Religion

[gauchecritic]

I consider the exchange as having been resolved. Ultimately, my clearly marked points were confronted--at the end--with a series of false fallacies. If we mean "why didn't we agree"? Dunno.

I'll go with: you were merely gainsaying (which isn't an arguement) with no greater logical backup than my initial position.

Originally posted by pure
'places to go while you're in Wales'

There are places to go when in Wales? (apart from Tirphill of course)

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Nonsense. You make no claim to omnipresence. You are content to be where you are.

...and we know this how?

Only impossible constructs like gods need to be everywhere.

Acutally, gods don't need to be omnipresent. Omnipresence isn't a necessary property of a god.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
I'll go with: you were merely gainsaying (which isn't an arguement) with no greater logical backup than my initial position.

The reason why I'm not merely gainsaying is that I have provided reasons (and well ordered and numbered ones) for my disagreement. So, no, you can't just write it off as "you're being contradictory" because I'm being contradictory with purpose and reason.

Because "all" is not synonymous with "infinite"... your position is not backed up as logically as mine. If you really, really, really want me to scribble out the symbolic logic of both of our positions and post them, I will. You are wrong. That's o.k. though. People are wrong all the time. You just happen to be wrong for the reasons I have outlined, the reasons being very very solid.

No harm in that, though.

Its not personal.

If you want me to post the symoblic on it, I will. But I think it'll only confuse people and probably net frustration. I would, again, be absolutely delighted if you could show me HOW you are as logically backed as I am.

 

[haldir]

Oook oook - the chimp is back

Is it me or is the general subject of this "discussion" still essentially the same as it was last time I visited.

Whilst I admire the forensic nature of the logic displayed by most of the boxers in the ring, I am saddened that people of such intillect have singularly failed to come to some resolution of the inital question ( and yes I have re-read the entire thread).

What is the point in debate and discussion if it does not move to an internally consistent resolution? This thread has become redundant and tiresome.

I re-iterate what I said in my original post.

Truth is a subjective construct. By definition, this means that there can be no absolute truth. Thus each truth is as valid as the others, except to those who belive the others. As I said all truths are true and all are false - it simply depends on one's frame of reference.

God - how can you possibly use logic to explain or define a supernatural concept? God does not exist for me, but who says that she doesn't exist for someone else. It is ultimately a case of belief. Any attempt to argue for or against God's existence is as valid and valuable as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Reality - if we cannot be sure that another individual perceives and experiences "reality" as we do, it is impossible to ever define an ultimate reality. Thus reality will always be a subjective and relative term depending on social constructs and current fashions in thought and belief.

Finally (hurrah I hear you say) - who gives a shit anyway? If logic and philosophy are to have any validity then they must lead to a meaningful and useful resolution of the questions that people want/need to know the answers to and should not generate a circular arguement that essentially degenerates into the old "I'm right", "NO. You're wrong. It's me who's right" crap.

The monkey bribery worked so I'm off back up my tree.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Oook oook - the chimp is back

Originally posted by haldir
Truth is a subjective construct. By definition, this means that there can be no absolute truth. Thus each truth is as valid as the others, except to those who belive the others. As I said all truths are true and all are false - it simply depends on one's frame of reference.

Truth is actually objective by definition (www.m-w.com, as an example). Now, if you're contending that "truth is subjective", that's one thing... if you're contending that "truth is subjective by definition", then I'd love to know where you're getting your definitions (and if they're being made up, then its not "by definition", it's by preference). There are numerous problems with "all truths are subjective", beyond that... namely "Truth is subjective" would be, then, subjective and potentially false--if its potentially false, then it isn't actually true and the statement isn't accurate... if it isn't accurate, then "truth is not subjective".

Your assertion is making an objective statement. About subjectivity. The fragility of such a position is well-documented and I can think of very, very few philosophers who choose to entertain it.

God - how can you possibly use logic to explain or define a supernatural concept? God does not exist for me, but who says that she doesn't exist for someone else. It is ultimately a case of belief. Any attempt to argue for or against God's existence is as valid and valuable as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Logic being the relation of ideas to each other in cohesive and ordered ways, there isn't any problem with using it to explain or define analytical constructs or propositions. As such, its rather perfect as a language for discussing God. The entire discipline of Philosophy of Religion, I think, has showed that over the years beautifully. Ultimately, though, "how can I" is answered with "because its possible"; how is it possible? Because its not impossible by definition. Nothing about the essential properties or definition of God or supernatural equate it to being inexplicable or beyond the grasp of logic (that's just a cliche' used in Sci-Fi a lot).

Reality - if we cannot be sure that another individual perceives and experiences "reality" as we do, it is impossible to ever define an ultimate reality. Thus reality will always be a subjective and relative term depending on social constructs and current fashions in thought and belief.

