Evidence for God from Science

I know you were talking to Jlay, and he's more than capable of making his own points. But I'm bored, having been called into work unexpectedly and have nothing to do here, so I'll offer my own comments on your most recent contribution, Bryan. In a word (well, two):

Tu quoque

Suppose J were to concede your point (which he wouldn't). Would that prove you right? No. You're just being irrational. Again. You're just saying, "You aren't thinking clearly, either!" or "See, you're wrong, too." Again, even if J were to concede that (which he wouldn't), it would not change the fact that you are still wrong have been shown to be repeatedly throughout this discussion. The fact that you are still pressing your point, despite it's being shown to be irrational, proves beyond any doubt that you are not interested in truth. You're the stereotypical non-believer who has put his fingers over his ears, closes his eyes, and screams, "I have my opinions. I've come to my conclusions. Don't confuse me with the facts!"

Now, why, Bryan, if you aren't going to take yourself seriously, should I--or anyone else on this board--take you seriously. I fully expect that when someone demonstrates a flaw in your reasoning, you either accept it and revise your argument, or you deny it by arguing that the rebuttal is flawed. Arguing that it's flawed because the person is also wrong is not acceptable. That would be like me arguing the triangles have four sides, and then when you pointed out why that cannot be true, me responding with, "See how stupid you are? You think triangles have five sides, and you're wrong about THAT." Granted, you would be wrong in saying triangles have five sides. But what the heck does that have to do with my argument that they have four? Nothing. All you are doing is attacking the opponent, another fallacy called an ad hominem.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone here ought to ignore you until you are willing to be intellectually honest enough to admit your arguments have been proven wrong or until you try to offer rational rebuttals to the material you've been presented. After you do either one of those, we can continue discussing all this other stuff, like whether or not God murdered anyone and what that would mean about His character. Obviously, Jlay can do whatever he wants. He can show the downright silliness of that argument if he wants to. It's rather simple to do. I just wouldn't bother with it--not even so much to save time, but on shear principle.

Why should anyone pay attention to anyone else who isn't going to engage in rational conversation when dealing with matters like this. You're just preaching. It's a monologue. And a bad one, because it's one in which your responses consist of heckling your audience. Why should any of us bother with that? It's just as much dribble as it would be for me to go an atheist board, post Bible verses, refuse to defend any of my arguments, and just tell everyone they're going to Hell for disagreeing with me. It's a stupid tactic. Preaching (in that sense of the word) is always a stupid tactic. So stop it. I can't speak for the others, but I can say that it makes me read your posts and go

@jac3510

Look, I don't want to argue with you, but you yourself admitted that you didn't follow the topic. So until you actually read the topic what I said, please don't pass any judgements on me.

Obviously, Jlay can do whatever he wants. He can show the downright silliness of that argument if he wants to. It's rather simple to do. I just wouldn't bother with it--not even so much to save time, but on shear principle.

If you don't have the time to get involved in the discussion, then don't, but please don't call me irrational. You read 2-3 of my comments and made an opinion.

All you are doing is attacking the opponent, another fallacy called an ad hominem.

Actually I am not doing that, but it takes some time to read comments on this forum and you don't have it as you yourself said. Do that first and then come back and say that.

Why should anyone pay attention to anyone else who isn't going to engage in rational conversation when dealing with matters like this. You're just preaching. It's a monologue. And a bad one, because it's one in which your responses consist of heckling your audience. Why should any of us bother with that? It's just as much dribble as it would be for me to go an atheist board, post Bible verses, refuse to defend any of my arguments, and just tell everyone they're going to Hell for disagreeing with me. It's a stupid tactic. Preaching (in that sense of the word) is always a stupid tactic. So stop it. I can't speak for the others, but I can say that it makes me read your posts and go

Again, you are saying some things about me that aren't true. If you don't have the patience and time to have a discussion with me and others, then don't.
It's very easy to say to others: your statements are irrational and you are stupid.

P.S.: By the way I did defend my arguments. The fact that you don't accept mine and that you are supporting another theory doesn't mean that I am irrational.

Bryan, see your PMs

Been thinking about this for a while now, took a bit of time out as I wasn't feeling so good. Turned out to be leukaemia which I'm currently trying to get under control and hopefully longterm management. It's given me some time off from the usual hustle and bustle of life to reflect, read and or course practice sitting.

Anyways, going back to Dom's post on page 2:

domokunrox wrote:Proinsias,

Might have been something you've overlooked, but what I am presenting isn't really a "position". What I am showing is sort of a "how it works". A sort of look under the hood of finding truth and knowledge and why that particular function (which we all have) proves that truth and knowledge is not relative or plural.

