Religion

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
And this is where logic fails with religion. Man encompassing God in his understanding.

Assuming that God actually is omnipresent, that would also make him infinite.

Infinity is a word concept which 'by definition' has no definition and cannot be encompassed. (that would put a limit on it)

Gauche

P.S for Perdita. Yes I did mean the Fifth Elephant. It's one of the discworld series.

See... the key word there is "assuming". It is an unreliable premise that God, even in being omnipresent (which we neither know or do not know to be true), would be infinite. Omnipresence is just "being everywhere". If there is a finite "everywhere", then He is not an infinite God by virtue of his presesnce.

People often say "God is infinite" or "God is too complex for mortal minds" or "God cannot be understood"... but, reasonably speaking, in that we know very little concerning the necessary properties of God, we can't really make those sorts of claims.

At best we can say "given that God is infinite (which may or may not be true), a finite mind couldn't understand Him)". But even that runs into problems as "infinity" is still a formal and understandable concept.

 

[haldir]

truth, religion - eh???

I have realy enjoyed ploughing my way through this thread and would like to chuck in my tuppence worth. Have a field day guys - you're all too sharp for this Jock.

1. The issue, as I see it comes down to this. As far as we know, our perception of the environment we live in is personal. We can never know if another individual perceives what we perceive in the way that we perceive it, rather the best that we can be sure of is that they use the same descriptive terms for objects in a mutual space or at least recognises an object. Can this possibly mean that we have no shared reality but merely shared perceptions of reality?

2. Whether or not the above is accepted, how can we argue that there is even such a thing as "truth"? Truth is surely a subjective term based on a communal acceptance of a shared perception of reality. As such, this reality will vary depending on the values shared by a community and there can thus be no such thing as absolute truth, merely relative truth. This does mean that overall everyone is right and everyone is wrong. What tmatters is what we, as individuals feel comfortable with. Personally, I am comfortabe with the fact that I am alive (as far as I know) and one day i will die and my atoms will return to the great melting pot of the universe. I feel no need for a supreme being, whilst being aware that the energies of the universe are virtually unknown to us.

We could be described as the Pans narratans - the story-telling chimpanzee. Somewhat less arrogant than Homo sapiens sapiens don't ya think.

Anyway, this chimps bored now and off to try and bribe one of my ladies with a newly killed monkey.

Look forward to the replies.

 

[haldir]

reality

Ooops just before I climb my tree here's another thought.

Before you can come to any conclusions about "truth" surely you need an adequate and acceptable position about "reality".

Feel free to give dictionary definitions if you think it'll help this kilted warrior out, but I'd rather hear and read how people arrive at the postion they're at.

oook oook

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: reality

Originally posted by haldir
Ooops just before I climb my tree here's another thought.

Before you can come to any conclusions about "truth" surely you need an adequate and acceptable position about "reality".

Feel free to give dictionary definitions if you think it'll help this kilted warrior out, but I'd rather hear and read how people arrive at the postion they're at.

oook oook

I've definitely pawed through a lot of subjectivisms over the years, its part and parcel with the job... but, ultimately, even the most subjective claims appeal to an objectivity in language and reason (the second being key). If logic is objective (and how it isn't is an inconcievable thing), then truth based on logic would also be objective.

Reality, it is possible, can apper--itself--via that vehicle... namely, because nothing about that set of circumstance is impossible.

 

[cantdog]

Well, that's almost right.

I actually didn't say there wasn't "up truth" or "down truth" or any of that. I said that if a thing is to have the title of "truth", then it is beholden to the definition of the word (and all of those participate in the same truth)--all of the explanations (numbered sub-definitions) participate in "fundamentally accurate, correct, real, etc.". If one of them does not participate in that, I'd be delighted for you to point it out.

If the original poster meant what you say, then the original poster is sort of butchering the concept of truth. It is quite noticeable that nothing about the definition of truth includes "subjectivity" in either concept or labelling. Subjective truth is a bit of an oxymoron... if a thing is subjective a thing cannot have truth value. A lot of philosophers have made arguments, all inconclusive, as to how truth can be subjective... but they all have essentially ended up saying "when we talk about subjective truths, we aren't actually talking about truths at all... we're talking about perceptives".

Now, I'm by no means saying that subjectivity doesn't exist. But it can't identify truth any more than someone can concieve of a round square.

