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."
Afro pretty’s statement; how did it shoot down our arguments?
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?
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.
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.
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 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 whobdamandog
What is the base argument that supports Philosophical Sceptism? Can anyone answer that?
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
[B]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.