Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Math is generally referred to as an "Objective Truth" in science.
Objective meaning.."absolute" in its existence or beginning.
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

There are some, however, who believe that everything in life is made up of "Relative Truths." Relative meaning..everything is subject to change, and truth is dependant upon an individual's circumstances/views.

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

2+2=0 when your calculator is broken

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=291143&highlight=asylum

2 apples + 2 oranges does not = 4 apples, ,nor does it = 4 oranges.

due to the space-time theory if you start at earth and travel 2 light years, then travel two more theoreticly you would be 3.9999. light years from earth.


Say it im a geek geek

Originally posted by Clovie
2+2=0 when your calculator is broken or a positive 2 and a negative 2 equals 0..

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
2 apples + 2 oranges does not = 4 apples, ,nor does it = 4 oranges. ]

Broken Calculator = constant
2 apples = constant
2 oranges = constant
2 light years = constant



-2 is not = +2..

Moving on..using only "relative" arguments..prove 2 + 2 does not = 4

OK...negative 2...and a positve 2...meaning going up 2 is zero...

Originally posted by debbiejo
OK...negative 2...and a positve 2...meaning going up 2 is zero...





Try again..

NO...Don't want to.

Originally posted by debbiejo
NO...Don't want to.

Are you absolutely certain about your decision?..

Yes

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes

Fair enough. By using "absolute" values in your argument..you've contradicted it's "relativity"...

Next please..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So is it fair to say..that we the 2 + 2 = 4 is an "Objective Truth"

Before you can say something is an objective truth you have to prove it. I would say that, as far as my simple understanding of reality, I would call it an "Objective Truth". So, what is your point?

his point is intelligent design is a valid theory by way of this.......

Originally posted by soleran30
everything that is subjective has that uncertainty

I do believe that there is a truth, but it cannot be known directly because the act of knowing would change it, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Before you can say something is an objective truth you have to prove it.
I would say that, as far as my simple understanding of reality, I would call it an "Objective Truth".


How can you prove something..if you don't assume that "Absolute Truths" exist?



That "Absolute Truth" exists.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How can you prove something..if you don't assume that "Absolute Truths" exist?



That "Absolute Truth" exists.

You cannot, and why would you even try?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot, and why would you even try?


Shaky..please answer this question...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Shaky..please answer this question...

I did... you cannot prove something absolutely.

I hope you are not just going to start bashing me now, If you do, I will report you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did... you cannot prove something absolutely.


Are you "absolutely" sure of that?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Are you "absolutely" sure of that?

I am a simple human and you are asking a big question.

I like the little trap you have discovered; how can I be absolutely sure that nothing can be absolutely proven? Nice word game, but that is all it is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a simple human and you are asking a big question.

I like the little trap you have discovered; how can I be absolutely sure that nothing can be absolutely proven? Nice word game, but that is all it is.

So are you "absolutely" certain that there are "no absolute truths"? A simple yes or no will do.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So are you absolutely sure that there are "no absolute truths"? A simple yes or no will do.

I see your word game, so stop trying to spring the trap. If we had this conversation in a different language, the trap would not work.

This is what I believe: all life is an illusion, however, there is a true nature to reality and humans cannot understand this truth. So, there is a absolute truth, but neither you or I know what it is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is the point of this thread? The mathematical equation is correct, however it has never been proven and will never be proven. xx + xx = xxxx

Simply add them together using visuals. Wouldn't that be proof?

Originally posted by soleran30
his point is intelligent design is a valid theory by way of this.......

I hope that this is not the case, as that would be kinda pathetic.

Whobdamandog, Absolute truth is hard to talk about, so let me give you my little word game;

Considering that the Earth is spinning and going around the sun, the sun is moving through the galaxy and the galaxy is moving through the universe, how fast do you have to go to stand still?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, there is a absolute truth, but neither you or I know what it is.



Shaky my friend you are contradicting yourself again.

FYI an illusion represents something that is false.

How can our reality be made up of falsehoods..if it's nature is based on "Truths"? Please explain...

Relatavists would argue that the system in which 2 + 2 = 4 was created by people whose perceptions might be flawed. 2 + 2 might in fact equal 5 but our perceptions are being constantly distorted so we do not realise our mistake.

Or they might not.

This kind of very basic philisophical set-up was handled by Descartes centuries ago. It is possible to successfully doubt that 2 + 2 actually equals 4 so it cannot be absolute.

(1) X=Y
(2) X2 = XY
(3) X2 - Y2 = XY-Y2
(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y
(6) 2Y = Y
(7) 4 = 2

Therfore 2 + 2 = 8

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Shaky my friend you are contradicting yourself.

