is based on imperfect hypotheses. How could we get perfect knowledge?
However, there is a difference in ‘doubting the perfection’ of a ‘hypothesis’ and doubting the vary foundations of reality. JRTjr01 writes:
You have it backwards. You should doubt that all you see is all that exists.
In other words, when I look up into the night sky and see (with my naked eye) only a few hundred thousand stars (or what looks to be only a few hundred thousand stars) that does not prompt me to doubt that there are more stars and even galaxies full of stars beyond what I can see. JRTjr01 writes:
That's the problem. I keep asking you for examples of absolute truth and you keep ducking the question. I can't prove you're wrong until you say something.
I personally, in my discussions with you, have not stated that something is ‘Absolutely True’ and you have proved that I was wrong; Have I??
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024