I would contend that it is a position you are presenting. What you are showing is a theory of 'how it works'. I will grant that it is a position which appears logically consistent, is rather easily presentable and communicable but it is nevertheless your position. The proof is not very satisfying to myself, that is not to say that I will easily disassemble your position and show your errors but more that much like the ontological argument, it seems a little thin. There seems to be a notion that simply in the conceiving of absolute truth one affirms it's existence, as either affirmation or denial leads in the end to affirmation - there doesn't seem to be any consideration that someone can get by without affirming or denying absolute truth and leaving it as a possibility. Binary logic is being used to determine the absolute validity of sentences in English.

domokunrox wrote:Again, I was pointing out 2 types of relativism.

If you have an objection to how it works, I ask you. Can you show the other way?
There are lots of things you need to define and how they are relate to each other if they do.
For example, what is truth?
What is the criteria for knowledge?
define everything

I'm not arguing for exclusive relativism, you seem to be arguing that truth is not relative or plural and is in fact objective and absolute. My issue would be first the division of truth into two categories, relative and objective, and then the necessary dismissal of one in favour of the other. If you divide truth into two parts and one vanishes in a puff of logic as a consequence it is not, as far as I'm aware, considered to be internally consistent. If the result is that internal consistency is absolutely one then the probability is that the input data was erroneous to the point of redundancy, at least that's what I remember from statistics classes.

One definition of truth that I've heard used from both east and west is "things as they are", but this leaves ideas about how things came to be and what their fate will be outside the realm of truth as they are concerned with how things were and how things will be. The nature of being and what constitutes 'a thing' are not in my book easy to answer questions, more things to mull over.

Knowledge is also a tricky one, we have the knowledge that I have accumulated, or the sum total of the knowledge acquired by humanity. But the criteria for that knowledge can be seen more exclusively as a description that corresponds with 'things as they are', essentially a narrative which satisfies the questioner.

domokunrox wrote:You said that something that is logically impossible "may not be analogous with that being impossible". I don't disagree. Many things are "possible". But you missed the point. I don't care about something being "possible", I care about knowledge and the truth. I am presenting how we find knowledge and truth and why its impossible to be relative or plural. However, I am concerned about what knowledge and truth is. The description, and not the perspective.

For example, let's say we get into a car wreck. You say its my fault. I say its your fault. We each have a story. Its our perspective. How does my or your perspective change the fact the we crashed into each other somehow? How does it change that there has to be some evidence as to how the impact happened. Like tire marks, where cars are damaged, and so forth. There has to be a REAL truth to what happened, right? Maybe someone died in the wreck? Maybe I think you were driving under the influence? Lots of factors, but something has to be true because its real and the evidence is there for us to look at.

You make the claim that "something has to be true because its real and the evidence is there for us to look at."

Whilst we may be able to construct a coherent chain of events from the all the evidence presented what we are dealing with is that which you do not care about, possibility. Whilst most would be comfortable attributing two mangled cars and some tires marks to a car crash people don't all sing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to life, the universe and everything. Even if I concede there has to be a real truth about what happened in the past and you provide a narrative that is internally logically consistent whilst being supported by evidence there is no way to guarantee in an absolute sense that this is the case, to be absolutely sure about what happened you need to take a leap of faith.

domokunrox wrote:"You've made the assumptions that a proper and fully functioning mind is one that is internally consistent and detects errors in reason"
That's not really an assumption. Can you explain why you'd actually believe the ideas from an inconsistent mind that doesn't detect errors in reason?
That's sort of like having a sign attached saying, "Bad advice for $1". Or a restaurant with a sign outside saying "We are infested with rats".

It's not really a case of believing the ideas from an inconsistent mind that doesn't detect errors in reason and more a case of fascination with people who think a little differently. I think we may be a little different in that I am fascinated by things I can't quite get my head around, whereas you can dismiss thousands of years of eastern religious and philosophical thought in a puff of Greek inspired logic and absolutely affirm the truths of Christianity. I admire your confidence in yourself.

domokunrox wrote:You mentioned Doge's creed which is sort of ironic. How is that knowledge? Sleeping when tired and eating when hungry. How it is logical? Should someone just indiscriminately sleep anywhere or eat anything? Its basic, and it doesn't add anything. There is a REASON why you wouldn't do something foolish like sleep in a desert outside during the day instead of under something right? There is a REASON why you wouldn't just eat anything from any tree, right?

That it doesn't add much I will grant you, but it does allow for a lot of possibility and covers the basics. I always took it as sleep, eat and figure the rest out for yourself. The idea that giving any more advice than that was likely to be as much a barrier to truth as it was an aid.

Pro,

I think the disagreement may be the result of a difference in terms. What do we mean by truth? Does the word itself hold any intrinsic meaning and speak to what 'is.'