When someone proposes "X is true", they are saying--right along with it--"Not-X is not-true". If you want to talk about subjectivity, there is no truth; truth shouldn't even be in the vocabulary, as subjectivity doesn't deal in truths to begin with.

That's exactly what I've been trying to get across to you.

The scientific, objective sort of truth of which you speak may not actually say the subjective doesn't exist, despite the fact that no meter can attach to it and no result is found by measuring the objective world to demonstrate the existence of the subjective at all. By its own standards, objectively, that kind of analysis ought by rights to claim the subjective has no objective measurable reality.

But you step short of that. You know it exists, because you experience it hourly. I, too, give you freely my testimony to the effect that I experience it. We arrive, thereby (how simply this all explains itself for us, Joe!) at a dialogue by which we listen to each other's testimony about the subjective reality we both experience. We cannot, as you say, apply the yardstick of "the True" to this dialogue. Nothing we tell each other will be true in the sense that it is measurable, provable, reproducible. No, the yardstick we measure by is truthfulness.

In investigating any subjective matter, here is the set of basic tools which we must apply. Dialogue and testimony measured by truthfulness.

The results we get, such as the descriptions of mystical experiences, for example, thus are not objective, not scientific, but subjective.

That's the distinction I would have you make.

Now go through the posts in this thread in the light of this idea. Sweetnpetite's Tower of Babble theory and Burly's Jewel can be admitted into the realm of subjective discourse, but your insistence on analysis with formal logic is bringing in the exclusive, monologue truth, wherein if x is true, not-x is false. This is not the case in the subjective realm, because we do not have a monologue, but a dialogue.

I can't know whether my subjective reality is congruent with anyone else's, you know. There are big differences in the way each person puts together a framework within which to experience the objective world. The dynamic of the dialogue is to listen to the testimony of others and compare it to your own and to the others whom you've spoken with before, and to the measure of truthfulness. But although patterns emerge of similarity, you can never quite say not-x is always false.

That's enough for this post.

cantdog

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
That's exactly what I've been trying to get across to you.

The scientific, objective sort of truth of which you speak may not actually say the subjective doesn't exist, despite the fact that no meter can attach to it and no result is found by measuring the objective world to demonstrate the existence of the subjective at all. By its own standards, objectively, that kind of analysis ought by rights to claim the subjective has no objective measurable reality.

But you step short of that. You know it exists, because you experience it hourly. I, too, give you freely my testimony to the effect that I experience it. We arrive, thereby (how simply this all explains itself for us, Joe!) at a dialogue by which we listen to each other's testimony about the subjective reality we both experience. We cannot, as you say, apply the yardstick of "the True" to this dialogue. Nothing we tell each other will be true in the sense that it is measurable, provable, reproducible. No, the yardstick we measure by is truthfulness.

In investigating any subjective matter, here is the set of basic tools which we must apply. Dialogue and testimony measured by truthfulness.

The results we get, such as the descriptions of mystical experiences, for example, thus are not objective, not scientific, but subjective.

That's the distinction I would have you make.

Now go through the posts in this thread in the light of this idea. Sweetnpetite's Tower of Babble theory and Burly's Jewel can be admitted into the realm of subjective discourse, but your insistence on analysis with formal logic is bringing in the exclusive, monologue truth, wherein if x is true, not-x is false. This is not the case in the subjective realm, because we do not have a monologue, but a dialogue.

I can't know whether my subjective reality is congruent with anyone else's, you know. There are big differences in the way each person puts together a framework within which to experience the objective world. The dynamic of the dialogue is to listen to the testimony of others and compare it to your own and to the others whom you've spoken with before, and to the measure of truthfulness. But although patterns emerge of similarity, you can never quite say not-x is always false.

That's enough for this post.

cantdog

I, honestly, may not be smart enough to understand what you're saying--that, or you're explaining yourself extremely poorly.

"The scientific, objective sort of truth of which you speak may not actually say the subjective doesn't exist, despite the fact that no meter can attach to it and no result is found by measuring the objective world to demonstrate the existence of the subjective at all. By its own standards, objectively, that kind of analysis ought by rights to claim the subjective has no objective measurable reality."

What does this say?

No meter can attach to it?