FYI an illusion represents something that is false.

How can our reality be based on falsehoods..if it's nature is based on "Truths"? Please explain...

Have you ever seen an optical illusion like this one? What is false about this?

Illusions are not false it is us who can not see then correctly, therefore the foundation of you question is erroneous.

There is no Philisophical way to prove the existence of absolute truth- and so by extension, no process of logical reasoning that will do it either.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Illusions are not false it is us who can not see then correctly, therefore the foundation of you question is erroneous.




FYI Erroneous means false my friend.

So again Shaky..is it of your opinion that reality is made up of falsehoods, however..these falsehoods are based on "absolute truths"?

I think Shaky was not disputing the dictionary definition, merely saying that what we call illusions aren't truly illusiory a tall, it's just a perception issue,

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So we both agree that there is an absolute truth, the disagreement is that rather we can understand it.


I don't think you understand that absolute truth exists. If you did, then you wouldn't make the erroneous assumption of "falsehoods" being based off of "Truths."



It shot down the argument of you believing "absolute truths" not being able to be proven/observed by humans.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think Shaky was not disputing the dictionary definition, merely saying that what we call illusions aren't truly illusiory a tall, it's just a perception issue


Yes..however..just because we perceive something to be a certain way, it doesn't take away from the truth of an argument.

I can perceive myself as being able to fly..however, if I jump out of a window..I'm still going to fall to the ground.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..however..just because we perceive something to be a certain way, it doesn't take away from the truth of an argument.

I can perceive myself as being able to fly..however, if I jump out of a window..I'm still going to fall to the ground.


The problem is with us. We cannot perceive absolute truth, therefore, any attempt at quantifying absolute truth creates illusion.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
2 apples = constant
2 oranges = constant
2 light years = constant

I'm so glad you took my post seriously. But, in reality, I guess there are some valid points to it.

However, you creating this thread implies that your opinion is our responsability. You may have taken it upon yourself to createsome sort of crusade to get people to agree with you on your opinion of creationism. However, look back over all the posts in all the threads and you'll see that not one person, on either side of the debate, changed their opinions.

So, if it's up to all of us to prove to you that 2+2=4 , then prove to me that The Bible+Your Opinion=GOD. Maybe this will help:

2=Bible
2 also = Your Opinion
4=GOD

So, we can go back and look at my first post....

2 apples = 2 apples
2 oranges = 2 oranges

So

2A + 2O does not = 4 A or O

Are you getting my point?....

Apples and Oranges here dear, apples and oranges. Science and Religion.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..however..just because we perceive something to be a certain way, it doesn't take away from the truth of an argument.

I can perceive myself as being able to fly..however, if I jump out of a window..I'm still going to fall to the ground.

I think that's getting into something different from what Shaky was saying.

But that takes us back to Descartes again. Yes, you are PROBABLY going to fall, but we can't be absolutely certain. You might fly, we won't know until you tried it, and even then we won't KNOW, we will have just perceived it, or thought we have perceived it, or think we have thought that... and so on.

In fact, there might not be a window, or even a ground. All these perceptions might be false. None of these things can actually be used to prove certainty.

But in fact Descartes did conceed one absolute truth- the only one that can be so established, which is that a thinker knows that he himself exists- because even if he doubts his own existence, he must conclude that he exists in order to be able to doubt it.

So one truth... and no further.

But that's completely useless for any practical value, of course. So what science does is basically not care about all that, and decides that its job is to discover about the world as we can best perceive it, and leave any such philisophical vagueries out of that.

But even within that framework, Science is never absolutely certain, it can only work on a balance of probabilities based on their best ideas they have to explain observed effects; hence what they keep saying about physicists waiting for the day that a ball spontaneously falls upwards, because they cannot preove that that is not possible.

Maths DOES have such certainties, but only because it assumes that its own principle are correct. That in itself can be doubted, so it's not really absolute at all- though again, it is of no practical value to so doubt it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem is with us. We cannot perceive absolute truth, therefore, any attempt at quantifying absolute truth creates illusion.


If I jump out a 3 story window, will I fall to the ground?

If put my hand in a fire for 10 minutes..will it burn?

If I cut my hand off with a hatchet, will it grow back?

Are these Absolute Truths Shaky? Can we perceive these things?

Yes, but we cannot ever be certain that our percpetions are correct, so they are not absolute.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But that takes us back to Descartes again. Yes, you are PROBABLY going to fall, but we can't be absolutely certain. You might fly, we won't know until you tried it, and even then we won't KNOW, we will have just perceived it, or thought we have perceived it, or think we have thought that... and so on.


