|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:59:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
I agree. To say "I know God exists" is to express a certainty that simply isn't there -- but that uncertainty has no bearing on its veracity.
|
Right. To put it another way: Even if god exists, it would be unreasonable to assume he does (based on current our state of knowledge).
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2008 17:02:31 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:21:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
(A) Then it's absolutely true that God no longer exists.
(B) Then it's absolutely true that God no longer exists, and it's absolutely true that "several gods now exist in its place."
(C) Then it's absolutely true that God sometimes exists and sometimes does not.
(D) Then it's absolutely true that God now exists but didn't before.
Regardless of the scenario, the fact still remains -- the existence of God is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood.
|
(A) and (D) are mutually exclusive.
As long as both alternatives are on the table (with no evidense pointing to either one), you can't claim both True.
You'll have two "wave-forms" waiting to be collapsed by evidence, and until then, both assertions will be in a unknown state for which you cannot assign Absolute Truths. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:24:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
(A) Then it's absolutely true that God no longer exists.
(B) Then it's absolutely true that God no longer exists, and it's absolutely true that "several gods now exist in its place."
(C) Then it's absolutely true that God sometimes exists and sometimes does not.
(D) Then it's absolutely true that God now exists but didn't before.
Regardless of the scenario, the fact still remains -- the existence of God is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood.
|
(A) and (D) are mutually exclusive.
As long as both alternatives are on the table (with no evidense pointing to either one), you can't claim both True.
You'll have two "wave-forms" waiting to be collapsed by evidence, and until then, both assertions will be in a unknown state for which you cannot assign Absolute Truths.
|
No one's claiming that both are true. Lambchopsuey was presenting supposed alternatives to my "dualistic thinking" in an effort to show that "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Falsehood" are too simplistic of terms to use, but my contention is that, with each of her examples, "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Falsehood" still apply. |
|
|
|
SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
BANNED
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 18:01:31 [Permalink]
|
So that I might broaden Ones perspective, the statement:
“the existence of God is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood.”
doesn't take into consideration a creator(HIM/It) that only makes himself known to those who strive to show themselves approved unto him without amendment.
However those who (metaphorically) stand with their back to Him cannot experience his existence, like the dark side of a planet(that never rotates) having no proof of the existence of the sun.
Does the sun exist? - Yes
Does the sun exist were it can not be seen felt or give life? - No
ilikepeetchuh
|
| Edited by - SockPuppetlikespeetchuh on 02/16/2008 21:49:40 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 18:12:47 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
| Are you not assuming that you would have full control of the dream? I seem to recall plenty of dreams which did not go the way I wanted. |
Well, if all of reality were my dream, why wouldn't I have control of it? Your scenario itself posits the existance of an external objective reality, what else could explain you not having control of your dream?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 19:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
So that I might broaden ones perspective, the statement: “the existence of God is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood.” doesn't take into consideration a creator(HIM/It) that only makes himself known to those who strive to show themselves approved unto him without amendment.
However those who (metaphorically) stand with their back to Him cannot experience his existence, like the dark side of a planet(that never rotates) having no proof of the existence of the sun.
Does the sun exist? - Yes
Does the sun exist were it can not be seen felt or give life? - No |
If a person has good reason to believe that god exists, then those reasons should be demonstrable. If those reasons are not demonstrable, then by definition they do not qualify as good reasons. Personal intuition is subject to corruption by wishful thinking. A god who only reveals himself to the credulous but plays hide-and-seek with critical thinkers is a possibility, but not a plausible one. In fact, it's indistinguishable from delusion, and so on those grounds must be discarded.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2008 19:30:52 |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 22:06:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
The existence of God, for example, is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood, and there's no sense in objecting to those terms when that's the only way it can be. Things either are, or they aren't -- objectively, regardless of our perception of them.
C) Like virtual particles, gods can wink in and out of existence - here one moment, gone the next - and they can wink in as singles, multiples, or any combination of entities.
