It matters not what we believe to be true, some things are always true and other always false.no, trust me ive been told by many the truth is relative but neither you nor i seem to think that
What you seem to be talking about is belief.
Beliefs, have no bearing on the facts of the universe. Truth is truth, is truth, what people claim as truths has to correspond with fact or reality.
want to know where people are at on this issue... is truth definite or relative? (im in the definite side) but i want to know how the communit is split up on it... and fight!Dude stop asking questions to which skeptics cannot answer :laugh: At this rate, they won't like you :laugh:
Then feel free to explain how it can be? What makes it relative?, explain how your reality will cease when I die? Tell me how a rock will cease to be a rock? tell how the sun will cease to be the sun, if it isn't factual?Quote from: bertatbertsIt matters not what we believe to be true, some things are always true and other always false.no, trust me ive been told by many the truth is relative but neither you nor i seem to think that
What you seem to be talking about is belief.
Beliefs, have no bearing on the facts of the universe. Truth is truth, is truth, what people claim as truths has to correspond with fact or reality.
all i know is that people think that and that it is. and its a huge.concept in the humanities... i dont think teuth is relative or understand how it could be.(did you read the op) i was just wondering if anybody didI'm not I just trying to make it clear that truth is truth is truth, Truth is quality or state of being true, in accordance with fact or reality. There is no other meaning to it.
bertaberts who are you arguing with
mhaberling, all this is fine but exactly what do you mean by 'objective truth'? Are you dealing with stuff we keep finding out through science or are you talking about the 'truths' of some religion? Things we learn about our universe seem to be true whether anyone believes them or not whereas religious truths require belief.
Which are we talking about, mhaberling?
mhaberling, all this is fine but exactly what do you mean by 'objective truth'? Are you dealing with stuff we keep finding out through science or are you talking about the 'truths' of some religion? Things we learn about our universe seem to be true whether anyone believes them or not whereas religious truths require belief.
Which are we talking about, mhaberling?
I'm simply referring to truth in general... weather religious or scientific in nature doesn't really matter... Since you brought up religion... lets use "There is a God" now would you say that statement is either true in all cases or false in all cases?
Im simply refering to truth in general... weather religous or scientific in nature doesnt really matter... Since you brought up religion... lets use "There is a God" now woukd you say that statement is either true in all cases or false in all cases?I'm going to offer an answer here.
no that's way off topic... Look, in the past i have ran int people who claim the truth is relative, thjs group is almost exclusively atheist in my experience... since this is a primarily atheistic website i was simply seeing if that position existed here
...and understand that few of us have PhD's in philosophy.
Etymology
The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[16] The ascription is said to be based on a passage in a lost work of Herakleides Pontikos, a disciple of Aristotle. It is considered to be part of the widespread body of legends of Pythagoras of this time. "Philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist" (from sophoi). Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals.
Catholics quit burning us for saying the earth revolves around the sun, so at least some truth is relative.
Or they ran out of matches. Which could mean it is still absolute.
Your question in the OP is a bit generic. Give us an example of each type, let us know how much you want to involve religion and understand that few of us have PhD's in philosophy.
Given 100 people reporting seeing lightening, I suspect we might never work the answer out as I bet the timings each gave would be unlikely to be truly accurate enough. This would illustrate that, although everything ought to have a right answer, we can't necessarily find it out. However, mhaberling, I doubt whether we would be using the word 'truth' to describe this sort of situation - I think that, rather, we would merely be looking for the time the lightening struck and not use the word truth at all.I find it funny that you are suspicious of my motives...
Given that 'obsolete truth' sounds a lot like 'absolute moral values' are you trying to take us there by stages?
What I gather from this is you are saying truth is relative to the observer, but a fact/truth will always remain a fact/truth, The fact/truth is lightening struck, anything else is supposition.Catholics quit burning us for saying the earth revolves around the sun, so at least some truth is relative.
Or they ran out of matches. Which could mean it is still absolute.
Your question in the OP is a bit generic. Give us an example of each type, let us know how much you want to involve religion and understand that few of us have PhD's in philosophy.
The example I was rather fervently argued on was this...
EDIT : This is not the only time I have run into this, but it is the best explanation I got... I've run into others that have just treated the idea that truth is relative as common knowledge.
Two people observe a lightning strike, but the exact moment when it happened was different for them.. Same for a hundred different people...
I argued that if you knew the exact moment they saw the lighting strike and the direction they were looking you could determine the point where the ligtning strike happened and the exact moment it hit the ground using a little geometry and the speed of light... but after a while it turned into them telling me that I really didn't understand enough about philosophy to truly understand..
^Yep. Except for the part that lightning doesn't actually strike the ground from above. It leaps out of the ground and into the sky. Something our human eyes can't seem to catch.Yes agreed, my bad.
You may have to come up with a different scenario
You may have to come up with a different scenario
the problem is i think that the truth is defenite... so thete hasnt been any illustrations that have made sense for me... i feel like im spending a good amount of time arguing against myself
The example I was rather fervently argued on was this...
Two people observe a lightning strike, but the exact moment when it happened was different for them.. Same for a hundred different people...
I argued that if you knew the exact moment they saw the lighting strike and the direction they were looking you could determine the point where the lightning strike happened and the exact moment it hit the ground using a little geometry and the speed of light...
but after a while it turned into them telling me that I really didn't understand enough about philosophy to truly understand..
The example I was rather fervently argued on was this...
Two people observe a lightning strike, but the exact moment when it happened was different for them.. Same for a hundred different people...
This is not a question of truth, it is a question of observation - human observation of sudden dramatic events is unreliable; it has nothing to do with truth, "absolute" or otherwise.
