|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
No it isn't. if I meant absolutely never I would have said, "absolutely never." Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
ringo writes:
This is an unequivocal statement. We are never absolutely right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
However, you have to watch out for those contradictions. This is what I’m trying to get through to Ringo. Lets cut to the chase. This whole argument is based on the idea that absolute truth exists (God exists) and exists regardless of what humans believe or don't believe. The correct way to approach such an argument is to say IF Absolute truth (or God exists) rather than starting from the assumption that He does. Just sayin...When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you. The reason it is so difficult is because you have not given evidence that it isn't what I said it is. I have given evidence (in the way of arguments and Definitions) that support my suppositions; unfortunately you have offered no evidence that my suppositions are wrong, you simply dismiss them. Hope to hear from you soon. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Phat,
Thanks for joining the fray, hope you enjoy our interactions. Where do you get the idea that ‘Absolute Truth’ is equal to ‘God’? It is an interesting hypothesis but I have not heard of this idea before. Hope to hear from you soon. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Your supposition that I mean Absolute when you think I mean Absolute is unsupportable. I have given evidence (in the way of arguments and Definitions) that support my suppositions; I mean what I mean. I tell you what I mean and you still insist that I mean something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined:
|
Dear Ringo,
Hope this note finds you well.
Ringo writes: I mean what I mean. I tell you what I mean and you still insist that I mean something else. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to ‘say’ what you ‘mean’ and ‘mean’ what you ‘say’; you’ll ‘say’ one thing and then tell me you actually ‘meant’ something else entirely. I have tried to allow you to correct your inaccurate statements but you continue insisting that the things you say are not contradictory, even though thy not only contradict each other but also contradict what you ‘say’ you ‘meant’ when you said them; all the while denying that you can actually know anything for sure. On that note, if, in dead, you doubt everything, then should you not doubt that what you ‘say’ you ‘mean’ is actually what you mean to say? Should you not also doubt that you are correct in saying I am wrong? If it is possible that I am right about what I say then why are you so insistent that I am wrong? This is the problem with not ‘meaning’ what you say; and ‘saying’ what you ‘mean’. You said you keep telling me what you ‘meant’ by what you ‘said’ but how do I know you ‘meant’ what you ‘say’ you ‘meant’ by what you ‘said’ if you can’t ‘say’ what you ‘mean’ in the first place? I try to be very careful to say what I mean. When I talk about ‘Objective Truth’ I mean ‘Objective1’ ‘Truth2’ not ‘Absolute3’ ‘Truth’; I’m not hiding ‘god’ in between my words. I’m speaking (Typing) plainly, using words (and their definitions) as they are found in any English Dictionary. If I use a word metaphorically {like I did in the previous sentence} I put the meaning in prentices or I add a definition at the bottom; one that can be verified by just about any English Dictionary {as I have with the words defined below}. I do not try to re-write the English Language and give new meaning to words to fit my particular beliefs and then expect everyone to just accept my new definitions. So, if you would, please, re-state your position using the standard (Dictionary) definitions of the words you use so that we know what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’. This way you do not have to constantly re re-define what you mean by what you said. Great hearing from you; and I hope to hear from you again soon. God Bless,
JRTjr
1Objective:
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. 2Truth: 2conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3 a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. 3Absolute: 4. undoubted; certain: the absolute truth5. not dependent on, conditioned by, or relative to anything else; independent: an absolute term in logic; the absolute value of a quantity in physics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Should I doubt that I know what I mean? Ultimately, yes. But the first step is to doubt that you understand what I'm saying. The second step is to doubt that you understand what I mean.
On that note, if, in dead, you doubt everything, then should you not doubt that what you ‘say’ you ‘mean’ is actually what you mean to say? JRTjr01 writes:
Then why do you keep insisting that eveything I say is in absolutes?
When I talk about ‘Objective Truth’ I mean ‘Objective1’ ‘Truth2’ not ‘Absolute3’ ‘Truth’;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you again; I hope you are enjoying our discussion.
Ringo writes: Should I doubt that I know what I mean? Ultimately, yes. If you ‘ultimately’ doubt what you ‘mean’ then how do you expect me to be sure of what you ‘mean’?
Ringo writes: But the first step is to doubt that you understand what I'm saying. The second step is to doubt that you understand what I mean. If you, yourself, doubt what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’ then, of course, you would be forced to doubt that I understand what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’. This has been my point all along. If you truly ‘doubt everything’ then it is impossible for you to use phrases like There is no absolute truth., Objective truth is what we have left when we remove all of the biases., I said that absolute truth does not exist until it has been shown to exist. and No. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely. and state them factually; simply because you cannot be sure of any of them. Therefore to tell me I am wrong, about anything, is to go against your own contention of ‘doubting everything ’. You would not only have to ‘doubt’ I am right about anything I have stated, you would have to equally ‘doubt’ I was wrong about anything I have stated; and that would include what I have said about your own statements. Is that not correct? Best wishes, God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I don't expect you to be absolutely sure of what I mean. I expect you to have a clue. If you ‘ultimately’ doubt what you ‘mean’ then how do you expect me to be sure of what you ‘mean’? By the way, nobody else in the thread seems to have difficulty understanding what I mean.
