If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? Our perceptions are supported by the warmed rocks that remain in orbit and the plants that survive. Unless of course you think that they also are deceived. There is at least one turtle and it doesn't matter where he is standing.

I've been talking about perceptions all along. You're the one who seems to confuse perception with "absolute reality". We perceive the rocks in orbit and the plants that survive. Our perceptions of them are as "absolutely true" as our dreams or our perceptions of God. No. There doesn't have to be a turtle at all. That's the point. There don't have to be any elephants on the turtle's back to support the earth either. The earth can hang from nothing all by itself.It's the same with our framework of ideas and perceptions. We can move around in it and manipulate it to our hearts' content - but it doesn't have to be attached to anything.

While it is true that we can call it the earth or le monde or el mundo this has no impact on the nature of the world. We are constrained by reality and no amount of denial will change that.Einstein said that our reality was nothing more than a persistent illusion. How long must an 'illusion' persist before we can call it reality? If I should lose a toe to some vicious accident of carpentry and go through the rest of my life with one less toe how can this be anything less than real? But not really right? Having your doctor confirm that you only have 9 toes is not quite in the same league as having your bible tell you that the world was once under water.

Pardon me for agreeing with Einstein instead of you. There's no statute of limitations on illusion. Illusion doesn't magically become reality. Ask the phantom pains. Your own mind doesn't agree with your doctor. There is individual reality and there is collective reality. Is collective reality "more real" or is it just better communication? Collective reality can be objective but it doesn't need to be. Witness the wide variety of religions - one of which is the belief in absolute reality.

OK I forgive you with the hope that you will come round. You cannot have an illusion without a reality. I don't see how you can deny this while still maintaining any integrity. (smilin)Einstein also said that he didn't think that God plays dice with the universe. It seems to me that if there is a God then that is all that it does. It is not a magical process but, for example, the illusion of Thor can become the reality of lightning. Under what illusions do we still suffer about lightning? Illusions are limited by knowledge.When the observer expires they will have experienced the sum total of this reality as it relates to them. Should some other reality present itself then they will experience that one. This particular reality is finite as far as the observer is concerned and there is a point where this reality can no longer impact the observer. Illusions are limited by the capacity of the observer to be deluded. The mind of the digitally deficient but rationally capable and sensually complete observer is smart enough to recognize the pain for what it really is. If there is no higher perception from any observer then the illusion becomes reality. The concepts of truth and reality require the observer. You need an observer to observe the illusion. Collective reality is all the reality that there is or can be. The combined observations of all the observers in the universe plus everything that they missed equals reality. Absofuckinglutely.

Been there, done that, still false: dreams, hallucinations. So you're refining the illusion. How can you be sure when you get to the end of the road? How can you know you have the absolute truth and not just another inaccurate image? Which is pretty much infinite. No matter how rational and observant you are, you can't tell the difference between the phantom pain and a "real" pain. You know that the toe isn't there but you also know with equal conviction that it hurts. No amount of rationalizing will make it stop hurting. The perception of pain is every bit as real. Exactly. And that reality includes religion, which branches into many conflicting "realities". Maybe one of them is the absolute truth, maybe not.

This didn't address the point before and continues to fail. You can't use the word false without agreeing that there is such a thing as truth. Your position denies the very foundations on which it rests.

I have not said that truth doesn't exist. I have said that absolute truth may or may not exist. So far in this thread, all attempts at giving examples of absolute truth have failed.As long as dreams and hallucinations "exist", your claim that, "You cannot have an illusion without a reality," remains false.