Both observers would agree that there was lightning - and this is true. The detail is unlikely to be corroborated - just as you can't remember the exact words you wrote in your first post, but know what it was about - it doesn't alter the "truth value" of your post.QuoteI argued that if you knew the exact moment they saw the lighting strike and the direction they were looking you could determine the point where the lightning strike happened and the exact moment it hit the ground using a little geometry and the speed of light...
This is not how lightning works - it would be almost impossible to make such a calculation. Look at a lightning fork - its path seems random but its track is governed by moisture and small electrical charges in the atmosphere and points of electrical charge at its point of strike. We cannot know all these in advance.Quotebut after a while it turned into them telling me that I really didn't understand enough about philosophy to truly understand..
They may be correct - your physics needs brushing up too : (
The only "truth" evident here is your lack of being able to spell the simplest words correctly, mhaberling.thanks nam... on my smartphone... harder to type
-Nam
What a pitiful excuse. I am on an Android. That's all I have been on for about 6 months now, minus a couple of trips to the Library in that time period.
If you can spell correctly, then you will. If you do not, it's by choice. Am I getting at the "nature of truth" yet?
"We" all know what the topic is referring to, it's surprising, or not, that you think we do not.
-Nam
stalling and dodging will not do you any favors here MHwhat am i dodging.... 12 monkeys you really are not that intellgent of an individual.
graybeard... i was asked to give an example of an argument for truth being relative... i didnt make ot up i dont think it had anuthing to do with truth either... i argued the point that it could be determined by geometry to illistrate that there was a moment the lightning strike actually happened regardless of peoples perception of it....
Philosophical questions can never reach a conclusion, merely a possibility/ an opinion.stalling and dodging will not do you any favors here MHwhat am i dodging.... 12 monkeys you really are not that intellgent of an individual.
EDIT... has anyone one considered that this thread has nothing to to do with God and is just a basic philisophical question??
| 1. | spewed by many religious people countless times |
want to know where people are at on this issue... is truth definite or relative?
Hence the problem with trying to classify a god or gods. While it MAY be the case that the "truth of god" is that there is a particular god, and thus its existence (or not) is an objective truth, the problem lies in being able to categorise and measure that truth. (Which is the thrust of 3Sigma's thread http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23483.0.html (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23483.0.html) on Validating a particular god. While it MAY be that there is an objective truth about a god, there are few if any ways to examine and measure and arrive at that objective truth, which makes all religious truth relative.
(Side note - for reasons I won't go into, I am Admin for a small forum where 8 Christians are debating morality and the literality of the Bible. I've long lost hope of them agreeing on one definitive answer for any of the questions they have been asked to consider.)
I can take a cup, and say "this is this colour, this size, this weight", and anybody can come and see that cup and check my statements. There is an objective truth about the cup that CAN be verified and agreed upon - although there may be relative truths to the cup as well, depending on who gave it to me for example.
mhaberling,
If this is, as you say, a philosophical question, then why, as bertaberts relays, do you have this in a "religious" section? if not for the fact, or truth, that this is about the "truth" of those who are religious, such as yourself, versus those who are not?
You know the "truth"[1], and "we" do not because we are incapable of knowing such a thing for not having your god in our lives.
If this is just a wild opinion I hold, I don't think I am alone in it. Your OP, in my view espouses such, or implies such ideology.
-Nam
1. spewed by many religious people countless times
I really do like this... We can percieve and measure things with inside the natural world and discover the truth about them... For something like a God, that would exist independent of the natural world, Yes it is agreeable that there is a truth but one that is impossible to validate.
What then would you say the significance of Truth is? Perceivable or not. And how to we go about discovering it best?
Here is an illustration... Polio is a curable disease, in the year 1800 it was also a curable disease even though humans had not found the cure.
Now lets look at Cancer, Do we start with the assumption that Cancer is curable and try to prove it, or do we accept the possibility that it is not curable and try and discover weather it is or not. Which do you think is a better for advancing human discovery? (note: I slightly lean towards the former but do recognize assumptions as a possible problem)
I really do like this... We can percieve and measure things with inside the natural world and discover the truth about them... For something like a God, that would exist independent of the natural world, Yes it is agreeable that there is a truth but one that is impossible to validate.
Now lets look at Cancer, Do we start with the assumption that Cancer is curable and try to prove it, or do we accept the possibility that it is not curable and try and discover weather it is or not. Which do you think is a better for advancing human discovery? (note: I slightly lean towards the former but do recognize assumptions as a possible problem)
So how would you begin to test for a god, mhaberling? What tests can we run to begin to confirm or deny the truth of any given god?
What interest does this God have in 33% of a planet in the middle of a galaxy in a small corner of a vast universe he created?......And what would you remark on my intelligence......you seem to not even be able to spell correctly.....or is that just testament to the USA's education systemSo how would you begin to test for a god, mhaberling? What tests can we run to begin to confirm or deny the truth of any given god?
OK this is maybe straying a bit off topic but I enjoy the discussion, I would start with an assumption of God's existence... I would look then to what would also be true, we would probably see the effects of such deity in the natural world, But since we are apart of the natural world everyday observation may be impossible. So then I would say if there was evidence then it would reside in the basic truth of the universe like physics... So I would say that whenever we find the complete theory of physics we will find evidence of a God...
Immediate fail. Your not starting with a truth.So how would you begin to test for a god, mhaberling? What tests can we run to begin to confirm or deny the truth of any given god?
OK this is maybe straying a bit off topic but I enjoy the discussion, I would start with an assumption of God's existence...
I would look then to what would also be true,Second fail you haven't established a first truth, you merely have an assumption to work from, You are getting no where fast.
we would probably see the effects of such deity in the natural world, But since we are apart of the natural world everyday observation may be impossible.Well duh! This is because you haven't established a truth.
So then I would say if there was evidence then it would reside in the basic truth of the universe like physics.Where would you find such evidence when all you have is an assumption.