So essentially what you are implying is that the only absolute truth that we have..is that of "uncertainty." That my friend..is a self defeating argument.

In order for one to believe that "uncertainty" exists..we have to first make the assumption that something "certainly" exists. You follow?

Case in point..

There has to be something that is assumed to be "absolute" in order for one to base the argument of "no absolutes" off of. Simple stuff to understand.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If I jump out a 3 story window, will I fall to the ground?

If put my hand in a fire for 10 minutes..will it burn?

If I cut my hand off with a hatchet, will it grow back?

Are these Absolute Truths Shaky? Can we perceive these things?

Sure , I guess.

Nope, not at all. That is only so if following a system of basic logic which in turn you have assumed exists. This might all be false reasoning.

You can make no underpinning that logically supports the idea of absolute truth without assumption that renders the idea worthless.

Descartes didn't even say we could be certain of uncertainty; his definition of uncertainty might be wrong so how could be say that?

There is nothing self-defeating anywhere. To be a workable concept, certainty would have to be established; it cannot be.

You have to understand that all could be chaos and confusion and total nonsense and so no certain conclusion can be drawn at all.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If I jump out a 3 story window, will I fall to the ground?

If put my hand in a fire for 10 minutes..will it burn?

If I cut my hand off with a hatchet, will it grow back?



Just don't jump out the window first....make sure you save that one for last.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is nothing self-defeating anywhere.


Are you certain of that Ush?

Is the above based on relativity or on an absolute?

It doesn't matter. Your entire reasoning behind that sentence might be incorrect. Everyone might think it is one thing and it is actually the other. It might be a third thing that we cannot comprehend.

There isn't a single thing you can possibly say which a relativist cannot simply bounce back at you saying "you could be wrong. Your entire grounds for saying that might be worthless.".

That is the heart of Philisophical Scepticism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure , I guess.

Good..you are starting to understand grashopper.

So If these things are indeed true, and we can perceive them to be true..does that mean that absolute truth does indeed exist..and it is within our abilities to comprehend?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Your entire reasoning behind that sentence might be incorrect. Everyone might think it is one thing and it is actually the other. It might be a third thing that we cannot comprehend.


So the opinion that everything is relative..what is it based off of, and how do we know that the basis of the argument is true?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..you are starting to understand grashopper.

So If these things are indeed true, and we can perceive them to be true..does that mean that absolute truth does indeed exist..and it is within our abilities to comprehend?

And sorry, you did not. I will try to rephrase my statement, because I am so poor at putting my thoughts into words.

Was my statement absolute? No. Your reality is yours, and if you wish to see it that way, it is fine with me. Your delusion is no better than mine.


BTW Ushgarak, Thank you for your help, your understanding of what I was trying to say was correct.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Your entire reasoning behind that sentence might be incorrect. Everyone might think it is one thing and it is actually the other. It might be a third thing that we cannot comprehend.

There isn't a single thing you can possibly say which a relativist cannot simply bounce back at you saying "you could be wrong. Your entire grounds for saying that might be worthless.".

That is the heart of Philisophical Scepticism.


What is the base argument that supports Philosophical Sceptism? Can anyone answer that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And sorry, you did not. I will try to rephrase my statement, because I am so poor at putting my thoughts into words.

Was my statement absolute? No. Your reality is yours, and if you wish to see it that way, it is fine with me. Your delusion is no better than mine.


BTW Ushgarak, Thank you for your help, your understanding of what I was trying to say was correct.


So if an individual believes that

Their hand will not grow back after cutting it off..

Their hand will not burn if they stick it in the fire for ten minutes..

They can not fly if they jump out the window...

These beliefs make them delusional?

These beliefs are not tangible and do not exist as "Truths" in the real world?

Ush or Shaky..please explain.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So if an individual believes that

Their hand will not grow back after cutting it off..

Their hand will not burn if they stick it in the fire for ten minutes..

They can not fly if they jump out the window...

These beliefs make them delusional?

These beliefs are not tangible and do not exists as "Truths" in the real world?

One is unable to view these things in the real world?

Ush or Shaky..please explain.

Jesus said (and I am paraphrasing) If you had the faith of a mustered seed, you could move mountains. Please could someone get the correct quote out of the King James Bible and keep it in contacts.

So, I guess if you believe enough, then all these things can be done.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus said (and I am paraphrasing) If you had the faith of a mustered seed, you could move mountains. Please could someone get the correct quote out of the King James Bible and keep it in contacts.

So, I guess if you believe enough, then all these things can be done.

Yes..but Jesus also stated..

"What is impossible to man..is possible to God"

So who/what was Jesus implying that we have to have faith in?

Was he implying that by having faith in ourselves..we can do anything?