It might be more accurate to say, "You can't use the word false without agreeing that there is such a thing as true."I don't know whether Ringo would agree, but what I would say is that you can think something false and know you might be wrong. And you can think something true and again know you might be wrong. But you can't absolutely know whether anything is true or false.--Percy

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure. The same way you just did; One Nitrogen atom is floating free in the atmosphere the other is fixed in the makeup of a solid object.You obviously see the distinction; so why are you trying to say there is none?? Nonsense!! There is a difference between a solid object (i.e. a carrot ‘on’ the plate) and a bunch of free floating molecules in the atmosphere ‘above’ the plate.So, Yes, When a parent talks about the food "on" the plate, he/she doesn't mean only the single layer of food molecules that are literally touching the plate However, that in no way, equates to the free floating molecules in the atmosphere ‘above’ the plate because they are not attached to each other like the molecules in a solid object are.Again, you obviously see the difference; why else would you make the distinction between what is ‘On’ the plate and what is ‘Above’ the plate?? Sssoooo, are you now flat out denying that the ‘law of non-contradiction’ is an ‘Absolut Truth’; no matter how ‘trivial’ you seem to think it is???? Not so. "JRTjr01" is defined as "a member of the EvC forum" is inherently true because it has fidelity to reality.If there were no "member of the EvC forum" who’s user name was JRTjr01 then to say that ‘There is a member of the EvC forum who’s screen name is ‘JRTjr01’ would be faults.Which has nothing, directly, to do with the ‘Absolut Truth’ of the ‘Law of Non-Contradiction’ since "JRTjr01" being "a member of the EvC forum" is not an ‘Absolut Truth’.It may be absolutely (completely) true that there is a member of the "EvC forum" who’s screen name is "JRTjr01" but that is an entirely different type (or kind) of ‘Truth’. I see what you’re trying to say here; however, your logic is flawed.If I say ‘Go to the store and buy me an Orange’ you would know that I meant the ‘Fruit’ called an ‘Orange’ not an ‘unspecified’ orange colored fruit.As far as the definitions of words; you seem to forget that I have given you a definition of what ‘Truth’ is. Please, let me refresh your memory: Truth:2conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3 a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.Now, the Definition of "false" is, as you claim, dependent on what ‘True’ is. False:adjective
1not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement. .However, as you can see what is ‘True’ is predicated on what has conformity with fact or reality; not the circular logic of defining "true" as "not false which, as you say requires a definition of "false" which is, of course, that which is not true or correct.God Bless,
JRTjr

We can know that there is such a thing as reality and that we are a part of it. This is an absolute truth and it must be true. The observer cannot be deluded about the nature of their existence if they do not exist. The many fine examples of our delusions surely prove that we can be deluded. Therefore, we must exist and reality is the place where we do that. This is not a new thought but it is an example of something that we can know absolutely.ringo must fight this tooth and nail because once you have the first absolute truth the game is up.

Reality is real and something (that one might call "I") exists. That much can be said with absolute certainty I suppose.Reality is real - tautological.
Something exists - Is arguably tautological too as a state of being is implicit in being a "something" as opposed to a nothing.If you want to call 'reality is real' and 'something exists' "absolute truths" then I guess you are welcome to do so. But given their definitional qualities I'm pretty sure they qualify as "trivial" in Ringo's parlance.You've yet to demonstrate any "absolute truths" beyond that.

I offered it as a response to absolutism. Falibilism rather than absolutism is the generally accepted approach to truth and knowledge.And once again you seem to have completely the wrong end of the stick about who the "observer" is.You seem to think that if you can get me to agree that I exist then we have absolutely established that we both exist.But absolutes (or more specifically the lack of them) are all about the limitations of perspective. Given that from my perspective "I" am the observer I am obviously not denying my own existence. I would be denying that you, your thirst or the water in question exist as anything outside my own mind.Equally from your perspective (let us for the sake of argument assume that you do exist) you cannot be absolutely certain that I exist or even that the water and it's physical effects are anything other than the product of your imagination.How can you absolutely know that the evidence in question is actually indicative of absolute truth? That is the problem absolutists face.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The point to the example was that when a parent says "everything on your plate" he doesn't mean absolutely everything. I'm the one who's been telling you that the logic is circular - i.e. the Law of Non-Contradiction is circular. That's why it's trivial and not worthy of much attention.So, are you going to drop this silliness and give some concrete examples of absolute truth?

I know the game is sudden-death. I was watching some kids play hockey once. One team was significantly better than the other one and all of the action was at one end. The goalie on the better team had little to do so he was occupying his time by clearing snow out of the net, lying down on the ice, etc.I feel a bit like that goalie. I'm wondering if you're ever going to come across the blue line.