So I would say that whenever we find the complete theory of physics we will find evidence of a God.So until then we must err on the side of caution, and follow reality as it is.
OK this is maybe straying a bit off topic but I enjoy the discussion, I would start with an assumption of God's existence...
I would look then to what would also be true, we would probably see the effects of such deity in the natural world…
But since we are apart of the natural world everyday observation may be impossible. So then I would say if there was evidence then it would reside in the basic truth of the universe like physics... So I would say that whenever we find the complete theory of physics we will find evidence of a God...
What interest does this God have in 33% of a planet in the middle of a galaxy in a small corner of a vast universe he created?......And what would you remark on my intelligence......you seem to not even be able to spell correctly.....or is that just testament to the USA's education systemSo how would you begin to test for a god, mhaberling? What tests can we run to begin to confirm or deny the truth of any given god?
OK this is maybe straying a bit off topic but I enjoy the discussion, I would start with an assumption of God's existence... I would look then to what would also be true, we would probably see the effects of such deity in the natural world, But since we are apart of the natural world everyday observation may be impossible. So then I would say if there was evidence then it would reside in the basic truth of the universe like physics... So I would say that whenever we find the complete theory of physics we will find evidence of a God...
OK this is maybe straying a bit off topic but I enjoy the discussion, I would start with an assumption of God's existence... I would look then to what would also be true, we would probably see the effects of such deity in the natural world, But since we are apart of the natural world everyday observation may be impossible. So then I would say if there was evidence then it would reside in the basic truth of the universe like physics... So I would say that whenever we find the complete theory of physics we will find evidence of a God...
Now this is getting a little out of hand... Read the OP, any arguments I made about the existence of a god were to entertain the idea of applying what anfauglir and I were discussing about truth... You don't need to jump on this like I'm trying to give you an ultimate reason to believe in god... I'm just having a conversation....Then you haven't answered his question. This is all we are telling you.
As I've said in the past, it's not all that impressive for an argument to arrive at a conclusion when that conclusion was also used as a premise.
It is called "circular reasoning" and mhaberling, you have embraced it here as some sort of intellectual holy grail.
No! As you starting from a false premise, any conclusion is worthless.As I've said in the past, it's not all that impressive for an argument to arrive at a conclusion when that conclusion was also used as a premise.
It is called "circular reasoning" and mhaberling, you have embraced it here as some sort of intellectual holy grail.
which i agree with, thos isnt a proof as mucha as an excersize in reasoning l... not to determine if there is a god but to determine where to look for one
No! As you starting from a false premise, any conclusion is worthless.at some point human flight would have been a false premise...
mhaberling,
If your OP is an honest attempt of knowing the "nature of truth" then I retract, however, I still do not perceive it as such. I still feel there is an underlying view here that you are attempting to get the gist of from us.
Also spelling is more important on a forum rather than not. Not everyone on here has Engflish as their primary language. So, when you misspell a word or words then they do not understand, sometimes, what one is saying. They don't know if the word is supposed to be spelled that way or if it is an error on your part. There are many forms of English, in many areas of the world where it is readily used. Speaking coherently as ypossible is better than not, in such cases.
-Nam
which i agree with, this isnt a proof as much as an excersize in reasoning l... not to determine if there is a god but to determine where to look for one
beyond your ability is not false premiseNo! As you starting from a false premise, any conclusion is worthless.at some point human flight would have been a false premise...
Yes, that is ironic, Nam. Humorously so. Now simmer the hell down, I posted it mainly for humor and you're taking it way too personally.
i think were talking about different things... i'm only offering this as a starting thougt process you are offering it as a means to an answerwhich i agree with, this isnt a proof as much as an excersize in reasoning l... not to determine if there is a god but to determine where to look for one
And once we've taken on that premise as a belief, we end up "finding" one by way of our own adopted bias, no matter what reality says. It does make a difference.
Which is better for advancing human discovery, Assuming a truth and looking to see what that truth implies and if what it implies exists... or starting with know assumptions and trying to see if you can discern if something is true or false...
I lean towards the former...
i think were talking about different things... i'm only offering this as a starting thougt process you are offering it as a means to an answer
Never been a good speller... Never really thought it necessary to make sure spelling is always correct... A forum is conversational in nature, so it should be taken more casually than formal literature... 12 monkeys, you start adding on topic intelligent arguments to my threads and stop trolling and I will stop questioning your intelligence... Also your question seems to imply that you think that a god would solely be focused on earth... Why would that be true?
We do not become lighter than air or water,science explains this.....or are you just using the phrase to explain?
On existence, God is real... This being true what would have to be true, We would most likely see a belief system based around his existence(unnecessary but likely), We would see some evidence of a God at the base workings of nature ie physics,
We may see a record of his interaction with our species (also not required)...
Conclusion, we saw to things that suggested a god, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell... Inconclusive
On non existence, God is not real... This being true what would have to be true? We would most likely see groups of people denying an existence(not required). We would see a complete explanation of the natural that does not require an intervention of intelligence.
Conclusion, we saw something that suggested a lack of a God, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell if intelligent intervention is required or not... Inconclusive
My assertion is that using my thought process It is not possible to possible to prove a god or lack there of but It does tell us where to look for the answer which as far as I could discern is the same place...
I also want to do the flight example...
Human flight is possible, If that is true then humans can be made as light as air. If humans can be made as light as air then there is a process by which humans can be made lighter than other fluids. A common fluid humans are made lighter then is water. Boats float on water by Bernoulli's principal.
Conclusion... To achieve human flight we should investigate the application of Bernoulli's principal
Anfauglir... On your question Ill apply my reasoning that I supported earlier to both the existence and lack of existence of a god...
On existence, God is real... This being true what would have to be true, We would most likely see a belief system based around his existence(unnecessary but likely), We would see some evidence of a God at the base workings of nature ie physics,
We may see a record of his interaction with our species (also not required)...