For example. It is true that the speed limit is 40 mph on the road where my office is located. But this is a subjective truth. And so when we say it is a subjective truth, what we are saying is that it isn't "Really" true. It is not true in any objective sense. It only has meaning based on conditions that are subjective. The speed limit on this road or that isn't TRUTH. So let's say TRUTH, capitpal letters, and truth, lowercase. It is true that if I go over this limit, I could get a ticket. I have violated a law. But this law isn't TRUTH. Although it may be founded around some TRUTHS. Such as people have the technology to build cars and roads and thus SHOULD govern those things with rules. That order is BETTER than chaos. In other words it is objectively true that having rules for the road is safer than none. Imagine if we let people drive on whatever side and at whatever speed they chose. No stop signs, no limits.

So, things such as stealing to satisfy one's personal greed is always wrong in all times and places. Inflicting harm on another for personal pleasure is always wrong in all times and places. Even the most brutal of societies throughout history would all agree. This is not the case with the speedlimit. IMO, the limit is too low for a 4 lane divided highway, and driver's would be no less safe if it were 50 mph. It is a preferenece and not a universal truth. The is nothing in reality hinging on the notion of this speed limit.

Proinsias wrote:Been thinking about this for a while now, took a bit of time out as I wasn't feeling so good. Turned out to be leukaemia which I'm currently trying to get under control and hopefully longterm management. It's given me some time off from the usual hustle and bustle of life to reflect, read and or course practice sitting.

Sorry to hear about that. I hope you get your life back on track.

Proinsias wrote:I would contend that it is a position you are presenting. What you are showing is a theory of 'how it works'. I will grant that it is a position which appears logically consistent, is rather easily presentable and communicable but it is nevertheless your position. The proof is not very satisfying to myself, that is not to say that I will easily disassemble your position and show your errors but more that much like the ontological argument, it seems a little thin. There seems to be a notion that simply in the conceiving of absolute truth one affirms it's existence, as either affirmation or denial leads in the end to affirmation - there doesn't seem to be any consideration that someone can get by without affirming or denying absolute truth and leaving it as a possibility. Binary logic is being used to determine the absolute validity of sentences in English.

Well, Proinsias, I contend that it isn't a "position" because that affirms some sort of "perspective" based logic which is relativism. I deny your contention.
You say that you are going to show me my errors, and their likeness to an "ontological argument". I welcome your critique, I guess. I'm not sure what problem you have with how metaphysics are represented here, but alas I will hear your objections and respond to them. And in kind, I expect you to offer an alternative and CONSISTANT representation of your metaphysics structure.

Your first being that I'm not giving consideration that someone can get by without affirming or denying absolute truth. But rather I don't empathize with anyone who just wants to look at possibilities and remain open to where the evidence leads us. This is false. I have not put this notion at all here. I merely have stated and shown evidence that truth is not relative and not plural. It is like I have said along with other philosophers "You cannot deny it without affirming it". This is because in order to be a skeptic, you need to know something about what you're skeptical of. If your skeptical knowledge is true or false isn't important yet. What matters is that you need to affirm you know something. At this point, you need to A) believe in your knowledge and B) Have warrant for that belief. All thats left is finding out if its true or false. Its puzzling to say the least that anyone could just assert an absurd philosophy like pragmatism as primary logical thought before attempting to defend your position as absolutely true to others who have dissenting opinions. I even hesitate to call it a philosophy, since it describes apathy so well.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not arguing for exclusive relativism, you seem to be arguing that truth is not relative or plural and is in fact objective and absolute. My issue would be first the division of truth into two categories, relative and objective, and then the necessary dismissal of one in favour of the other. If you divide truth into two parts and one vanishes in a puff of logic as a consequence it is not, as far as I'm aware, considered to be internally consistent. If the result is that internal consistency is absolutely one then the probability is that the input data was erroneous to the point of redundancy, at least that's what I remember from statistics classes.

Well, you seem to advocate that objective and relative truth can co-exist, and I still disagree with you on the metaphysics there. You've yet to define a metaphysics structure for my to scrutinize. You've thrown 1 word out there so far you haven't defined called "probability" or "possibility" and you've yet to tell me how that idea relates to the world we live in.

Proinsias wrote:One definition of truth that I've heard used from both east and west is "things as they are", but this leaves ideas about how things came to be and what their fate will be outside the realm of truth as they are concerned with how things were and how things will be. The nature of being and what constitutes 'a thing' are not in my book easy to answer questions, more things to mull over.

Well, that makes you an existentialist, and not a logical positivist. Or rather, I think thats what you're trying to say, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth. if thats the case, its worse then I thought. Either way, let me know which door you want to go thru. I can do either one.

Proinsias wrote:Knowledge is also a tricky one, we have the knowledge that I have accumulated, or the sum total of the knowledge acquired by humanity. But the criteria for that knowledge can be seen more exclusively as a description that corresponds with 'things as they are', essentially a narrative which satisfies the questioner.