Please, humor me, and eliminate the spicy prose--just the facts will do nicely.

It sounds like you're saying "we're dealing with subjective things, thus you can't bring in objective standards". But, the problem there, is we have to establish that we actually /do/ have a subjective reality (not merely a personal experience that is related to the subject). Pointing out "I percieve things differently" isn't a premise for subjective reality, its a premise for "sensation is related to the subject"--however, truth is not a substance and not related to sensation.

If all this is off-topic to what you were saying, I apologize. But I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[cantdog]

Dear Joe

"No meter can attach to it." In my spicy way, I am pointing out that the measure of objective truth is always the real, measurable world. People can claim their dick is longer, but a measurement is the way to arrive at the truth. In a similar way, endless taxonomic measurements applied to real study specimens have slowly refined the biological descriptive heirarchy of family, subfamily, genus and species. Biology proceeds by measurement, and logic applied to the data, So does chemistry, so does physics. Measurement, data, logic, truth.

My point here is, that is exactly the nature of scientific truth, which concerns the objective world.

You cannot measure or obtain data in the usual scientific and objective way about the subjective, personal realm, or the interpersonal one either. No meter can tell you what size it is. No image of my personal subjective experience can be had, much less of the nature of love, which is interpersonal. Love, culture, the quality of music as opposed to the vibrations of it-- all these are subjective and not capable of objective investigation.

By me, that puts your monologue logic out of the picture in any discussion of testimony about subjective experiences. If you find the investigation of a subject is proceeding in the usual way with subjective things, to wit, people are giving testimony to one another in a dialogue, then you need to sharpen your sense of truthfulness and listen. Sharpening your set of logician's tools is not the proper response, because the field is a subjective one.

If, tangentially, there is indeed an objective fact which bears on it, by all means bring it in. If, for instance, not one elephant has been noted supporting the globe, then please help us to rule them out. But otherwise, I must ask that you not interrupt the free flow of valuable subjective inquiry by analysis with the wrong tools. Some of us find value in subjective investigation, and we are doing it by the best known method, talking to one another.

cantdog

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Dear Joe

"No meter can attach to it." In my spicy way, I am pointing out that the measure of objective truth is always the real, measurable world. People can claim their dick is longer, but a measurement is the way to arrive at the truth. In a similar way, endless taxonomic measurements applied to real study specimens have slowly refined the biological descriptive heirarchy of family, subfamily, genus and species. Biology proceeds by measurement, and logic applied to the data, So does chemistry, so does physics. Measurement, data, logic, truth.

I think you're unwisely mixing a priori and a posteriori, here. You say that objective truth is marked by the measurable world... but, logic is not physical. It's purely analytical. It isn't "measured" by "the world".

You cannot measure or obtain data in the usual scientific and objective way about the subjective, personal realm, or the interpersonal one either. No meter can tell you what size it is. No image of my personal subjective experience can be had, much less of the nature of love, which is interpersonal. Love, culture, the quality of music as opposed to the vibrations of it-- all these are subjective and not capable of objective investigation.

You keep lumping "scientific" and "objective" together... but that's a hazard and a fallacy. Science may be in the business of striving for objectivity, but the two aren't synonymous by any means. Science is the experiential search for objectivity (possibly), but logic is also objective and has nothing to do with science. Considering that, while it is possible that science is unable to "measure" the subjective, personal "realm"... it isn't impossible. Beyond that, how logic is somehow exempt from being able to tell us something about the subjective is also difficult. Love, culture, the quality of music... all of these might be subjective and possibly capable of objective investigation. You're excluding the possible roles of objectivity without giving actual premise as to why its an impossibility.

That's fallacious.

Sharpening your set of logician's tools is not the proper response, because the field is a subjective one.

...it may be a subjective one, but the moment that we start talking about truths, we are talking about objectivity. I think you'll find most philosophers are to agree on that point. As such, looking back, that's been my point from the beginning.

Some of us find value in subjective investigation, and we are doing it by the best known method, talking to one another.

That's fine. My name was mentioned in the initial post and I was referenced incorrectly. If you look back, my post (at the beginning) was a clarification of a simply false statement concerning what I had said and meant. That "some of us find value" is all well and good... but at least quote a man accurately.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the pointing out of where one of the listings for the truth definition does not correspond to "fundamental, correct, real, etc.".