Conclusion, we saw to things that suggested a god, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell... Inconclusive
On non existence, God is not real... This being true what would have to be true? We would most likely see groups of people denying an existence(not required). We would see a complete explanation of the natural that does not require an intervention of intelligence.
Conclusion, we saw something that suggested a lack of a God, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell if intelligent intervention is required or not... Inconclusive
My assertion is that using my thought process It is not possible to possible to prove a god or lack there of but It does tell us where to look for the answer which as far as I could discern is the same place...
I also want to do the flight example...
Human flight is possible, If that is true then humans can be made as light as air. If humans can be made as light as air then there is a process by which humans can be made lighter than other fluids. A common fluid humans are made lighter then is water. Boats float on water by Bernoulli's principal.
Conclusion... To achieve human flight we should investigate the application of Bernoulli's principal
On my way to bed... answer more tomorrow... according to the thought process I put forward on god the only defensible position is Agnostic... Nite!!I think there needs to be a little bit of clarification here. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. To say that one is agnostic about God is to say that one realizes that they can not know whether or not God is real. One can be an agnostic evangelist or an agnostic atheist. I think that most non-believers here would describe themselves as agnostic atheists, in other words, we can't know for sure, but we do not believe that there is a God. I would agree that agnosticism is the only defensible position in terms of knowledge, but in terms of belief, atheism is the only defensible position, because it is the only position for which there is not contradicting evidence.
Hell, my 8 year old son was looking through a book of prehistoric mammals, and when it presented nearly a dozen variations of the early hominid, was able to see, on his own, ...
Thank you! I prefer to teach my son how to think, not what to think. He loves to read and explore and learn. Kids have a natural thirst for knowledge and intellectual growth that is beaten out of them by religion, and it's contemptible. I don't remember the context of the discussion, but I had commented that there are actually people who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. He just could not grasp how anyone could be that gullible or willfully stupid.
kb, congratulations for giving your son the gift of free thought.
I can relate to that :)It's very reassuring that there are other parents who encourage children to use their considerable brain power to its full potential. If only more people did this, there would be less violence, bigotry and injustice in the world.
Spare a thought for the billions of theist's children who, through no fault of their own, become infected with the delusions of their parents.
I never taught my daughter religion - I guarded the openness of her mind - when she was 8 years old she blasted straight through the bullshit of the Flood:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,5527.msg122593.html#msg122593
She's 12 now and going strong ;) ... acutely alert to social justice issues and the stupid of religion all around the world.
But I worry so much about the innocent children, so full of the same potential, who instead have infectious theist memes planted like a virus in their vulnerable minds. Every kid is special - so many are just unlucky to have theist parents :(
On my way to bed... answer more tomorrow... according to the thought process I put forward on god the only defensible position is Agnostic... Nite!!I think there needs to be a little bit of clarification here. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. To say that one is agnostic about God is to say that one realizes that they can not know whether or not God is real. One can be an agnostic evangelist or an agnostic atheist. I think that most non-believers here would describe themselves as agnostic atheists, in other words, we can't know for sure, but we do not believe that there is a God. I would agree that agnosticism is the only defensible position in terms of knowledge, but in terms of belief, atheism is the only defensible position, because it is the only position for which there is not contradicting evidence.
One can believe in Odin all they want, but they are deceiving themselves if they think that there is evidence to support the Odin hypothesis. The default in the face of no evidence to support the claim is that there is no reason to believe that the claim is true. If it could be conclusively, irrefutably demonstrated that a man named Jesus Christ was born on a virgin, was tortured to death, and three days later was alive again, and all of the best available evidence supported this, and none of the best available evidence refuted it, then I would conclude that Jesus Christ was in fact born of a virgin and raised from the dead. But, as Hitchens put it, "A resurrected person who was also the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense. There's no logic that says he must be right".
In other words, even if such a person was demonstrated conclusively to have existed (2000 years later, this still has not occurred) it would be a complete non-sequitur to conclude that this person was in fact the son of capital G God, supreme ruler and creator of the universe, as described in the Bible. Plenty of stories of heavenly persons born of virgins or by means other than natural conception and/or were resurrected from death were present in the human mind way before Jesus. Were all of those people the direct progeny of the supreme overlord of the universe? If your answer is no, then you must see why no one can make the same claim about Jesus. No special pleading allowed. Either people born of virgins, resurrected from the dead are divine offspring, or they are not.
And the problem is that Christians insist that Jesus MUST be for real precisely BECAUSE he was born of a virgin and rose from the grave. If those are the conditions necessary and sufficient for someone to be of divine paternity, then there are plenty of "for real" gods and goddesses out there, and Christians are ignoring them (at their peril, according to Pascal's wager).
Note that the same people who think that it is entirely plausible and believable that a person was born of a virgin, cured blind people, fed thousands with a McFish value meal, turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, and was himself raised from the dead are the same people who don't think it at all possible that human beings are the result of hundreds of millions of years of very tiny changes in genetic composition, IN SPITE OF the OVERWHELMING evidence to support the theory of evolution. Hell, my 8 year old son was looking through a book of prehistoric mammals, and when it presented nearly a dozen variations of the early hominid, was able to see, on his own, the subtle changes in jaw structure, the slow change of shape from "more like apes" hominids to "more like human" hominids, and concluded, on his own, that the best explanation is that modern humans are evolved from more ape-like ancestors. He's EIGHT, and possesses better critical thinking skills than BILLIONS of adults. When presented with the evidence, he was able to see how the evidence supported the theory. Is it really so much to ask that grown ups have the same level of intellectual honesty as a third grader?