As it is, it isn't necessarily impossible to understand another persons's perception or experience. Beyond that, there are other ways to frame "ultimate reality" (logically possible). So, a conclusion that "oh, its just all subjective" isn't entirely accurate.

Finally (hurrah I hear you say) - who gives a shit anyway? If logic and philosophy are to have any validity then they must lead to a meaningful and useful resolution of the questions that people want/need to know the answers to and should not generate a circular arguement that essentially degenerates into the old "I'm right", "NO. You're wrong. It's me who's right" crap.

I do. Easy question.

Utility isn't necessarily the only way to have something be valid (have no idea where you get that one). Accuracy may make something valid (and in logic, it does). Regardless, it is the greater failing of the first couple of weeks of most students I have that they think that every argument is always "I'm right/No, I'm right". It takes them a while to see that there are components to arguments... and there are superior arguments to others.

I would say, the argument on here is long-lived... even repititious. But not merely circular, and it hasn't degenerated quite as far as you say.

 

[Pure]

haldir said,

//Truth is a subjective construct. //

What you mean to say is, "Haldir's subjective truth--not valid for others--is that truth is subjective."

//By definition, this means that there can be no absolute truth. //

better: if truth is subjective, there is no absolute truth.
or better yet: if truth is subjective for haldir, there is no absolute truth for haldir.

//Thus each truth is as valid as the others, //

Tell it to the judge. To the cop with your speed recorded on radar. "It felt like I was going slow; that's MY truth."

//except to those who belive[sic] the others. //

"Judge, why do you believe the others?"

//As I said all truths are true and all are false - it simply depends on one's frame of reference.//

1+1=2 is true independent of context, provided these numerals and numbers have their usual definitions.

----
----
Most of the usual examples of these confusions are of this sort:

Joe "Ham sandwiches are delicious."
Bill "I hate them, they're disgusting."
Joe "The statement is true for me."
Bill "But not true for me."
Joe and Bill: "This is just what Haldir said was true for him/her."
Bill: "But that's not true for me."

----
The above confusion is eliminated is Joe says, "I find ham sandwiches delicious."-- which is probably what he meant.

That sentence, parsed, means "Joe finds ham sandwiches delicious."

Note that this sentence can be affirmed (as true) by both Joe and Bill. I.e., it's true 'non subjectively', i.e, independent of who's saying it.

----

Final note: I do agree with Haldir that much of the above discussion led nowhere, since many were unclear what they were claiming, or what the other was claiming. Devotion to logic does not make up for the lack of interest in others' points of view, or apparently make a person able to correctly interpret others' postings (the ultimate problem in cyberland).

 

[cantdog]

Joe

This is what makes me suspect you.

Truth is actually objective by one definition but not by another (www.m-w.com, as an example). You want to subsume them all into definition one, but the arguments of sweetnpetite and I, among others, as to the subjective nature of one kind of "truth" are not aberrant. The lexicographers at M-W and in the OED agree on it. People have in fact, the OED tells us, used the word for a subjective conviction or for a doctrinal truth for centuries.

This leaves you, alone, claiming every use of the word must be objective or else fallacious.

Why is it so important to you that all truth be objective truth?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Joe

Originally posted by cantdog
This is what makes me suspect you.

Truth is actually objective by one definition but not by another (www.m-w.com, as an example).

I am entirely looking at www.m-w.com... and its entry for "truth". Which of the definitions are you supporting as "not being objective"?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion

But, if one recipe is for non-fat chocolate cake and the other is for regular fatty-good chocolate cake... they are a contradiction (much the same way "I don't believe in God" and "I believe in God" are contradictary; or "I believe in one God" and "I believe in a hundred Gods" is contradictory).

And if the goal is to make regular chocolate cake (we'll call that "Truth"), then one is a false recipe.

Only if you define 'regular' as full fat. where does it say that fat=regular?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Only if you define 'regular' as full fat. where does it say that fat=regular?

You can transpose them, if you feel like it. It doesn't adjust the point any. Fat-free can be regular.

Point is, the things you're talking about (the referrents of the analogy) /can/ exist in contradiction when taken together... so an appropriate analogy should also represent them as things that /can/ exist in contradiction (unless its a false analogy).

 

[Pure]

from the merriam webster unabridged:

Main Entry: truth Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths \-üthz also -üths\
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, treuthe, from Old English trowth, trewth; akin to Old High German getriuwida fidelity, Old Norse tryggth faith, trustiness; derivative from the root of English 1true

1 a archaic : the quality or state of being faithful : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY <whispering tongues can poison truth -- S.T.Coleridge> b : sincerity in character, action, and speech : genuineness in expressing feeling or belief : TRUTHFULNESS, HONESTY <gives a man a clear conscious view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them -- J.H.Newman> <the absolute truth of his speech, and the rectitude of his behavior -- R.W.Emerson>

