How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Byblos »

Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Byblos wrote: Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.


I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken
But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

Byblos wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Byblos wrote: Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.


I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken
But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.
They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Byblos »

Kenny wrote:They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.
And here I thought we had made some progress at least into dualism. It seems we're back to square 1.

How could something "mental" or non-material (the mind) be part of something physical/material (the brain)?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?
It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken
If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Byblos wrote: Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.


I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken
But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.
They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

Ken
This would actually cause a contradiction with your previous thoughts.
If intelligence and the like is reduced purely physical thing like the brain, and such evolved,
then intelligence and the life cannot supersede the natural material world.

It is a hard issue, and one that has been thought on a great deal in philosophy.
I think with Naturalism you're either left with dropping mental properties as real,
or you have to expand Naturalism to encompass more than the material world.

PS. I've sent you a PM.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

Byblos wrote:
Kenny wrote:They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.
And here I thought we had made some progress at least into dualism. It seems we're back to square 1.

How could something "mental" or non-material (the mind) be part of something physical/material (the brain)?
I didn’t say that. I said the mind and the brain are the same, and they are a part of a person.

The brain is an organ of the human body. It is physical/material. When somebody speaks of this organ in reference to it’s mental capacity; thinking, understanding, perceptions, etc. they use there term “mind” when describing these actions.
When someone speaks of this organ in reference to it’s physical aspects: the cerebrum, nerve cells, the possibility of damage etc. they use the term “brain”.

The Cerebrum, nerve cells, these are physical/material. Thinking, understanding, perceptions, etc. these are not.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?
It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken
If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28
No I did not. Why did you ask?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?
It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken
If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28
No I did not. Why did you ask?

Ken
Because we were created to do it and we do.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

Kurieuo wrote: This would actually cause a contradiction with your previous thoughts.
You’re right! Previously I said “the body is physical, and the mind is something else”
Now I am saying the mind is a part of the human body.
As I admitted earlier; these are difficult questions and I am doing the best I can. If you will bear with me, I suspect a mistake or two will be made while I figure all this out in a way that makes sense to me.

Now that I’ve thought about it, I don’t think the mind has an actual existence; I believe it is just a term people use when describing specific functions of the brain; thinking, believing, ideas, etc.
Kurieuo wrote:If intelligence and the like is reduced purely physical thing like the brain, and such evolved,
then intelligence and the life cannot supersede the natural material world.
What does it mean if intelligence DID supersede the natural material world? What do you suppose intelligence would expand into? The spiritual world?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kurieuo »

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

Kurieuo wrote:I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.
I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.
Kurieuo wrote:And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.
Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.
I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.
Kurieuo wrote:And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.
Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken
Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.
I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.
Kurieuo wrote:And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.
Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken
Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.
What on Earth are you talking about??? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You come out of left field with these accusations... are you sure you are on the right page? talking to the right person???

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kurieuo »

Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)
Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans
Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Post by Kenny »

Kurieuo wrote:Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)
Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans
Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!
Please explain what it means to transcend nature. If you can explain what that means and perhaps provide a hypethetical of this happening, I can explain it in a way that it makes sense to you.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Post Reply