Ahh... But there we have it, the thought process I am putting forward does not look for overwhelming evidence it looks for proof, The entire process ignores the idea of evidence, and only looks for definitive proof... Which may very well be one of its limiting factors.Tell me, exactly how are you going to find definitive proof of anything if you don't consider evidence? What kind of thought process is this you are espousing? How can one find "proof" of any claim made by religion? The thought process you are advocating here is anything but a process of thought.
Ahh... But there we have it, the thought process I am putting forward does not look for overwhelming evidence it looks for proof, The entire process ignores the idea of evidence, and only looks for definitive proof... Which may very well be one of its limiting factors.Tell me, exactly how are you going to find definitive proof of anything if you don't consider evidence? What kind of thought process is this you are espousing? How can one find "proof" of any claim made by religion? The thought process you are advocating here is anything but a process of thought.
Anfauglir... On your question Ill apply my reasoning that I supported earlier to both the existence and lack of existence of a god...
On existence, God is real... This being true what would have to be true, We would most likely see a belief system based around his existence(unnecessary but likely), We would see some evidence of a God at the base workings of nature ie physics,
We may see a record of his interaction with our species (also not required)...
Conclusion, we saw to things that suggested a god, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell... Inconclusive
On non existence, God is not real... This being true what would have to be true? We would most likely see groups of people denying an existence(not required). We would see a complete explanation of the natural that does not require an intervention of intelligence.
Conclusion, we saw something that suggested a lack of a God, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell if intelligent intervention is required or not... Inconclusive
My assertion is that using my thought process It is not possible to possible to prove a god or lack there of but It does tell us where to look for the answer which as far as I could discern is the same place...
Or, in other words, there is NO testable question you can come up with, and therefore no evidence that can be said to support the hypothesis. As far as I understand it, your position ultimately is that at the point we have a full understanding of physics, we will be able to determine if there is, or is not, a god: only then will we know.
Well, fair enough. But so freakin' what? How does that help anyone now, today? If that is the ONLY way we can determine the existence of a god - ANY god - then any particular religion is as valid as any other. Christianity as valid as Hinduism, Odin as likely as Osiris. What religion you follow is a matter of personal preference and whim (since there is NO evidence that would support one deity over another), and therefore there is NO reason at all for any special priviledge in law or government or society for any chosen faith. It should be as legal and valid to be married by a Shaman of Tzeentch as by a Muslim Imam, as valid to offset tax against donations to a Christian church/charity as to a Satanist one.
Lack of testable evidence, and a scant "one day we MIGHT be able to answer the qustion" is a position that carries huge amounts of meaning, as I've noted above. As a seeker after truth, I'm sure you would support everything I've said above?I also want to do the flight example...
Human flight is possible, If that is true then humans can be made as light as air. If humans can be made as light as air then there is a process by which humans can be made lighter than other fluids. A common fluid humans are made lighter then is water. Boats float on water by Bernoulli's principal.
Conclusion... To achieve human flight we should investigate the application of Bernoulli's principal
Sure, go for it. Keep a record of every test you do, every different mechanism and experiment. Look at the way that each one, time after time, has failed. And as the list of failures gets longer and longer, explain how support for the original theory should become stronger? Because THAT is what you are saying here: come up with a theory, have every test and experiment for that theory fail, but continue to assert that the theory is correct regardless of the continued failure of every test and experiment.
How long is "enough"? At what point, when your hypothesis is, time after time, shown to fail to work in real life, do you lose your dedication to it? And I'm not talking about one person's life here, I'm talking about centuries of millions of people all trying to prove that humans can be made lighter than air.
If there were really people out there, large groups, established for centuries, asserting that "humans can become lighter than air, we just haven't found out how", we would be ridiculing them by now, as they continue to hold their theory in the face of centuries of failure. We'd tease them if we met them, we'd vote against funding for continued experiments, we'd CERTAINLY be denying them charitable status or advantage in law. So why would anyone suggest religion should be treated any differently?
Unless, by "it does tell us where to look for the answer", you mean "it does tell us where to look for the answer yes". That would be accurate.
On another note regarding the proof of god, Azdgari you accused me of putting the detection of God out of reach for safety's sake. Please provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence.
The thought process doesn't ignore evidence, just evidence that isn't definitive. It is not in the business of determining what is likely, only what is true.
The entire process ignores the idea of evidence
So which is it? You can see why we rational primates are having a difficult time following this nonsense.
The thought process doesn't ignore evidence
I guess with how long people want to spend on it is up to them personally, After all I believe faster than light travel is achievable and thousands of years of history go against that. But I don't think we should give up on it because of that.
On another note regarding the proof of god, Azdgari you accused me of putting the detection of God out of reach for safety's sake. Please provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence.
On my way to bed... answer more tomorrow... according to the thought process I put forward on god the only defensible position is Agnostic... Nite!!
Following up on the 2 previous posts. The ONLY position for a theist or an atheist is agnostic.
<snip>
On my way to bed... answer more tomorrow... according to the thought process I put forward on god the only defensible position is Agnostic... Nite!!
Following up on the 2 previous posts. The ONLY position for a theist or an atheist is agnostic. No believer actually KNOWS that there is a god. They only believe this to be the case - usually based on a somewhat dubious holy book. The atheist has no possibility of KNOWING that there is no a god and can only posit there is not one is view of the lack of evidence.
So, mhaberling, do you KNOW that there is a god or are you an agnostic?
I'm admittedly really confused by your worldview, mhaberling.
I believe in God, I pray to God, but do I know for sure? No, in that sense i am agnostic....
Parking Places...
Maybe I understand you wrong, but if not I will respond with such...
It has never been my position that an atheistic viewpoint is a wrong one, just a different one in the absence of knowing the truth... On what I think points to God's existence, well that is a long discussion for a different day...
I'm admittedly really confused by your worldview, mhaberling.
I believe in God, I pray to God, but do I know for sure? No, in that sense i am agnostic....