Or was he implying that by having faith in God's abilities..we can do anything?

Do you think Jesus believed that the truth was something that is just relative to man..or did he believe that the truth was something that is relative to God?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..but Jesus also stated..

"What is impossible to man..is possible to God"

So who what was Jesus implying that we have faith in?

Was he implying that by having faith in ourselves..we can do anything?

Or was he implying that by having faith in God's abilities..we can do anything?

Is the truth something that is just relative to man..or is the truth only something that is relative to God?

There is no difference, I am God, or at least part of God. The only down side to this is, you are also God. There is a truth, but we cannot understand it. Thanks for the debate, and I wish you great happiness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no difference, I am God, or at least part of God. The only down side to this is, you are also God. There is a truth, but we cannot understand it. Thanks for the debate, and I wish you great happiness.

Well, if we are all indeed God, then we should have the ability to understand all the mysteries of life..unfortunately..we do not. Good debating with you as well.

need to prove that 4 is twice of two first

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a simple human and you are asking a big question.

I like the little trap you have discovered; how can I be absolutely sure that nothing can be absolutely proven? Nice word game, but that is all it is.
Word game?

You haven't played words games until you've dealt with Adam's "sock experiment" about free will and God.

Originally posted by finti
need to prove that 4 is twice of two first

That's kind of what I was getting at in my first response.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Word game?

You haven't played words games until you've dealt with Adam's "sock experiment" about free will and God.


Sounds like fun.

Well... Nice tricky question here.
It is safe to assume that 2+2=4 simply because we have done enough trials in the past to make an extrapolation into the future.
Now This doen't nessasarily have to hold true in the future, but we can pretty safely assume that this will always be the case, but what is stopping it from changing? Nothing. Why couldn't tommorow 2+2=fish?? Logically right now that seems impossible, but what if instantaniously our logic changed around by some cataclismic force. Some could call it an act of God, but I would disagree, just some cataclismic force. Then 2+2 could equal fish or anything. And for all we know this could have already happened and we couldn't know, what if 1 second ago the universe reformed and made 2+2=4 and just changed all our memories (our brains are simply molocules after all) to reflect this?
But we can say that this happening could be safely disregared, for agruments sake.
Still numbers are only placeholders. We have assigned these numbers to represent what we belive to be some value or thing backing them up, but there isn't numbers are all theroretical, as are names. if you say you have 2 oranges, 2 is just a discription of what you see in front of you, same as oranges. You use the word Orange to discrbe the round fruit in front of you. But fruit is just a way to discribe a bunch of things that grow on trees, and this can go on infinitly.
So by this argument the number 2 is a written representation of our theroy of objects existing to lend evidence to the representation of the number, and so the circle goes.
By this argument 2+2=4 is just more representation of some experiment, but like US currency there is nothing to back it up except faith. The faith that the equation works, and the faith that you can buy stuff with a slip of paper that's not backed up by gold or any sort of hard currency, all faith. And don't try to bring a faith=god argument because faith is simply a nessisesity for not going insane because it is impossible to justify everything.

There? good enough?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Well... Nice tricky question here.
It is safe to assume that 2+2=4 simply because we have done enough trials in the past to make an extrapolation into the future.
Now This doen't nessasarily have to hold true in the future, but we can pretty safely assume that this will always be the case, but what is stopping it from changing? Nothing. Why couldn't tommorow 2+2=fish?? Logically right now that seems impossible, but what if instantaniously our logic changed around by some cataclismic force. Some could call it an act of God, but I would disagree, just some cataclismic force. Then 2+2 could equal fish or anything. And for all we know this could have already happened and we couldn't know, what if 1 second ago the universe reformed and made 2+2=4 and just changed all our memories (our brains are simply molocules after all) to reflect this?
But we can say that this happening could be safely disregared, for agruments sake.
Still numbers are only placeholders. We have assigned these numbers to represent what we belive to be some value or thing backing them up, but there isn't numbers are all theroretical, as are names. if you say you have 2 oranges, 2 is just a discription of what you see in front of you, same as oranges. You use the word Orange to discrbe the round fruit in front of you. But fruit is just a way to discribe a bunch of things that grow on trees, and this can go on infinitly.
So by this argument the number 2 is a written representation of our theroy of objects existing to lend evidence to the representation of the number, and so the circle goes.
By this argument 2+2=4 is just more representation of some experiment, but like US currency there is nothing to back it up except faith. The faith that the equation works, and the faith that you can buy stuff with a slip of paper that's not backed up by gold or any sort of hard currency, all faith. And don't try to bring a faith=god argument because faith is simply a nessisesity for not going insane because it is impossible to justify everything.