 

[cantdog]

You do not exclude the possibility that the image of my subjective experience might one day be attained by scientific means, that a love-o-meter or a quality-o-meter may be invented.

Very well. When objective data of that sort becomes available, then objective means may certainly be brought to bear on that data. Similar to the investigations by satellite and camera to the effect that the elephants and the turtle(s) beneath them do not seem to be there. There is a role for all this.

In the meantime, in the absence of a meter of love, we must use the usual and everyday method to investigate love.

You would place mathematics and logic out of either realm, possessing some isolate beauty, unsullied by either objective or subjective. Having nothing to do with science, as you say. Having no application to love, as I say.

For, when we investigate love, the testimony points to many kinds of love, some kinds with characteristics which seem to conflict with the characteristics of other kinds. We do not, on that account, use logic to split love on the basis of not-x being false. The usual conclusion has been that love includes a broad spectrum of things, and that all of them are love, even though they are not each other. Much like Burly's jewel, maybe.

 

[cantdog]

And I can't point out the distinction you allude to any better than the philologist who wrote the definitions. He lists multiple meanings for it because there are multiple meanings for it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
You would place mathematics and logic out of either realm, possessing some isolate beauty, unsullied by either objective or subjective. Having nothing to do with science, as you say. Having no application to love, as I say.

Again, spicy prose... makes it hard... to understand point.

For, when we investigate love, the testimony points to many kinds of love, some kinds with characteristics which seem to conflict with the characteristics of other kinds. We do not, on that account, use logic to split love on the basis of not-x being false. The usual conclusion has been that love includes a broad spectrum of things, and that all of them are love, even though they are not each other. Much like Burly's jewel, maybe.

?

Please, please, please write more clearly.

I'll try my best, though.

When we investigate love... the testimony (what testimony?)... points to many kinds of love (but, if love is a thing, then love is either one thing or many things sharing one property--that property being the essential property to love; that's just logic)... some kinds with characteristics wich seem to conflict (if two definitions of love conflict, by contradiction, then one is false; again, that's just logic, or ass-semantics)... We do not, on that account, use logic to split love (split? huh?)... on the basis of not-x being false (huh?)... The usual conclusion has been that love includes a broad spectrum of things (things that share some property; otherwise, bananas and starships would be love, as well)...

I can't make heads or tails of half of this.

Humor me, please. If you've got a point, please just strip it of all "flowery" language and just say it--I can more easily understand that.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
And I can't point out the distinction you allude to any better than the philologist who wrote the definitions. He lists multiple meanings for it because there are multiple meanings for it.

You said that I excluded all sorts of things as "truth" and then went on to say there's only one definition for "truth" (which, actually, was incorrect on your part as that was never my point). I said, in actuality, that all of those sub-definitions were participants in one solitary concept of "truth" and that if one of them didn't participate in that concept... please point it out (as that would be the best way to prove your point on there being "muliple truths").

To say "there are multiple definitions" doesnt'--in any way--invalidate my point from the get go. Look back. You took issue with my saying that "spiritual truth" isn't exempt from "truth"--in that "truth" means "fundamental, correct, real, etc."

Multiple definitions that all mean the same thing (or having in their meaning the same property) may be seperate, but still uphold--perfectly--my points.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

doublepost

 

[Teenage Venus]

I've read both male and female descriptions here of God, if such there is, as He/he. Why? Isn't it possible that God is a She/she? Or maybe God is an It.

'GOD' always WAS a 'She' - until early Christian bossmen changed all references from 'She' to 'He', to suite their own nefarious mercenary persuits.

In discussing 'truth' regarding 'God' and 'religion', I know of only one absolute truth: Religion per se has been - and is - the biggest scourge of humanity. In its name there have been - and are - more crimes committed, torture, murder, atempted genocides perpetrated than all other causes of conflict put together.

There are three kinds of people in my opinion:

Those that have 'Faith'.
Those that do not.
Those with open minds on the possibility of some 'force' called 'God' for simplicity. Be it a 'super being' 'natural phenomenon of nature' or what.

I distinguish these as follows - using a simple example:

In a car crash, a mother loses three children, and a fourth survives.

If she has 'Faith' she thanks 'God' for sparing her surviving child. (Not curse the swine for taking the other three.)