You have so far on this forum stated that your personal thought process requires definitive proof, in spite of evidence. Yet, you admit that you do not know for sure that there is a God, therefore there cannot be definitive proof of his existence. So, in spite of a lack of your proclaimed standard of definitive proof, you still believe in God anyway? My only conclusion is that you do not believe in the validity of your own through process. Please help me here, because its not clear at all to me where you stand at this point.
EDIT: Fixed incorrect quote formatting.
I wasn't going for right or wrong, I was going after what is knowable. If you wish to point to that which we do not know, or to that which we will probably never know, and say "Look, that might be God!" I am in no position to argue with you, if you don't count my obstinacy. However, if you are wanting to point at things that we do know, or think we know, and say "See, right there, behind that Higgs Boson, that's God!" then I have a quibble, because none of the people actually doing the looking with instruments and technology are detecting such a thing.
Quote from: mhaberlingThe entire process ignores the idea of evidenceSo which is it? You can see why we rational primates are having a difficult time following this nonsense.
The thought process doesn't ignore evidence
I wasn't going for right or wrong, I was going after what is knowable. If you wish to point to that which we do not know, or to that which we will probably never know, and say "Look, that might be God!" I am in no position to argue with you, if you don't count my obstinacy. However, if you are wanting to point at things that we do know, or think we know, and say "See, right there, behind that Higgs Boson, that's God!" then I have a quibble, because none of the people actually doing the looking with instruments and technology are detecting such a thing.
Hey, this is off track and maybe we can discuss it later in more detail, but what do you think about particle physics and its validity long term?
On another note regarding the proof of god, Azdgari you accused me of putting the detection of God out of reach for safety's sake. Please provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence.
Before he (or anyone else, for that matter) can do that, you will need to define your god.
On another note regarding the proof of god, Azdgari you accused me of putting the detection of God out of reach for safety's sake. Please provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence.
Before he (or anyone else, for that matter) can do that, you will need to define your god.
Like Pianodwarf says, "god" is a woolly word that can mean dramatically different things to different people, even when those two people profess to believe in the same "god". So yes - the first criteria towards proving "god" is to define exactly what "god" means.
Its the scientific principle - you clearly define your hypothesis, and come up with a test that can prove the hypothesis, or falsify it. Any test where the results can be ambiguous is pretty much worthless, as indeed are assertions that "one day we may be able to do it, just not yet".
Actually, I believe that that is a HUGE cop-out - at least if the "god" we are talking about is anything other than a non-interventionist deist creator-type god. And as I've said before, if THAT is the only god we are talking about, then I'm not particularly interested anyways - if he's not ever EVER going to interact with me, then I don't care whether he exists or not, same as I don't particularly care whether Mr.John Smith of Des Moines who died in 1803 ever existed. I can see perhaps how specific scientific disciplines might have an interest in that god, but for the "day-to-day person"? Nope.
Fortunately, that question seldom arises. Believers in non-interventionist deist creators seldom tend to want to force their views on other people, and even when they do, its not usually an issues precisely because of the "non-interventionist" aspect. Their god doesn't want anything, so there is nothing they have to push onto others.
But I digress - the bigger reason I see it as a sneaky question because it tries to shift the goalposts back - "provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence" indeed! "Please prove there are no black swans", as some might put it. Of COURSE nobody here is going to be able to ask a question, or show the evidence, that there are NO gods out there at all, and its a rather disingenuous thing to ask. I can't prove there are no black swans in the world, either.
But what I - and we - CAN do is ask questions, and provide the evidence, that knock down all the interventionist gods with particular characteristics that get put forward. Does your god live in a certain physical place? Then (as PD points out) we can go there. Does your god say it will do particular things? Then we can look to see if those things get done. Does your god do this, look like that, manifest here, miracle that? Then we can ask those questions, and (because we are looking at specifics) we can say "NO - THAT god does NOT exist".
Its a process that has been going on for centuries. Way back when, EVERYTHING was evidence for god. But as we move forward, "god" has to retreat, and retreat, as slowly but surely everything that makes that god specific is revealed away as the smoke and mirrors it is, and we end up with an insubstantial and non-interfering "god" that would have been unthinkable to the people of a thousand, or even a hundred years ago. We NEVER ask a question that makes the likelihood of a god a little MORE likely - NEVER devise the test that says "if there is a god, we should see X, and if there is not, we should see Y", and have X be the outcome.
So I'll repeat PD's question. What exactly IS your god? What does it do? What is its nature? Answer those questions, and we'll start to nail down the tests and the evidence that will "provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence" - or, rather, the lack of it. I'm confident that we will blow away the mists that surround your god - whatever that may be - and either reveal that there is nothing there at all, or we will have amended the description of "god" to something completely irrelevant to mankind.
Is there a man behind your curtain, mhaberling? What IS your god?
Work with us and lets get to the truth.
I believe God's nature is the following...
Creator of the Universe and Knower of the Truth...
Walked among us in human form to send us one message... Treat each other with love and respect and the world we be a better place
... We failed to get that message...
A god that loves us, wants the best for us...
I would like some definition for communicating and answering prayers... Do you me like a request line or simply just getting questions answered
I would like some definition for communicating and answering prayers... Do you me like a request line or simply just getting questions answered
This is hardly difficult - its largely what it says on the tin. Its only what lots of religious people tell us - that they pray to god and that they get answers. Let's leave it loose and you answer as to the way you see or experience things.
I don't really think this is testable though..
Ok, Ill say that it is answers without intervention... So you may be answered by god but not in a way to where he does things for you... I don't really think this is testable though..
great point but it doesn't apply... I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world... Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death earsOk, Ill say that it is answers without intervention... So you may be answered by god but not in a way to where he does things for you... I don't really think this is testable though..
