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,
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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.
__________________ If knowledge is power..how come we have so many idiots in charge?!!
Last edited by whobdamandog on Dec 2nd, 2005 at 01:13 AM
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.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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.
__________________ If knowledge is power..how come we have so many idiots in charge?!!
Last edited by whobdamandog on Dec 2nd, 2005 at 01:47 AM
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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?
__________________ If knowledge is power..how come we have so many idiots in charge?!!
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
The passion for philosophy...may only serve...to foster a predominant inclination...of the natural temper….There is, however one species of philosophy which seems little liable to this inconvenience, and that because it strikes ... no disorderly passion of the human mind, nor can mingle itself with any natural affection or propensity; and that is the Academic or sceptical philosophy….It is surprising, therefore, that this philosophy, which in almost every instance must be harmless and innocent, should be the subject of so much groundless reproach and blame.
--David Hume, Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
The worst speculative Sceptic ever I knew, was a much better Man than the best superstitious Devotee & Bigot.
--David Hume (Letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, March 10, 1751)
I guess...
BTW and yes I just went out and grabs some random quotes.
__________________ I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music HERE Or my new CD HERE
KMC Community Forums
Dec 2nd, 2005 01:05 AM
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