2 : something that is true or held to be true: as

a (1) : the real state of affairs : something that is the case : FACT <the hard truth was that few of America's allies believed that the ... islands were worth fighting for -- Newsweek> <the present definition of insanity has little relation to the truths of mental life -- B.N.Cardozo> (2) : the body of things, events, and facts that make up the universe : actual existence : ACTUALITY <the facets of reality ... together comprising what the human spirit can call truth -- General Education in a Free Society> (3) often capitalized : a fundamental or spiritual reality conceived of as being partly or wholly transcendent of perceived actuality and experience <modern man ... was capable of the relative and changing truths of science, incapable and afraid of any supratemporal truth reached by Reason's metaphysical effort or of the divine -- Jacques Maritain> <got only the facts and not the truth -- W.A.White> (4) : the world of a particular person or in a particular manner <a psychotic's truth is what "I" make it -- Weston La Barre> <the truth of speculative inquiry had been replaced by the truth of empirical investigation -- R.M.Weaver>

b (1) : a true relation or account <to say truth, it can only be regarded as a kind of literary curiosity -- Daniel George> <truth is stranger than fiction> (2) : a judgment, proposition, statement, or idea that accords with fact or reality, is logically or intuitively necessary, or follows by sound reasoning from established or necessary truths <two plus two equals four ... that is a truth anywhere -- W.J.Reilly> <there are truths which cannot be verified, yet we cannot help accepting them as true -- Rubin Gotesky>; specifically : a proposition or statement taken as an axiom, postulate, or principle in a field of study or inquiry <questioned the basic truths of thermodynamics> (3) : TRUISM, PLATITUDE <a truth we are in danger of forgetting -- Marie Hildegarde> (4) : a notion having wide and uncritical acceptance among a group or in a field and liable to be proved false <worshipped their flimsy hypotheses into truths -- Weston La Barre> c : the body of true statements and propositions; also : the body of statements and propositions accepted, studied, or proved in a field <seems to suggest that these are different and unrelated truths -- theological truth, psychotherapeutic truth, political truth -- R.L.Howe> <every way of abstracting produces its own kind of truth -- S.I.Hayakawa>

3 a : relationship, conformity, or agreement with fact or reality or among true facts or propositions : the property in a conception, judgment, statement, proposition, belief, or opinion of being in accord with what is in fact or in necessity <truth (or falsity) is a property of declarative sentences -- Philip Hallie> <the test for truth is objective and is not concerned with ministering to subjective feelings, needs, or desires -- Jim Cork> -- see COHERENCE THEORY, CORRESPONDENCE THEORY, EMPIRICAL TRUTH, FORMAL TRUTH, METAPHYSICAL TRUTH, NORMATIVE TRUTH, PRAGMATISM, SEMANTIC CONCEPTION b chiefly Britain : TRUE 2 <these squares must be tested for truth -- Laurence Town> <her propeller shaft was a trifle out of truth -- C.S.Forester>

c (1) : fidelity to an original or a possible original <an ignorant, uneducated man may be a competent judge of the truth of the representation of a sandal -- Joshua Reynolds> <ability to build up the truth of his characters through spare, pungent dialogue -- Arthur Knight> (2) : the conformity of a work of art to the essential significance of the subject, to the artist's conception or intent, or to some standard : the coherence of form and content in an apparently necessary whole <what the imagination seizes as Beauty must be Truth -- whether it existed before or not -- John Keats> <a sturdy example of functional truth in architecture -- American Guide Series: Vermont>

4 a often capitalized : abstract truth personified as a goddess b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
synonyms VERACITY, VERITY, VERISIMILITUDE: truth is a general term ranging in meaning from a transcendent idea to an indication of conformity with fact and of avoidance of error, misrepresentation, or falsehood <the truths of religion are more like the truths of poetry than like the truths of science; that is, they are vision and insight, apprehended by the whole man, and not merely by the analysing mind -- Times Literary Supplement> <truth as the opposite of error and of falsehood -- C.W.Eliot>


VERACITY commonly indicates rigid and unfailing adherence to, observance of, or respect for truth <question an opponent's veracity> <his passion for veracity always kept him from taking any unfair rhetorical advantages of an opponent -- Aldous Huxley> <I cannot, indeed, guarantee the absolute veracity of any of my apparently authentic law reports -- J.R.Sutherland> VERITY usually designates the quality of a state or thing in being true or entirely in accordance with factual reality or with what should be so regarded; sometimes the word designates that which is marked by lasting, ultimate, transcendent value <most primitive and national religions have also started out, naturally enough, with the assumption of their own verity and importance -- A.L.Kroeber> <the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed -- love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice -- William Faulkner>

VERISIMILITUDE usually indicates the quality of a representation that causes one to accept it as true <to convey human nature in fiction requires the highest degree of verisimilitude: events that seem just like those of life as the reader's experience has led him to conceive of life must happen to people who seem just like human beings in a succession which seems just like the course of human affairs -- E.K.Brown>
- in truth adverb : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY, REALLY