|
|
|
The_Death_Of_Achilles
New Member
16 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2008 : 12:15:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
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. |
I must ask: Is it the case that we cant prove a particular statement one way or the other, or the case that the statement simply lacks any truth value?
As in, is the outcome of this discovery epistemological or ontological? |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 12:57:59 [Permalink]
|
I must ask: Is it the case that we cant prove a particular statement one way or the other, or the case that the statement simply lacks any truth value? |
Can't prove it. A way to describe it (however inexact this may be) is that the statement is too weak for the standard set of axioms to be proven. It could either be true or false, and either way it would not hurt the consistency of axiomatic mathematics. Such statements are also known as being independent. Introducing new axioms, stronger axioms, would make this question become decidable, some making it true, others making it false. However, as I said before, it's also been proven that no matter what axioms we accept, there will always be undecidable statements.
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. |
You are arguing based off a poor interpretation of meaning. There is a difference between whether or not something is true, and whether or not someone knows that something is true. When someone states something as an absolute truth, typically they are stating that they have full knowledge of it's truth value.
You are actually arguing against the existence of dual meanings in language. This is something that I salute you for, but also something which you will never win. |
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 12:59:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 15:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Back in the 20th century, it was also proven that given any collection of axioms, there will always be undecidable statements. |
Yes, but the point was made, earlier in the thread, that the undecidable statements really are either true or not true even though we cannot now figure out which (and may not ever be able to).
That, of course, doesn't give us license to actually believe such statements, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 16:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
So it isn't "true or not true, we just don't know". It can be either. |
As a matter of definition and axioms - as in math - yes. Is the same true of "real life?" Can we simply redefine "god" in such a way that a god exists? Sure, but will it be as satisfying as finding an entity that actually behaves as we expect a god (current definitions) to behave? We can redefine "invisible" to be "black and white" and "unicorn" to be "cat" and suddenly there are two invisible unicorns in my basement, and I have solid evidence for it. In fact, right now they want to be fed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
BANNED
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 19:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Sockpuppet said:
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.
The same validity concerning Wind should be given to the “Blue Sky” or “Cold”:
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?
|
Uhh...Yes.  Wait wait uhh... No. hmmm...What was the question again?
Indeed I was being facetious when asserting the non-existence of wind.
However my point is about absolute statements like (paraphrasing) “there either is or there is not” Sometimes there is and at the same time there is not.
The only absolute (from the perspective of this debate) I am aware of is; “There must be an action before there can be a reaction”.
There is no blue and there is no sky therefore there is no blue sky.
(possible retort) “I look up and I see it, therefore it is”.
When one looks into the atmosphere, one perceives the color blue because light is refracted by particles in the atmosphere, and humans process that information through the pupil and retina as blue because it is the easiest color for the human eye to process.
There is no sky however there are upper and lower atmospheres.
No Blue, No Sky, No Blue Sky.
How can one exclaim of being cold when cold does not exist?
Absolute statements being stated with absolution whilst being erroneous from a scientific perspective.
These are examples of sociologically reinforced norms.
One says to me “there is no Creator”
I say “Wow! How'd you do that? What else can you do? Can you tell me what I'm going to say whilst I'm still thinking it?  Your Amazing!!”
Logic is the trap door to limited perspective.
ilikepeetchuh 
|
| Edited by - SockPuppetlikespeetchuh on 02/16/2008 22:08:05 |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 20:51:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
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. |
You are arguing based off a poor interpretation of meaning. There is a difference between whether or not something is true, and whether or not someone knows that something is true. When someone states something as an absolute truth, typically they are stating that they have full knowledge of it's truth value.
You are actually arguing against the existence of dual meanings in language. This is something that I salute you for, but also something which you will never win.
|
Then I've assumed incorrectly that people share my meaning. When I say "God exists," I'm not saying "I have full knowledge of the truth value of the statement 'God exists'" -- I'm saying "I believe God exists." And typically, I say the latter anyway, rather than the definitive "God exists." It seems absurd to me to think that the statement "I believe in the existence of God" really means "I know with absolute certainty that God exists." I would be shocked if anyone interpreted those words that way, but it seems to be that that's what you're suggesting people do.
I can't repeat this point enough: Whether or not "God exists" is entirely independent of whether or not I can prove that "God exists," and "God exists" is either Absolutely True or Absolutely False. It's not "true for me" but "not true for you" -- God isn't a piece of artwork or a flavor of ice cream. Chocolate ice cream may be the best tasting ice cream for me and not for you, but God is not chocolate ice cream. That's what all this is ultimately about. |
|
|
|
ieleven
BANNED
USA
2 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2008 : 21:32:57 [Permalink]
|
__________________________________________________________________________
However my point is about absolute statements like (paraphrasing) “there either is or there is not” Sometimes there is and at the same time there is not.
The only absolute (from the perspective of this debate) I am aware of is; “There must be an action before there can be a reaction”.
There is no sky however there are upper and lower atmospheres.
No Blue, No Sky, No Blue Sky.
How can one exclaim of being cold when cold does not exist?
These are examples of sociologically reinforced norms.
Logic is the trap door to limited perspective.
ilikepeetchuh
[/quote]
__________________________________________________________________________
Hello Every(Skeptic)one.  >>>First Post<<<
Hello Sock Pup; I could tell you were having some fun with your analysis, while at the same time making a refreshing point on; perspective of absolute thinking.
