|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2008 : 07:56:59 [Permalink]
|
Let me just add:
Personally I think that you can make a solid circumstantial case for the existance of objective reality, regardless of the pragmatic value for doing so.
If I were dreaming, for example, and this world were nothing but the creation of my mind there would be no pain and suffering. My first pet (an amazingly intelligent and faithful mutt of a dog) would never have grown old and died. My first love would never have taken my overly hormonal teenage heart and kicked it around so savagely when she broke up with me. I would never have been stuck driving a beat-down 20 year old hand-me-down car with no AC in FL as my first car.
See where I'm going with this? If all reality is just my internal meandering mind, then I am one seriously fucked up "brain in a vat".
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 08:37:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If I were dreaming, for example, and this world were nothing but the creation of my mind there would be no pain and suffering. My first pet (an amazingly intelligent and faithful mutt of a dog) would never have grown old and died. My first love would never have taken my overly hormonal teenage heart and kicked it around so savagely when she broke up with me. I would never have been stuck driving a beat-down 20 year old hand-me-down car with no AC in FL as my first car.
|
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. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:04:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
[quote]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.
|
That's true - I've had dreams where I experienced pain, fear, grief, sadness, loss, etc. And controlling dreams takes practice - some are able to master this better than others. For recurring dreams, for example, you can "role play" a different way of dealing with the situation, and eventually, your new scenario will make it into your recurring dream, at which point that will probably be the last time you have to deal with it.
You know, that one where you suddenly realize it's the day of the final, and you haven't been to class all year and haven't even read the book? Well, you can say to yourself that you're going to go to Disneyland instead of to the final - you can always deal with any residual paperwork as necessary.
But what is the utility of saying that nothing is real simply because our senses are only capable of detecting a very small portion of reality (and that, typically, in a biased manner)? It seems that if anyone really wants to go to that extreme, there's no discussion to be had.
I've noticed that someone who wants to claim that something speculative is "true" will devise all sorts of more or less complicated "proofs" to show how he's right, but every single time, there's at least one step that's based on an unfounded assumption that not everyone will accept, however well it serves the author. The only rational approach is to show us the money - the facts and evidence we can all examine. |
|
|
|
odds_lane
New Member
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:05:03 [Permalink]
|
| Ok, so I lied about my name. [giveup] |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:31:29 [Permalink]
|
| We recogonised you Wilson from the first post, we have empirical evidence! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
New Member
Ireland
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:41:58 [Permalink]
|
| I've noticed that someone who wants to claim that something speculative is "true" will devise all sorts of more or less complicated "proofs" to show how he's right, but every single time, there's at least one step that's based on an unfounded assumption that not everyone will accept, however well it serves the author. The only rational approach is to show us the money - the facts and evidence we can all examine. |
Of course our claims about an idea have no relevance to whether it is true or false. An idea is either true or not true. Speculation, the depth of human knowledge etc. have no bearing on that. |
| Edited by - HoldMeCloserTonyDanza on 02/15/2008 11:43:51 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:45:20 [Permalink]
|
| Welcome Tony, I think we all mostly agree on that point unfortunately we must jump through the truth hoops to get anything accomplished around here. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
New Member
Ireland
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:50:31 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Big P. I know how you feel. |
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 12:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
Thanks Big P. I know how you feel.
|
Just wanted to express my supreme happiness that you guys made it over here. |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 14:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
Of course our claims about an idea have no relevance to whether it is true or false. An idea is either true or not true. Speculation, the depth of human knowledge etc. have no bearing on that. |
And that's the whole point, easily summarized. 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. |
| Edited by - LeonKennedy on 02/15/2008 14:15:40 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 15:44:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Originally posted by HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
Of course our claims about an idea have no relevance to whether it is true or false. An idea is either true or not true. Speculation, the depth of human knowledge etc. have no bearing on that. |
And that's the whole point, easily summarized. 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. |
It's either true or false, but anyone who claims to know which it is is lying, deluded, or stupid. All we can say is that at the current time there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is true, and that's the most intellectually honest conclusion one can come to.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
Of course our claims about an idea have no relevance to whether it is true or false. An idea is either true or not true. Speculation, the depth of human knowledge etc. have no bearing on that.
|
That betrays simplistic, dualistic thinking. In real life something can be true AND not true at the same time. It can be true for one person and not true for another: "Peanuts are deadly" is true for the person with a peanut allergy, false for those who don't.
And quantum physics has shown that, in a vacuum, particles can wink in and out of existence all by themselves - no "cause" required.
I think we'd all be better off if people simply accepted that the world is far more complex than is convenient, and gave up trying to force it into simple and dualistic terms. |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:43:36 [Permalink]
|
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." |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:52:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Originally posted by HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
Of course our claims about an idea have no relevance to whether it is true or false. An idea is either true or not true. Speculation, the depth of human knowledge etc. have no bearing on that. |
And that's the whole point, easily summarized. 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. |
It's either true or false, but anyone who claims to know which it is is lying, deluded, or stupid. All we can say is that at the current time there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is true, and that's the most intellectually honest conclusion one can come to.
|
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. |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:56:58 [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 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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
On Truth