The fact that you can find nothing testable, measurable, or predictable about the way god answers you should raise some suspicion on your part. If that is the case, then it holds a lot in common with every other religious belief I've ever heard of.
Imagine that I told you I prayed to a special red rock every day. If you asked me to describe how it communicated with me, could I not say that the rock gives me 'answers without intervention'? I could say that I prayed for rain and if it rained, the rock answered me yes. If it didn't rain, it answered me no. If it rained later in the day, then the rock wanted me to wait for it. Is this similar to what you're talking about when you say you get answers without intervention?
If you can't distinguish the way your god responds to prayers from the way a rock responds to prayers, then I'd say you really need to revisit your position.
great point but it doesn't apply... I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world... Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death ears
Ok, Ill say that it is answers without intervention... So you may be answered by god but not in a way to where he does things for you... I don't really think this is testable though..
(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and therefore is my truth. I am, however, willing to cede to brilliant and unstoppable debate. Being proved wrong is the only way we ever learn :)
Truth is a human construct, and therefore is made up of opinion, concensus, research and communication. Fact is immutable.
Example: When Ptolemy asserted that the earth was the center of the universe, he was telling what he honestly thought was the truth. He used his own and other's observations to arrive at a hypothesis, he and other astronomers/astrologers (They were the same thing at this time) tested it with his little device. It was accepted by Government, populace and the vast majority of the scientific community.
However, Ptolemy was not in possesion of all the facts, and that is directly because he was willing to make minor concessions to support his truth. But he believed it completley.
Therefore, truth is a shaky pillar on which to build anything. Fact is far harder to obtain, but the aquisition and application of fact is the only reason we are not crawling in the mud.
P.S. We can delve right into a fantastic philosophical discussion about individual perception re: Fact vs. Truth, but without facts to support it, I don't know how far we'll get.
great point but it doesn't apply... I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world... Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death ears
You are not making this easy, are you? Please be a lot more specific about what you are saying - i.e.
1. "!God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint" Do you mean by this that you consider god advises you of what action to take?
2. Are you also saying that the god you propose cannot or will not intervene to do physical things in the world such as making it rain?
I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world...
Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death ears
I would like some definition for communicating and answering prayers... Do you me like a request line or simply just getting questions answered
I believe God's nature is the following...
Knower of the Truth...
loves us, wants the best for us...
I've highlighted the parts that begin to describe your god. Lets see if they are testable.
Knower of the Truth - potentially testable, though requires that the god can be reliably communicated with and will impart the Truth when requested.....
loves us, wants the best for us - possibly testable, depending again on whether the god is willing to reliably communicate.
So two possibilites exist to test your god hypothesis.
1) Question the god directly. How would you propose that this is carried out?
How do you intend to test for your hypothetical god's love, your hypothetical god's wanting the best for us? IS there a test you can perform, or is this, also, an unprovable claim?
We are, after all, after ways to determine the TRUTH - not wishful thinking, or assumptions. You'vemade some specific claims there, mhaberling. Are any of them testable?
great point but it doesn't apply... I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world... Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death ears
great point but it doesn't apply... I am forwarding that God answers prayers in an advisory standpoint in some cadoesnt do things independently to affect the world... Like to sat a farmers prayer for rain would fall to death ears
That's fine to say, but you still haven't distinguished your god's answers from someone who claims that a rock 'advises' them. You'll need to do that before it can be taken seriously. And again, if you can't, you need to really think it through. That voice in your head giving you advice could just be you.
It's interesting to note that devising a test for the person who believes that a rock gives them special advice has the exact same difficulties as devising a test for the person who believes that God gives them advice. Does that tell you anything?
Would you agree that there is a statistically significance between the people who claim to get there questions answered by rocks and those answered by God...
| 1. | http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |
| 2. | http://www.csicop.org/si/show/columbia_university_miracle_study_flawed_and_fraud |
Would you agree that there is a statistically significance between the people who claim to get there questions answered by rocks and those answered by God...
No, I certainly would not.[1]
There is one study out there that found the power of intercessionary prayer helped people, but it was overturned as a massive fraud[2].
On the other hand, the power of positive thinking, aka the placebo effect, is validated by many studies... Maybe you're thinking about that?
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 2. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/columbia_university_miracle_study_flawed_and_fraud
No... what I said, was there is a much larger amount of people who pray and believe they get answers from a god as compared to those getting advice from rocks
Would you agree that there is a statistically significance between the people who claim to get there questions answered by rocks and those answered by God...
No... what I said, was there is a much larger amount of people who pray and believe they get answers from a god as compared to those getting advice from rocks
I Guess I don't so much care if A person is getting advice from a rock...
Would you agree that there is a statistically significance between the people who claim to get there questions answered by rocks and those answered by God...
Since many people believe they receive answers from a god, you would need to show me proof of a flaw in their consciousness that causes them to falsely perceive it
What I am saying is that the population of this planet praying to rocks is much less then that praying to god, If that wasn't true this Site would Be called "Why Won't Rocks Heal Amputees?" Since many people believe they receive answers from a god, you would need to show me proof of a flaw in their consciousness that causes them to falsely perceive it, If you can't do that then who is to say that you are not the broken ones??
(PS this is so completely off subject, but I feel that it is the only thing left being discussed in this thread so Ill continue for a bit more at least)
Since many people believe they receive answers from a god, you would need to show me proof of a flaw in their consciousness that causes them to falsely perceive it...
want to know where people are at on this issue... is truth definite or relative? (im in the definite side) but i want to know how the communit is split up on it... and fight!
Hey! that has something to do with the OP alright!!! No but seriously this is the first on track post in a while and I thank you for that...want to know where people are at on this issue... is truth definite or relative? (im in the definite side) but i want to know how the communit is split up on it... and fight!
My opinion? All truth is relative. Yet that statement in and of itself means that even that statement is relative, so there are some truths that are objective, and that statement is one objective truth: All truths are relative.