There? good enough?

I liked it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What is the base argument that supports Philosophical Sceptism? Can anyone answer that?

The idea that things can be doubted. But if you want to point out that that itself can be doubted also, then feel free- but that only feeds into their position, which is that nothing you say can convince them of the existence of an absolute because you might be mistaken.

As for this bit:



"So if an individual believes that

Their hand will not grow back after cutting it off..

Their hand will not burn if they stick it in the fire for ten minutes..

They can not fly if they jump out the window...

These beliefs make them delusional?

These beliefs are not tangible and do not exist as "Truths" in the real world?"



Well, I'm not really talking in that area because my relatavist and/or sceptic (and I feel I should point out that I am neither) doesn't actually 'believe' any of the above, he is just saying he can never be truly, 100% certain that any of the above won't happen, and even if they do it and it doesn't happen, that might just be their perceptions at fault.

But the whole point is this- if you try and use logical reasoning or a philisophical position to try and refute relatavism, a relatavist has only to adopt a position of scepticism and then there is nothing you can really say or do that will successfully undermine them. They will simply hold the position that everything you say might be void so none of it will convince them of an absolute.

What tpt says above is indeed correct- as I said, Maths only has absolute truths because it assumes that its own system of logic is correct. That assumption is based on faith. But it is still spectacularly useless to doubt it. But it isn't really Maths- or by the same basic principles of rationality and cause and effect you mentioned in the Evolution thread- that is making such an assumption; these assumptions necessary are those taken by just about everybody about everything else you could not practically exist.

And in answer to yout original question, our relatavist would just say that it has not been established for certain that 2 + 2 = 4 in the first place.

Firstly, there are no absolute truths whatsoever, only conditional and relative arising.

Secondly, numeric value and their meanings only exist inside our minds. Even Einstein said that mathematics does not conform to reality and vice versa.

The meaning of numbers, as with everything else, is all subjective.

Nobody can proof an absolute, as such an act would subject the absolute in question.

This thread hurts my brain.

wallbash

Answer:






So in summary...

You've agreed that there is an "absolute" basis to "Philisophical Sceptism."

Math has truths..which can't be refuted.(this would make these truths absolute..)

So basically we're in agreement that "absolute truths" do exist within life. When you bring in the argument of "Philosphical Skepticism" and the reasoning behind my arguments..you are taking an "absolute" stance against them. You follow?

I'm glad we could have this discussion...:smile:

But that so-called absolute idea can be doubted, as my entire post went on to say and you simply ignored.

So no, your logic is in total failure here. Scepticism is the practice that completely undermines what you say- it is a belief that simply refutes all you are trying to stand for, no matter how much you try and smugly smile about it.

The entirity of your post above, a sceptic will simply ay you could be wrong about.

You cannot establish the existance of absolutes in that way. Any means you use to try and do it might be doubted. It is a premise you cannot establish.

Why must we be tortured like this?

Just wanted to kill another long going argument we've had in these forums. One of the foundations of natural science is Mathematics..correct?

If math is an "Objective truth" supported only by faith...that would make Science a faith based belief system as well.

Thank you all for your participation in this thread.

Fin.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Answer:






So in summary...

You've agreed that there is an "absolute" basis to "Philisophical Sceptism."

Math has truths..which can't be refuted.(this would make these truths absolute..)

So basically we're in agreement that "absolute truths" do exist within life. When you bring in the argument of "Philosphical Skepticism" and the reasoning behind my arguments..you are taking an "absolute" stance against them. You follow?

I'm glad we could have this discussion...:smile:

So, you have agreed that there is no absolute truth, and that all things change.







You see that is how I see you. Everyone disagrees with you and you just go and say that your argument is correct. I think you have missed the point of this forum. No one is here to change your mind and you will not change any ones mind by just staying to your point. If you change your point of view, other people might meet you half way.

By the precepts of logic that would only be doubted by the Philisophical sceptic, then yes it is. In fact, I mentioned that in the Evolution thread, along with another comment about how useless that is.

But of course, that is totally irrelevant, because as I said earlier in this thread, Science is an attempt to do the best it can within the limits of our perceptions.

And inside those limits, there are then fundamental differences between what we call faiths- generally meaning religions- and the way that science works.

The Philosphical Sceptic would indeed say that once all is doubted, all is faith. Everything we profess to know about the world is faith.

But beyond the assumptions that we all make to live from day to day life, enormous differences remain between faith and science- differences that, for example, dictate whether something belongs in a science classroom or not.

You can just use different words for the definitions, if it would help you distinguish.