If she has not, she thinks on the lines of, 'Well shit happens. At least one survived.'

If she has an open mind she thinks more on the lines of, 'Well if there IS a 'God', s/he/it must be a callous, cruel, or uncarng bastard, and we as humans count as near nothing in the larger plan of things.

In my opinion, to actually believe that some 'Almighty Being' chose such a miniscule 'spot of dust' in the vastness of what we perceive as our (almost infinite) universe - and I believe ours is but one of very many - to creat us IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS, is the absolute hight of human conceit. And that 'religious leaders' have played on this - and instilled fear and promises of rich rewards in our 'after-life' - to fleece gullible humanity, con them, and grow rich off them since the year dot.

If you listen to all the preaching con-artists on numerous TV stations - and believe 'em, then my heart bleeds for you.

'Truth' is that many suffering, or brought up in religious fear, need something to 'hang on to' to make life bearable. They get/have 'Faith'. If they are helped by it then that's good.

'Religion' preaches love, yet exhudes/practices hate towards those that do not believe, or use a different brand.

One other thought:

The 'religious' are taught to forsake 'Mamon' in this life for what? - So that they can have an abundance of promised 'goodies' in the next one.

To me this is the height of hypocracy on the part of believers - and the juiciest of carrots for the religious con-artists to dangle to the gullible, to part them from their cash.

What the con-artists say in effect is: "Be good, don't fuck the little girl down the road, or cheat on your husband Give generously to the 'church', and in return we guarantee you an endless supply of nubile virgins, or tight bummed viril males when you go to Heaven. If it's not sex that is your choice, they will fix you up with anything else.

PS: When I was a kid I was brought up as a strict RC. I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised that The Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and got forgiveness from the priest in confession on Sunday.

 

[cantdog]

This was a highly regarded and widely accepted "refutation" of Galileo's announcement of the discovery of the moons of Jupiter:

"There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through which the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm, and to nourish it. What are these parts of the microcosm? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a macrocosmos, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven."

Seven orifices in the body means that there must be seven planets. An example of pre-modern thought, where the subjective space and the objective were poorly differentiated. Likewise the subjective and the cultural were poorly differentiated. If you disagreed with the Church religion, you could be tried for heresy by the Church and for treason by the state, because there was no distinction made.

This was the good side of the Enlightenment, the differentiation, once and for all, of the Big Three: Art, morals, and science made separate; self, culture, and nature made distinct. After that distinction was made, you got to look down a telescope without being burned at the stake.

I know you can't make head or tail of this, so I'll give more examples. I, we, and it are now separate, so:

. The differentiation of self (I) and culture (we) contributed to the rise of democracy, where each self has a vote and is not simply subsumed by the church or the state. Liberal democracies and republics arose on a widespread scale.

. The differentiation of mind (I) and nature (it) contributed to the liberation movements, because the biological ability of men to oppress the weak no longer was seen to confer moral right to do so. Might no longer made right, and we saw the rise of liberal feminism and abolition movements.

. The differentiation of culture (we) from nature (it) contributed to the rise of empirical science, medicine, physics and biology, because truth was no longer hitched to the Church, subservient to the state and the churchly mythology.

The idea I'm putting to you here, Joe, is not a brand new one. The difference between the objective, empirical, verifiable truth as in the case of Galileo's moons, and the subjective myths of the Churches, is clear enough to keep Dawkins from a heresy trial. Why don't you get it? Nobody would be convinced by the refutation of the moons quoted above, not since the Enlightenment.

You almost seem to get it, but then you insist on separating logic and math from either one. Logic has no objective existence, you say, and it has nothing to do with science. You do not begrudge it being used in the sciences, I take it? And you certainly seem to want to use it in the analysis of myth.

Well, I'm afraid there's no need of it. A myth does not depend on its objective truth for meaning. Its meaning is apprehended in other ways. What parts of it are true and what parts false has no bearing on its meaning as a myth, on its own terms.

Seven people here have told you not to do this. I'm trying to point out how to tell when the tactic you employ here will not be appreciated. I repeat it: if you find a subjective discussion, that is, people giving testimony to each other in a dialogue, in order to shed light on some subjective subject, then the time has come to listen and reply in kind. If the issue is objective, guided by data, concerned with facts, why then jump in and contribute as a logician and keep folks from teleology, or ex post facto.