Basically, we carry our universes around in our brains. Interfere with that brain, and your perception of the universe changes. Whatever our perception of the universe, that's our truth, because that's the only way we can interact with the universe. Measurements, scientific inquiry, logic, reason are all useful tools for fine tuning universal truth, but eventually that's all that it is. And everything springs from that.
Pianodwarf... If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
Pianodwarf... If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
... If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
... provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
Pianodwarf... If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
No, the burden of proof is on the recipients of god's word. If god can tell them something they had no way of knowing, and they can prove they received the information from no other source, then it's considerable, else it's no different from me meditating on an issue and my subconscious providing an answer.
MH, you generally debate with flair and honesty, but now you are asking people to prove the unprovable, i.e. "Prove that there IS no creator!", an obfuscating tactic I thought was below you. I'm sure you've heard this one before, but please think hard about it: Once upon a time, everyone thought the world was flat, and the sun went around us. IT DID NOT MAKE IT SO. Their reasoning was faulty, or they gave credence to bad reasoning, but either way, they were dead wrong and their rock solid belief didn't change a damn thing.
And to head you off at the pass, I know we are speaking of the metaphysical here, not the physical, but if anything that simply places a greater burden on you to prove the metaphysical. Unwise, in my eyes, but then again I play too much chess.
.... which means you have determined some other way of knowing the answer ...
What you are saying is absolutely correct, I am asking you to prove an un provable that was the point. What I am saying is that you are not necessarily wrong to believe that prayers to god don't get answered. And neither are the people who do believe.
If you were to say that people who believe their prayers are answered, then you take on the burden of proving that because you cant see into there consciousness, which means you have determined some other way of knowing the answer.
If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
Rocks, in fact, answer ALL prayers. They have senses beyond ours, and so "hear" all prayers that all people make to all gods, and it amuses them to "answer" those prayers as if from the god prayed to.
.....I don't see that either of us have the required evidence to prove the other right or wrong.
... is truth definite or relative? (im in the definite side) ..........is unsupportable and you are now agreeing that truth is relative? Because if you AREN'T, then you need - as we have been asking for 6 pages - to demonstrate how you can be sure that Truth is definite.
Pianodwarf... If a significant people claim that they pray and receive answers from god inside their own consciousness, And you say that they are wrong... You have accepted the burden of proof, and then should provide a reason why their consciousness is faulty and yours is not. Can you do that?
For a start I have known a lot of church people and none of them ever claimed to have received any messages from a god. This is only my experience but of course in more evangelical areas maybe people do receive this sort of thing or maybe they say that they do so as not to look out of place!
Secondly, we need to know something about the things people think they get from their god.
For a start I have known a lot of church people and none of them ever claimed to have received any messages from a god. This is only my experience but of course in more evangelical areas maybe people do receive this sort of thing or maybe they say that they do so as not to look out of place!
Secondly, we need to know something about the things people think they get from their god.
My old mum, 86 years old and a devout catholic, told me that when she was in the back yard hanging out some washing to dry, God actually told her that she had left the stove on in the kitchen. Sure enough when she went inside to check the stove it was turned up high and the pressure cooker was about to explode (just like it had exploded once before :o )
And another time she just could not find the plastic bag she was looking for, became exasperated, prayed for help, and suddenly there it was right where she had looked before :o :o
I shouldn't really be saying this stuff about my mother that I love and don't have for much longer - but if I asked her I know she'd be quite happy for me to supply these examples as her testimony, and she'd probably add a few more to be helpful.
The snag with these examples are that we can also see them as moments when your mother's subconscious pushed the information into her conscious though - probably due to the concentration on prayer.
Wait, what... How does this discussion have anything to do with the nature of truth, I've said twice now I thought it was completely off topic an I was only entertaining it for conversation's sake.....I don't see that either of us have the required evidence to prove the other right or wrong.
Heh - posted before I changed page, so I guess this answers my question. So I guess you are accepting that your original position........ is truth definite or relative? (im in the definite side) ..........is unsupportable and you are now agreeing that truth is relative? Because if you AREN'T, then you need - as we have been asking for 6 pages - to demonstrate how you can be sure that Truth is definite.
Wait, what... How does this discussion have anything to do with the nature of truth, I've said twice now I thought it was completely off topic an I was only entertaining it for conversation's sake
Wheels, what people treat as true and what is true are to different things. You may go through your life thinking there is no god. Even though you accept the faint possibility of one the lack of a god is something you TREAT like truth. However your opinion on the matter is entirely disjoint of the truth itself. If we are going back to the original discussion and involving God, would you agree that there is a God or there is Not. One of those is the definite truth. If you would say neither of those are true then you a claiming the truth is relative.
So no I don't think we need to tackle the practicality of truth for a normal person because the Truth has no burden to be practical. Maybe I misunderstood you, If so please explain.
Then I think we agree that the truth is definite...
I would argue on your second point that belief impacts our daily lives, our belief in a truth, not the truth itself. Truth is simply information, and is impartial
Language clafication: In the context of this debate, does Truth = Fact?
EDIT: Could that misspelling be considered ironic?
Then I think we agree that the truth is definite...
The bulk of this thread has been about attempting to find questions that can help us determine the definite truth about god. Thus far, I've seen NO questions or tests that point to a "yes, god exists" as the answer to that truth (quite the reverse), but rather a series of questions that can only tell us about the truth "I believe god exists".
The bulk of this thread has been about attempting to find questions that can help us determine the definite truth about god. Thus far, I've seen NO questions or tests that point to a "yes, god exists" as the answer to that truth (quite the reverse), but rather a series of questions that can only tell us about the truth "I believe god exists".
I don't think the OP was wanting to get into a 'is there a god or not debate' here but to address the question of truth.