O.K. I see your point. You are pulling at the very string that is the beginning of an unwinding of a 5k yr. old layman's colloquial communication. (Which should be considered scientifically minded for the era.)
To expand on the fun; from the perspective of seeing the earth from the moon (aprx.250k mi.), when I raise my hand above my head and point to a cloud, I'm not pointing up.. I'm pointing out.(meaning away from)
I especially like your quote on logic, one I had to learn the hard way.
Have a Good Day.
eleven
|
| Edited by - ieleven on 02/16/2008 21:36:40 |
|
|
|
SockPuppetlikespeetchuh
BANNED
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 22:34:27 [Permalink]
|
Thanks eleven, you're obviously wise beyond years and so far I must say your appreciation for my intellect is an obvious clue to your superior thought process. 
Feels funny saying welcome to you when I have only just become a member myself but; Welcome!!
ilikepeetchuh
|
Logic is the trap door to limited perspective.
|
| Edited by - SockPuppetlikespeetchuh on 02/16/2008 22:43:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 01:49:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
If someone claims something as an absolute truth, I can't see any other way of interpreting that than they have full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true. This is much different than belief in something.
|
I don't agree. If, for example, I say, "The existence of God is an absolute truth," that doesn't imply by any logical necessity that I have "full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true" -- it only means that I believe it to be the case. It's also a clarification of characteristics and nature; by insisting that the existence of God is an absolute truth, I'm asserting that the existence of God as a "truth" is not comparable to the superiority of chocolate ice cream as a "truth for me." One is a "relative truth," the other an absolute. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 02:09:38 [Permalink]
|
sockpuppet-the-banned said:
Uhh...Yes. Wait wait uhh... No. hmmm...What was the question again?
Indeed I was being facetious when asserting the non-existence of wind.
However my point is about absolute statements like (paraphrasing) “there either is or there is not” Sometimes there is and at the same time there is not.
The only absolute (from the perspective of this debate) I am aware of is; “There must be an action before there can be a reaction”.
There is no blue and there is no sky therefore there is no blue sky.
(possible retort) “I look up and I see it, therefore it is”.
When one looks into the atmosphere, one perceives the color blue because light is refracted by particles in the atmosphere, and humans process that information through the pupil and retina as blue because it is the easiest color for the human eye to process.
There is no sky however there are upper and lower atmospheres.
No Blue, No Sky, No Blue Sky.
How can one exclaim of being cold when cold does not exist?
Absolute statements being stated with absolution whilst being erroneous from a scientific perspective.
These are examples of sociologically reinforced norms.
One says to me “there is no Creator”
I say “Wow! How'd you do that? What else can you do? Can you tell me what I'm going to say whilst I'm still thinking it? Your Amazing!!”
Logic is the trap door to limited perspective.
ilikepeetchuh
|
First, congratulations on being banned. Second, your above statements are little more than gibberish. Last, an obvious fact that you seem to be unable to grasp: The tool of logic is context dependent. What limits perspective is your inability to comprehend the use of the tool, not the tool itself.
See you in a month if you don't get yourself perma-banned for engaging in the sophomoric jackassery of sockpuppeting. Maybe next time you'll pay attention to the terms of use before you click the "I agree." button.
Leonkennedy said:
It seems absurd to me to think that the statement "I believe in the existence of God" really means "I know with absolute certainty that God exists." I would be shocked if anyone interpreted those words that way, but it seems to be that that's what you're suggesting people do.
|
It seems absurd to me that any human capable of tying their own shoes would be capable of saying "I believe in the existence of god" and mean it. Yet most of the population of this planet would make that statement(or some variant) and mean it. There are a huge number of people who even base their life decisions on that statement. Not all believers have "absolute" certainty, but some do. There are also a large number who are "certain enough" that there is no discernible difference between them and the "absolutely" certain.
Sure, there are some people who have a semi-rational position on the topic and would never claim absolute certainty, but they rarely visit this forum. Most who own a god-belief here are just here to preach, argue, or tell us godless atheists we are going to hell. (some even come here to shill for their political views... you should read some of the global warming threads, its enough to make a sane man cry tears)
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 02:23:58 [Permalink]
|
Leonkennedy said:
| I don't agree. If, for example, I say, "The existence of God is an absolute truth," that doesn't imply by any logical necessity that I have "full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true" -- it only means that I believe it to be the case. |
Belief without evidence is delusion. Do you have any evidence?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 09:20:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
I don't agree. If, for example, I say, "The existence of God is an absolute truth," that doesn't imply by any logical necessity that I have "full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true" -- it only means that I believe it to be the case. It's also a clarification of characteristics and nature; by insisting that the existence of God is an absolute truth, I'm asserting that the existence of God as a "truth" is not comparable to the superiority of chocolate ice cream as a "truth for me." One is a "relative truth," the other an absolute. |
Seems to me that the problem here is semantic.
"The existence of God is an absolute truth" is actually ambiguous in its meaning. In one meaning, you are asserting the fact that whether God exists or not is an objective, not a subjective, question. In the other meaning, you are asserting the existence of God as absolutely true. Ricky was obviously arguing against the latter meaning, while you're arguing the former. Clarification is necessary.
You won't get much argument here if you were to assert "either God exists or he doesn't, it's not a question of preference." You'll get plenty of argument if you assert his existence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
On Truth