Two ways to jump, when two different situations present themselves. The bishops no longer thirst for the blood of the evil cosmologists. You can also learn the distinction.

 

[Guest]

Seven people here have told you not to do this.

Joe, listen to Cant and the others. You have a keen mind and obvious interests but you keep us at bey.

One of my alcoholic brothers finally got this: "If 12 people tell you you're drunk, sit down."

Sit down, Joe.

best, Perdita

p.s. I enjoy spicey language, prefer it to plain salt and pepper.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
The idea I'm putting to you here, Joe, is not a brand new one. The difference between the objective, empirical, verifiable truth as in the case of Galileo's moons, and the subjective myths of the Churches, is clear enough to keep Dawkins from a heresy trial. Why don't you get it? Nobody would be convinced by the refutation of the moons quoted above, not since the Enlightenment.

I'll try and make this simple, your example went all over the place. So questions for answers may be the most effective way to sort this out:

Objective and empirical are very, very different things, you do realize that? Objective is "correct, independant of the mind, etc." and empirical is "information gotten through experience". The myths of the Church aren't subjective, either. They aren't "dependant on the mind". For instance, the myth of the creation isn't mind-dependant, so how is it subjective?

You almost seem to get it, but then you insist on separating logic and math from either one. Logic has no objective existence, you say, and it has nothing to do with science. You do not begrudge it being used in the sciences, I take it? And you certainly seem to want to use it in the analysis of myth.

Seperating logic and math? I have absolutely no idea where you got this. I said logic exists objectively--not that it has no objective existence. It may be a tool science uses, but it has nothing to do with science--formally. Much the same way that a hammer is used by a carpenter and yet, you can't say that the hammer and the carpenter are the same thing.

Well, I'm afraid there's no need of it. A myth does not depend on its objective truth for meaning. Its meaning is apprehended in other ways. What parts of it are true and what parts false has no bearing on its meaning as a myth, on its own terms.

Depend on objective truth for meaning? Who was talking about meaning? A myth may not depend on objective truths for you, personally, to get something out of it... but "meaning" and "truth" are not synonymous by any means. I can possibly derive meaning from the idea that gravity doesn't apply to me, but that doesn't actually correspond to the truth. I have no problems with people talking about "meaning"--I rather can't speak intelligently on "meaning" at all, in this sense. But, when someone asserts "X is true"--that isn't meaning, that's a truth-statement.

Seven people here have told you not to do this. I'm trying to point out how to tell when the tactic you employ here will not be appreciated. I repeat it: if you find a subjective discussion, that is, people giving testimony to each other in a dialogue, in order to shed light on some subjective subject, then the time has come to listen and reply in kind. If the issue is objective, guided by data, concerned with facts, why then jump in and contribute as a logician and keep folks from teleology, or ex post facto.

Appreciated? Honestly, if I were doing this for your favor or to get you to like me, I'd have probably just towed the party line. I responded to an inaccuracy in reference, and ever since you have been saying things like "half-truths" and "agendas" and the like. And, yet, none of those accusations actually hold up to rational analysis.

This wasn't a "subjective discussion". It was the stating of something inaccurate "Joe is talking about X" when "Joe wasn't actually talking about X"... that's a whole-hearted appeal to the objective if I've ever seen one. Saying "cantdog said that nobody is tall", when you didn't... isn't a subjective discussion.

Spirituality may or may not be a subjective thing. Truly, it may be either. Logically speaking, it isn't strictly subjective because a statement about what is spiritually real is... truth. Truth being an objective thing.

Two ways to jump, when two different situations present themselves. The bishops no longer thirst for the blood of the evil cosmologists. You can also learn the distinction.

The foolish defend their beliefs in foolish things by appealing to a majority of fools and ignoring reason altogether.

...you can also learn from that, distinctly.

Statements like these are neither truthful, helpful, or polite... best to just leave out things like "You have a lot to learn"-esque statements if we intend on being polite.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Joe, listen to Cant and the others. You have a keen mind and obvious interests but you keep us at bey.

One of my alcoholic brothers finally got this: "If 12 people tell you you're drunk, sit down."

Sit down, Joe.

best, Perdita

p.s. I enjoy spicey language, prefer it to plain salt and pepper.