(C) Then it's absolutely true that God sometimes exists and sometimes does not.[/quote]
You have just shown your simplistic, dualistic thinking is insufficient. "The existence of God", as you clarified (see (C), above) is not an Absolute Truth OR an Absolute Falsehood. As everyone now understands, sometimes it is the one and sometimes it is the other (and, in the case of multiple gods, "The existence of God" is patently inaccurate, at best, as it implies one and the example clearly stated multiples). And, according to the example provided, you have no way of knowing which is the case at any given moment - by definition, it changes from moment to moment, unpredictably, so for any given span of time, both could be true (or false) within the bounds of that timespan.
IF that scenario is correct. Which there is no way of determining.
Regardless of the scenario, the fact still remains -- the existence of God is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood.
You appear to understand, then show that, no, you still DON'T understand. I think it's hopeless - you're so attached to your simplistic, dualistic thinking that, even when you accept a scenario that clearly disproves it, it's only for a moment and then you revert with all haste to your previous wrongheaded stance. You describe the complexity of reality in facile terms for your own convenience, which without question makes it easier to make the dubious point you're insistent upon making.
Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 00:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Lambchopsuey said:
IF that scenario is correct. Which there is no way of determining.
|
There is also no way of determining if there is, or isn't, an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
I say this only to demonstrate the utter meaninglessness of any claim to the existence of a deity.
| You describe the complexity of reality in facile terms for your own convenience |
Out of curiosity, how would one (say, you, for example) go about describing reality?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
BANNED
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 04:43:45 [Permalink]
|
_____________________________________________________________________________
H. Humbert:
(1)If a person has good reason to believe that god exists, then those reasons should be demonstrable. If those reasons are not demonstrable, then by definition they do not qualify as good reasons
(2)A god who only reveals himself to the credulous but plays hide-and-seek with critical thinkers is a possibility, but not a plausible one. In fact, it's indistinguishable from delusion; and so on those grounds must be discarded.
Hi Prawny!
(3) The existence of God, for example, is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood, and there's no sense in objecting to those terms when that's the only way it can be. Things either are, or they aren't
_____________________________________________________________________________
(1) I do not know if you are one who believes in the “Big Bang theory” (if you are, I'm not saying I'm not) however please demonstrate (at the same level you require of those who believe in a Creator) the solidity that is The factuality of the big bang, can you tell me more about it than you have been taught
(2)Is it your position that only those who think in your cemented version of reality are only those who possess deeper logic or understanding?
I submit; that particular thought process in itself is lacking a well rounded unbiased approach to that which is defined as “Critical Thinking”.
(3) I see, so those who have been philosophizing since 480ace that; “absolutes are the folly of the ignorant” and that; “objectivity is that which is unbiased and uncolored” and I would interject:
Please, if you will, Describe for me the wind;
*What does wind sound like? (The noise you hear when the wind is blowing is generated energy, not the wind itself.)
I believe I can argue (as a high priced Lawyer) in a Court;
* There is no wind.
* There never was a wind.
* Wind is too elusive to document.
* There are zero “eye” witnesses to take the stand in the defense of Wind.
The same validity concerning Wind should be given to the “Blue Sky” or “The Cold”.
Do I feel it? No, I feel the side effect of it.
Do see it? No I see the side effects of it.
Can I measure it? No, I can only measure the energy that produces it.
Does any of that make it less real? 
|
| Edited by - SockPuppetlikespeetchuh on 02/16/2008 22:04:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 06:49:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
I believe I can argue (as a high priced Lawyer) in a Court of law: |
Bait-and-switch. Legal "truth" doesn't rise to the same standard as logical certainty or scientific fact. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 07:17:45 [Permalink]
|
| Wind is defined as the flow of gas. This can be directly measured. Therefore wind, by its definition, does exist and can be shown to exist. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 07:44:33 [Permalink]
|
Sockpuppet said:
Please, if you will. Describe for me the wind:
* It‘s exact image.
*What does wind sound like? (The noise you hear generated by the wind is energy, not the wind itself)
*What is its constant? It's “per-capita” composition at any given time? (To the molecule)
I believe I can argue (as a high priced Lawyer) in a Court of law:
* There is no wind.
* There never was a wind.
* Wind is too elusive to document.