OK, you told us to disprove 2+2=4, i want you to prove it first







it aint gonna happen








i need to work on my grammer

Well I was told aint is in the dictionary now....So it is a real word....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well I was told aint is in the dictionary now....So it is a real word....

I'm going to tell KharmaDog that you are derailing another thread.

"Ain't" is indeed a real word. It is just an atrocity to grammar.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"Ain't" is indeed a real word. It is just an atrocity to grammar. What is "ain't" supposed to be a contraction of?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What is "ain't" supposed to be a contraction of?
Am/are/is not. Sometimes changed with regards to tense (i.e., "will/shall/has".

Then does the sentence "That ain't right." make sense?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Then does the sentence "That ain't right." make sense?

It just ain't right. Is that an absolute truth?

....I get back and look what happens......You guys bored or what?

Originally posted by debbiejo
....I get back and look what happens......You guys bored or what? Ain't you?

You all need to go to the "collage" and edumacate yourselves on the different species of human...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You all need to go to the "collage" and edumacate yourselves on the different species of human...



That almost made sense. Could you please restate that statement.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You all need to go to the "collage" and edumacate yourselves on the different species of human...

first i need to gragitate from high school

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


That almost made sense. Could you please restate that statement.

I thought "God" understood everything..

Apparently he doesn't understand that 2 + 2 = 4...nor does he understand satirical comments made against him...

Fin

Originally posted by FeceMan
"Ain't" is indeed a real word. It is just an atrocity to grammar. Grammer police says the final word.....WINS!!

I intend to make several posts after this...

Fin.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I intend to make several posts after this...

Fin.

The basis of this statement is not credible. A credible argument must have a recent subjective source, which is published by only one who supports the argument being made.

I agree whole heartedly.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I intend to make several posts after this...

Fin. I'll just make one, maybe.... ..OK 2, but not 4.

Originally posted by BackFire
I agree whole heartedly.

Let me rephrase that..The God of "Creationalism" is the embodiment of all falsehoods. This false Gods followers are called "Creationalists." The true God reveals his absolute truth through the bible..which is the basis of Christian Doctrine.

Fin(for now....)

Oh damb!

I'd also say the same is true for the Christian god.

No. ...just stop...I can't take much more of this.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'll just make one, maybe.... ..OK 2, but not 4.

But wait..-2 = +2..so if I go back two pages....that means that that 2 + 2 will now = 0...thus negating the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4. In theory..no more Fins will be left if I do this..what do you think?!!

No.

Happy place, happy place, happy place.....that's where I'm going.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The basis of this statement is not credible. A credible argument must have a recent subjective source, which is published by only one who supports the argument being made. Is it possible to make a "joke" so lacking in humor that it actually sucks humor from neighbouring sentences. Apparently so.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But wait..-2 = +2..so if I go back two pages....that means that that 2 + 2 will now = 0...thus negating the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4. In theory..no more Fins will be left if I do this..what do you think?!!
if you were to go back, you would not be adding, you'd be subtracting pages, and actually then at the same time you'd be adding pages to your cookies.... wow.... what a conundrum......

and i dunno if anyone else thought of this, but what if you add 2 drops of mercury to 2 drops of mercury? do you not gain one big contamination?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Is it possible to make a "joke" so lacking in humor that it actually sucks humor from neighbouring sentences. Apparently so.

Moral Absolutes which embody humor do not exist X, and can not be answered by a simple yes/no response. Life is full of shades of gray..relativity as many like to call it. Read up on basic concepts that support "Philosophical Sceptism" and "Relativity."

I've included a few unbiased sources below.

http://www.theoryofrelativity.com

http://www.supportersofrelativity.com

http://www.therearenoabsolutetruths.com

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moral Absolutes which embody humor do not exist X, and can not be answered by a simple yes/no response. Life is full of shades of gray..relativity as many like to call it. Read up on basic concepts that support "Philosophical Sceptism" and "Relativity."

I've included a few unbiased sources below.

http://www.theoryofrelativity.com

http://www.supportersofrelativity.com

http://www.therearenoabsolutetruths.com
question.
if there are NO absolute truths, then is that not also an absolute truth, ergo making it false? yes?

Originally posted by DreamingWarrior
if you were to go back, you would not be adding, you'd be subtracting pages, and actually then at the same time you'd be adding pages to your cookies.... wow.... what a conundrum......

and i dunno if anyone else thought of this, but what if you add 2 drops of mercury to 2 drops of mercury? do you not gain one big contamination?

One word for you Dreaming.."SATIRE"..lol

Start from the beginning of this thread and read to the current page....you'll understand some of the more recent comments I've made better..