I've only been responding. Have to grant me at least that much.

Beyond that, I don't dislike spicy prose... but there are levels of lyrical-ness that just start interfering with understanding. Faulkner's social essay comes to mind--beautifully written, but you couldn't find his point if it were highlighted for you.

 

[Guest]

Seven orifices in the body means that there must be seven planets.

I have more than seven . . .





I know - you mean in the head! Quit talkin' about orifices, then!!!

 

[Guest]

Re: truth, religion - eh???

Anyway, this chimps bored now and off to try and bribe one of my ladies with a newly killed monkey.

Look forward to the replies.

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/tier/monkey.gif

 

[Guest]

(What am I, working on my post count?)

No one can explain the unexplainable, no matter what Jerry Falwell says.

Gentleman Joe, please don't attempt to explain to me why this is so.

It just is.

 

[gauchecritic]

See... the key word there is "assuming". It is an unreliable premise that God, even in being omnipresent (which we neither know or do not know to be true), would be infinite. Omnipresence is just "being everywhere". If there is a finite "everywhere", then He is not an infinite God by virtue of his presesnce.

People often say "God is infinite" or "God is too complex for mortal minds" or "God cannot be understood"... but, reasonably speaking, in that we know very little concerning the necessary properties of God, we can't really make those sorts of claims.

At best we can say "given that God is infinite (which may or may not be true), a finite mind couldn't understand Him)". But even that runs into problems as "infinity" is still a formal and understandable concept.

Lets say that "assuming" = "given that" (and I defy you to prove that it isn't exactly the same meaning) and that (for the sake of arguement) either of the above make "may or may not be true" redundant (even tautological)and then: a finite mind couldn't understand him, I will take you to task on the understandableness of infinite.

A useable concept is a different thing entirely from being able to encompass it. (square root of -1?)

So now the nub.

If there is a finite "everywhere", then He is not an infinite God by virtue of his presesnce.

I can accept the inference of your premise but your conclusion defies your proposition. There is no other proposition which can give you your conclusion, except: and that "everywhere" isn't infinite, which is patently untrue.

And so my logic stands (even if only by the virtue of it being syllogistic)

and if I've researched it correctly your fallacy is either affirmation of the consequent or denial of the antecedant. ?

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Lets say that "assuming" = "given that" (and I defy you to prove that it isn't exactly the same meaning) and that (for the sake of arguement) either of the above make "may or may not be true" redundant (even tautological)and then: a finite mind couldn't understand him, I will take you to task on the understandableness of infinite.

A useable concept is a different thing entirely from being able to encompass it. (square root of -1?)

So now the nub.

If there is a finite "everywhere", then He is not an infinite God by virtue of his presesnce.

I can accept the inference of your premise but your conclusion defies your proposition. There is no other proposition which can give you your conclusion, except: and that "everywhere" isn't infinite, which is patently untrue.

And so my logic stands (even if only by the virtue of it being syllogistic)

and if I've researched it correctly your fallacy is either affirmation of the consequent or denial of the antecedant. ?

Gauche

Well, neither actually.

IF there is a finite "everywhere" (everywhere being a limited thing).
AND God exists
THEN God is not infinite based on presense (as his presence would be in a finite "everywhere").

There's actually no logical fallacy there. We can deny that the universe is finite, but given that it were--God could still be infinite, but not based on where all he is (because where all he is would be a finite spread of place).

On infinity, though, philosophers for years have tried to make sense out of "understanding" and "encompassing" (if we want to use those terms) and formally knowing. As yet, not to say that you haven't gotten it all figured out, we aren't sure... thus my statement of "possibly".

It wasn't redundancy. It was saying that even in assuming to be true your [subject], it may or may not be true [your predicate]... as opposed to what you said which was assuming to be true your [subject], it is true [your predicate] (which doesn't actually logically follow).

I'll break it down (I deal with this question at least once a semester)....

Omnipresent is "being in all places at all times". As such, how many places are there would determine whether infinity comes into play. For instance, if the universe were only the size of a baseball with a finite number of atoms and space (if "everywhere" is finite), then God being omnipresent doesn't make him infinite.

There are other things that could make Him infinite, but if there are a finite number of places, then omnipresence doesn't really mean "infinite". Follow?