* There are zero “eye” witnesses to take the stand in the defense of Wind; Hope is all we have in the exoneration of the culpability of Wind.
The same validity concerning Wind should be given to the “Blue Sky” or “The Cold”:
It is nothing more than something Humans have given a name to in the hope of explaining something that can only be scientifically theorized.
* If you believe in such' a thing as wind, you couldn't be more of a moron…
(Sorry about the moron thing you're Honor)
Do I feel it? No, I feel the side effect from it.
Do see it? No I see the side effects from it.
Can I measure it? No, I can only measure the energy in which it produces.
|
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that ignorant?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 11:32:47 [Permalink]
|
Sorry I'm jumping into this thread so late, I just wanted to address something in the OP:
| Basically, my position is this... Everything is either True or Not True. This never changes. |
There exists an infinite set that has greater cardinality than the integers, and smaller cardinality than the real numbers.
Ignoring the mathematical meaning and consequences, this statement is undecidable in ZF (and C) set theory, the almost universal set of axioms for mathematics. In other words, it has been proven we can't prove it true (i.e. find an example), and it's been proven that we can't prove it false. Back in the 20th century, it was also proven that given any collection of axioms, there will always be undecidable statements.
Back on page 3, Dude did something I found really interesting:
There are a few things that must be assumed: There is an objective reality and my senses are capable of accurately detecting it. This, obviously, cannot be proven so we have to assume it is true to avoid that solipsistic pit of meaninglessness.
|
Paralleling mathematics, this is an axiomatic approach to science. I agree on the first, that there is an objective reality, as you can't have science without this. I'm not so certain of the second one, however. This is mostly because the wording seems imprecise (e.g. "sense"). It would be interesting to start another thread discussing which axioms we should accept, but certainly it shouldn't be done in this one. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 02/16/2008 11:33:46 |
|
|
|
The_Death_Of_Achilles
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 11:40:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lambchopsuey
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
The trouble is, people seem to take offense when someone claims that something is truth, or God forbid, Absolute Truth. The existence of God, for example, is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood, and there's no sense in objecting to those terms when that's the only way it can be. Things either are, or they aren't -- objectively, regardless of our perception of them.
|
No. It. Isn't.
Examples that show your simplistic, dualistic thinking is insufficient:
A) A god may have existed at one point and created everything, but it died. So it's not there any more.
B) The god that existed at one point and created everything is gone and several different gods now exist in its place.
C) Like virtual particles, gods can wink in and out of existence - here one moment, gone the next - and they can wink in as singles, multiples, or any combination of entities.
D) Everything began on its own (natural processes) and a god developed over time elsewhere (via natural processes), so it exists now but didn't exist before.
So many people like to blather about how "we can't understand God" yet they seem unreasonably certain about what it can and can't be. I have yet to see a theist address the 4 possibilities above AT ALL. Unless you can definitively show the above 4 scenarios to be impossible, you cannot claim that "The existence of God, for example, is either an Absolute Truth or an Absolute Falsehood". Instead, you must admit that "that's NOT the only way it can be."
|
A) Then it's not the case that "A god may have existed at one point and created everything, but it did not die. So it's not not there any more."
B) Then it's not the case that "The god that existed at one point and created everything is not gone and several different gods do not now exist in its place.
C) Then it's not the case that "Like virtual particles, gods can not wink in and out of existence - here one moment, gone the next - and they can not wink in as singles, multiples, or any combination of entities."
D) Then it's not the case that "Everything began on its own (natural processes) and a god did not develop[ed] over time elsewhere (via natural processes), so it does not exists now and didn't exist before."
You've asserted things as being absoloutly the case, shown how this would present difficulties for us in a the definition of a particular concept, then attempted to argue that this is somehow a demonstration of the inadequecy of absoloutist theories of truth. Clearly it's not.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 11:45:47 [Permalink]
|
Sockpuppet, if god was as real and substantial as the wind or the evidence for the Big Bang, there would be no debate. Belief in god would be more than rational. Unfortunately for you, all your examples do is emphasize the pathetic absence of good reasons to believe in the reality of any god.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
On Truth