Some of the comments are also related to other threads we've debated in...kind of like in jokes..I suggest you take a look at some of the Evolution threads to get a full picture of some of what's being discussed.

FYI..My Position is that "Absolute Truth" exists..and that "Philosphical Sceptism" or "Relativity" are self defeating Philosophical arguments.

2 live people+ 2 frogs = 2 people and 2 frogs therefore it doesn't equal 4...

Originally posted by AdventChild
2 live people+ 2 frogs = 2 people and 2 frogs therefore it doesn't equal 4...
But it does equal four organisms.

However, that is clearly not the point of the thread.

I agree with Shakyamunison, according to our simple understanding of reality 2+2=4 is an objective truth.

really

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So is it fair to say..that we the 2 + 2 = 4 is an "Objective Truth"

well done, you've won the easiest argument life can throw up...

Originally posted by Df02
well done, you've won the easiest argument life can throw up...

Thank you. But as you can see, there are many out there who believe that 2+2 = 4 is a "relative" truth. Some reasons that support their arguments are as follows:

2 apples + 2 oranges not = 4 apples and oranges

-2 = +2

Falsehoods make up the Absolute Truth

Philosophical Sceptics can question the reasoning behind 2 + 2 = 4


The sad part is..that these arguments have gone on for 7 pages.




So anyone else have an opinion as to why 2 + 2 = 4 is a relative argument?

infinity-2 = infinity-1

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Math is generally referred to as an "Objective Truth" in science.
Objective meaning.."absolute" in its existence or beginning.
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

There are some, however, who believe that everything in life is made up of "Relative Truths." Relative meaning..everything is subject to change, and truth is dependant upon an individual's circumstances/views.

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

No need for numbers.
"There are no absolutes" is self-contradicting.
Another absolute is: those who identify too strongly with their belief that "everything is relative" will not change their minds, regardless of whatever proof you send their way.

frusty

Originally posted by Mindship
No need for numbers.
"There are no absolutes" is self-contradicting.
Another absolute is: those who identify too strongly with their belief that "everything is relative" will not change their minds, regardless of whatever proof you send their way.

frusty

True..but you have to admit..it is funny to see Philosophical Relativists/Sceptics debate the "relativity" of Mathemetics. It is also funny to see them apply these concepts of Relativism/Sceptism to scientific theory/rationale, but then at the same time assert that scientific thoeries are based off of "empirical/absolute" evidence."

It's much funnier to watch you being eithee so dumb or so set on saying what you want to say as to not understand what is being said to you in the thread, seeing as all those points have been addressed.

Again, prove that 2 + 2 IS 4 in the first place without making an assumption. You can't, therefore it is not absolute, by a relatavist argument.

It is in fact very easy indeed to question the logic of 2 + 2 = 4. It is assuming that we are correctly identifying the numbers 2 and 4, the concept of addition, and the concept of logic needed for mathematics to function. All of these things could be wrong as a result of our flawed perceptions. Therefore all of these are relative assumptions; none are absolute.

Your clumsy attempts to simply dismiss those statements, as if your words have the power to, simpl reflect badly on your own arguments again.

The assumptions that science needs to function I also adreessed in my last post here.

I must insist that people have the courtesy to properly read the posts of others.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
True..but you have to admit..it is funny to see Philosophical Relativists/Sceptics debate the "relativity" of Mathemetics.


This reminds me of a favorite Einstein quote:

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm beginning to have my doubts about the former."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's much funnier to watch you being eithee so dumb or so set on saying what you want to say as to not understand what is being said to you in the thread, seeing as all those points have been addressed.

Again, prove that 2 + 2 IS 4 in the first place without making an assumption. You can't, therefore it is not absolute, by a relatavist argument.

It is in fact very easy indeed to question the logic of 2 + 2 = 4. It is assuming that we are correctly identifying the numbers 2 and 4, the concept of addition, and the concept of logic needed for mathematics to function. All of these things could be wrong as a result of our flawed perceptions. Therefore all of these are relative assumptions; none are absolute.

Isaac Newton proved it, in very great length, in his Mathematica Principia. He begins with operational definitions and logic and builds from there. Far be it for my far less capable brain to recount his reasoning, but it is there for anyone who is interested.

No, you're not paying attention. Anything he proved might be on the basis of flawed perceptions and logic. Everything he was taking for granted might be false. The system of logic he used to prove it could be erroneous. There is no way to prove its starting validity.

Therefore any proof he offers STILL makes assumptions, and therefore is still not absolute

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, prove that 2 + 2 IS 4 in the first place


** + ** = ****



Originally posted by Ushgarak
Anything he proved might be on the basis of flawed perceptions and logic. Everything he was taking for granted might be false. The system of logic he used to prove it could be erroneous. There is no way to prove its starting validity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All of these things could be wrong as a result of our flawed perceptions.