Now, expand that notion to the size of the universe. What if the universe is only ever so big? Finite? Way larger than a trillion baseballs, but still finite? Then Omnipresent still only means "being in all places at all times, those being a finite number of places".

No fallacy. No poor logic there. That's patently true. You assume things, but you have to accept all possibilities of the assumption--in this case "may or may not" because when you use "omnipresent" you still haven't defined whether the universe is finite or infinite. That was my point from the beginning.

 

[Pure]

While I have some sympathies with Joe's taking certain 'subjective' approaches to truth, to task, I think can't has made excellent points.

For example:

cant: "No meter can attach to it." In my spicy way, I am pointing out that the measure of objective truth is always the real, measurable world. People can claim their dick is longer, but a measurement is the way to arrive at the truth. In a similar way, endless taxonomic measurements applied to real study specimens have slowly refined the biological descriptive heirarchy of family, subfamily, genus and species. Biology proceeds by measurement, and logic applied to the data, So does chemistry, so does physics. Measurement, data, logic, truth.

{See also the excerpt at the end}
-----

It is a good point that the truths of science-- which are [among the] 'objective truths' if there are any--are based on measurement. This excellent view is expounded by Galileo among others (a founder of modern science), and is rooted in the 'primary' and 'secondary' quality distinction, that was floating about. The length of an object, and its reflecting light of xx wavelength are primary qualities; they are based on measurements a number of people may replicate.

I believe cant, besides the above, wants statements about experience, i.e, its quality, to be the other realm. A realm where 'truth' also applies, though not because of measurability.
I'm not sure what to label them, but perhaps 'experiential truths' or 'phenomenological truths' would do. I don't really like 'inner truths.'

"John's thoughts about his mother were laden with anxiety."
"What Jane felt towards his was a mixture of love and disgust."
or even
"John had the same almost ineffable feeling whenever he heard Beethoven's 3rd Symphony. It was not until he heard Scriabin's piano works that he felt it, again."

Where I disagree with a number of others, however, is that I think these kinds of statements can be objectively true.
It does make sense sometimes to say "John is simply wrong about how he thinks he feels toward Jane." or "John is lying about what he feels toward Jane" or "John is lying to himself in denying feeling any anxiety over thoughts about his mother."

They are vastly different from John's saying, or our saying about John "John was listening to choirs of angels." of "John was listening to Beelzebub."

As to God, Wm James spent a lot of energy on this, in _Varieties of Religious Experience_. Certainly there are commonalities of 'God experience'. Where he had to draw the line as an empirical psychologist was in making a claim of a scientific sort (or in the 'outer realm' as it were) that "God was communicating with St. Hildegaard." of "St. Hildegaard heard God, i.e., the words God spoke to her."

I believe the 'truths of logic' are fairly irrelevant to the present discussion, since I believe they don't 'refer'-- point to anything.
"A is A" "B implies that A implies B" or "2+2=4 [derived from truths of logic and set theory]. They have the quality I call 'analytic truth' different from either type above; the term meaning 'true by definition.'

That's my 3 cents, and an effort to lend a hand to 'cant's' explanations-- in so far as I understand them.
[end]
=============

Added:

Cant said,
The scientific, objective sort of truth of which you speak may not actually say the subjective doesn't exist, despite the fact that no meter can attach to it and no result is found by measuring the objective world to demonstrate the existence of the subjective at all. By its own standards, objectively, that kind of analysis ought by rights to claim the subjective has no objective measurable reality.

But you step short of that. You know it exists, because you experience it hourly. I, too, give you freely my testimony to the effect that I experience it. We arrive, thereby (how simply this all explains itself for us, Joe!) at a dialogue by which we listen to each other's testimony about the subjective reality we both experience. We cannot, as you say, apply the yardstick of "the True" to this dialogue. Nothing we tell each other will be true in the sense that it is measurable, provable, reproducible. No, the yardstick we measure by is truthfulness.
----

I don't agree with the *terminology of this passage, but with its import. I don't believe "nothing we tell each other will be true in the sense that it is measurable, provable, reproducible." I think the last sentence is just a play on words. It's obvious that if I make a statment _truthfully_ or that has 'truthfulness', then that statement is 'true'. I think cant concedes too much in--apparently-- letting 'true' only apply to scientific statements. Nonetheless, cant's distinction is important.