JRTjr01 writes:
Nonsense. I'm not absolutely sure there's no absolute truth. Why do you keep reading the word "absolutely" into everything I write? If you truly ‘doubt everything’ then it is impossible for you to use phrases like There is no absolute truth. You could make your point a lot better by giving some non-trivial examples of absolute truth. Why do you resolutely refuse to do that?
JRTjr01 writes:
No it isn't. I do doubt everything - but not necessarily absolutely everything. I do think you're wrong but I'm not absolutely sure. Therefore to tell me I am wrong, about anything, is to go against your own contention of ‘doubting everything ’. You could prove you are right very simply by giving some non-trivial examples of absolute truth. Your failure to do so suggests that you can't do so, which strengthens my case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I do doubt everything - but not necessarily absolutely everything. What? I think what you meant to say ( ) was something else. You can't have it both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
No, I said what I meant. There may be some things that I don't doubt but I doubt it.
I think what you meant to say ( ) was something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Do you not see any conflict between
I do doubt everything and
There may be some things that I don't doubt ? Isn't everything every thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
No. "Everything" can be figurative; "every thing" less so.
Isn't everything every thing? Parent: "Did you eat everything on your plate?" Child: "Yes." Parent: "No you didn't. You didn't eat the column of air above it." See how silly absolutism is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
I’m having more fun than should be legal (As Rush says); hope you are to.
Ringo writes: No. "Everything" can be figurative; "every thing" less so. Parent: "Did you eat everything on your plate?" Child: "Yes." Parent: "No you didn't. You didn't eat the column of air above it." See how silly absolutism is? Two problems with your analogy:
One — The column of air above the Plate is not ‘on’ the plate; and therefore would not, logically, be considered part of ‘everything on the Plate’
Two — You are the one pushing the meaning of the word ‘everything’ to the maximum of ‘Absolutely’ ‘everything’. After all, you’re the one that is not even willing to affirm you actually ‘know’ what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’.
Ringo writes: Should I doubt that I know what I mean? Ultimately, yes. I readily acknowledge that ‘everything’ does not mean ‘Absolutely’ ‘everything’. However, there is a difference between ‘I doubt everything’ and ‘I am sure of vary few things’. As I have been trying to make clear to you; even though there are ambiguities in the English Language when you put certain things certain ways there is not a whole lot of room for interpretation. If someone says, for instance: There are no absolutes that does not mean ‘well I don’t know of any absolutes’ or ‘I don’t think absolutes exist’; it mean exactly what it says; mainly that ‘Absolutes’, in fact, do not exist. To say There are no absolutes and then say Absolutes may exist is to contradict oneself; plain and simple.
Ringo writes: You could make your point a lot better by giving some non-trivial examples of absolute truth. Why do you resolutely refuse to do that? I resolutely refuse to do that because you take one of the pillars of logical thinking and call it ‘trivial’ without as much as a logical reason as to why it is ‘trivial’. I have given you an ‘Absolut Truth’, ‘trivial’ as you may think it to be, it is now on you to either accept this as an ‘Absolut Truth’ or give a reasonable explanation as to why this is not an ‘Absolut Truth’. Trying to minimize the impact of this ‘Absolut Truth’ by calling it ‘trivial’ is just a ‘red herring’; and as much as this old bloodhound may love his fish I am still on the trail of what is ‘Absolutely True’. ;-}} Hope to hear from you soon :-) God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Sure it is. How do you distinguish between a nitrogen moelcule that's touching the plate and a water molecule that's touching the plate and a carrot molecule that's touching th plate?
The column of air above the Plate is not ‘on’ the plate; JRTjr01 writes:
I'm the one who says it isn't absolute unless you say it is. I'm the one who's saying that the parent's definition of "everything" is ridiculous. The child recognizes that "everything" is not the same as "absolutely everything".
You are the one pushing the meaning of the word ‘everything’ to the maximum of ‘Absolutely’ ‘everything’. JRTjr01 writes:
I have given you a logical reason: The law of non-contradiction is trivial because it's true by definition. It's the equivalent of saying, "Orange is the colour of an orange."
I have given you an ‘Absolut Truth’, ‘trivial’ as you may think it to be, it is now on you to either accept this as an ‘Absolut Truth’ or give a reasonable explanation as to why this is not an ‘Absolut Truth’. JRTjr01 writes:
So give us a non-trivial example.
... as much as this old bloodhound may love his fish I am still on the trail of what is ‘Absolutely True’.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024