If our perceptions are flawed, then, for consistency, this would include the perception, "our perceptions are flawed," which certainly invites circular reasoning.

Put another way: you seem absolutely certain these perceptions could be flawed.

Also--and I ask this with all due respect--are you even open to the possibility of an absolute proof? Because, if your philosophy believes all things are relative, without exception, then by definition you aren't, and this discussion is pointless. We best agree to disagree. If you are open, then you do accept the notion that absolutes exist.

Originally posted by Mindship
If our perceptions are flawed, then, for consistency, this would include the perception, "our perceptions are flawed," which certainly invites circular reasoning.

Put another way: you seem absolutely certain these perceptions could be flawed.


I also pointed out to him that assigning a basis to Philosophical Sceptism/Relativity, is also self defeating/circular.
(*note..basis meaning beginning, fundemantal/absolute starting point...etc)

but alas..as the old saying goes..

You can't rationalize with the irrational...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
...You are part of the "God" of all Illusionary truths..and I admit..I cannot begin to argue or reason with the truth of his falsehoods. Your God has created a world of fantasy and illusionary realities in which truth can only be determined by him. I do respect your right to believe in your true illusionary falsehoods, and believe that the bad Kharma of all of your delusions..will be given back to you many times over...




You are disrespectful, and arrogant, but that is your Karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are disrespectful, and arrogant, but that is your Karma.

But being a Relativist..you should be open to the possibility that you are the one who is being disrepctful, arrogant, and will receive bad Kharma....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But being a Relativist..you should be open to the possibility that you are the one who is being disrepctful, arrogant, and will receive bad Kharma....

I am not a Relativist; you haven't been reading my posts. I do believe there is an absolute truth, but I also believe that neither you nor I know what it is, or will ever know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not a Relativist; you haven't been reading my posts. I do believe there is an absolute truth, but I also believe that neither you nor I know what it is, or will ever know.

All Buddhists are Relativists..but not all Relativists are Buddhists.

You all ascribe to the belief "Everyone has there own truth--everything is shades of gray" speel..a fundemental principle of Relativism.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
All Buddhists are Relativists..but not all Relativists are Buddhists.

You all ascribe to the belief "Everyone has there own truth--everything is shades of gray" speel..a fundemental principle of Relativism.

Sense you know so much about Buddhism, please explain to me the ten factors of life and how they relate to Relativism.

Oh wait, there's nothing remotely funny on the prior page.

Add 2 + 2 measures of some radioactive minerals, and the result can be a whole lot more than 4.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No..religion is only going the way of the dinosaur..the only truth..is that 25 years of no collage begins to take a toll on one's English abilities. No offense was taken by your post. However, offense is a relative concept..seeing how defense can be used in a football, soccer, and other sports to perceive the objective truth of one's subjective actions. If we go to the collage, then the truth will be known through the falsehoods of our illusions.





offesnsive isn't a relative concept.


Ignorance is always going to be offensive.


"The way of the dinosaur"? I think it's clear that you don't have the right to use such terminology. Especially, when you think they were created by god to throw off scientists.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


Oh wait, there's nothing remotely funny on the prior page.

You must of missed the part where everyone is arguing why 2+2 not = 4.

I find that argument unto itself.. rather hilarious.

Why do people attatch numbers to things?
They are just an illusion to give more of an understanding to this delusion you are in, you need things to explain just so you can feel that this is actually real..
It depends on how you see things, but then again you couldn't because all of this is my warped imagination..



A self-centered and disturbing view on the world, enjoy

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
Why do people attatch numbers to things?
They are just an illusion to give more of an understanding to this delusion you are in, you need things to explain just so you can feel that this is actually real..
It depends on how you see things, but then again you couldn't because all of this is my warped imagination..



A self-centered and disturbing view on the world, enjoy

So in other words..you're crazy.

2+2 does only = 4 if you accept the 8 basic axioms of addition, and subtraction as true. Those axioms define the concept of adding a number to another... addition, and subtraction need to be accepted as true.

Well, if we are speaking about paradoxes.. maybe it would be interesting to know that mathematics proved itself contradictory using its own logic. It is called Godel´s imcompleteness theorem

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So in other words..you're crazy.

You have no right to call other people crazy.

Go play with your Star Wars toys.


Also, answer my question.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So in other words..you're crazy.
You only think I'm crazy because my mind subconsciously made that decision for you, you are only a figment of my imagination

2+2=4 because I allow it to equal 4, if I wished it to equal 3 you'd ask the same question..