Well, it still sounds like you're an existentialist. However, off the bat, your definition is invalid. If you contend that knowledge is seeking for a description, yet its a "narrative" for the "satisfaction" of the "questioner" then we got big problems.

1. Narrative is implicit of a narrator, and this carries a presupposition that the narrator cannot make an error in observation and thought. In other words, its not a description at all. Its a perspective that is perverting the propositions.
2. Satisfies is arbitrary. Suppose that no observations or thoughts can be satisfactory. Knowledge and the subsequent truth therefore can never be known. Thats alethic skepticism.
3. Questioner is again implicit of agent to make a judgement call that presupposes that the agent cannot make an error in observation and thought.

Proinsias wrote:You make the claim that "something has to be true because its real and the evidence is there for us to look at."

Whilst we may be able to construct a coherent chain of events from the all the evidence presented what we are dealing with is that which you do not care about, possibility. Whilst most would be comfortable attributing two mangled cars and some tires marks to a car crash people don't all sing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to life, the universe and everything. Even if I concede there has to be a real truth about what happened in the past and you provide a narrative that is internally logically consistent whilst being supported by evidence there is no way to guarantee in an absolute sense that this is the case, to be absolutely sure about what happened you need to take a leap of faith.

You're going to need to define "possibility" and how that idea relates to truth value. I'll give you my initial thought though. Possibility does not have a truth value. Surely anyone who has taken statistics will tell you that. Anyone who claims possibility as anything other then a prediction of future events or pure speculation is a liar. Need an example?

My stock broker called and told me to buy now because stocks can only go up from here. Heres a prediction of how this company will grow this financial quarter. Its possible that you can make over $10,000 USD in a few months if you buy now
OR
Bob was in a car accident last night, its possible that he will sue the other driver cause he got hurt.

Both of these require that you put faith into their truth value.

However, understanding that truth is exclusively objective and absolute does faithfully and actively try to describe the world we are observing. Its hardly a "leap of faith". For example, we got into this car wreck that we got a problem with. For example, surely its OBJECTIVELY true that by the tire marks you didn't even attempt to stop before you hit me since we can see you left hardly any marks from braking. Surely, its OBJECTIVELY true that you were DUI according to blood drawn from you at the police station. Surely, its OBJECTIVE that in the crash you hit my friend and killed him.

Your defense to the judge could be "well, he got into my lane. He shouldn't have done that". Lets say that OBJECTIVELY true as well.

You wouldn't be serious in contending to the judge that tire marks, your blood drawn, and the death of my friend is SUBJECTIVE would you? and contend that instead did brake in time, weren't drunk, and my friend is faking his death in a coffin, right?

Proinsias wrote:It's not really a case of believing the ideas from an inconsistent mind that doesn't detect errors in reason and more a case of fascination with people who think a little differently. I think we may be a little different in that I am fascinated by things I can't quite get my head around, whereas you can dismiss thousands of years of eastern religious and philosophical thought in a puff of Greek inspired logic and absolutely affirm the truths of Christianity. I admire your confidence in yourself.

Well, this is an interesting nugget of information. You say that you're fascinated by things you can't get your head around. We have something in common. Some things are really hard to get your head around, but my dismissal of eastern thought, greek logic, christianity isn't one I did in strict confidence.

Rather, my dismissal of eastern thought is because its AGAINST reason and CONTRARY to evidence. Namely, it contends that the Tao cannot be known (How do they know that?). The Tao goes beyond thought (Is that a thought about the Tao?). The Tao cannot be spoken (Who said that?).

Lastly, you say that a puff a Greek logic refutes thousands of years of eastern thought according to me. This is fallacious. Never mind that you're making it out to be like a David vs Goliath situation. Thats just plain silly.

Proinsias wrote:That it doesn't add much I will grant you, but it does allow for a lot of possibility and covers the basics. I always took it as sleep, eat and figure the rest out for yourself. The idea that giving any more advice than that was likely to be as much a barrier to truth as it was an aid.

Well, it doesn't add ANYTHING. Its simply apathetic. Again, possibility doesn't give you truth value.

For example, its possible that if you jump tomorrow (or right now if you want) that you won't come back. Instead you'll keep going up into the atmosphere.
I mean, you can BELIEVE that if you want. However, even if it were true or false, that doesn't mean your belief is rational.

jlay:

I'm not sure I see a clear distinction. If TRUTH is what people SHOULD do or put in place to make things more orderly and thus BETTER it seems to paint truth as more of an opinion or subjective truth. That order is BETTER than chaos is also more in line with a point of view than capital letter truth, in many strains of thought order and chaos are seen as mutually arising and co-dependant, you don't get one without the other and to say one is better than the other is really venturing away from objectivity and nearer towards picking a favourite colour. As the most brutal societies throughout history have shown the want to produce a BETTER order the way things SHOULD be has often resulted in suffering on a scale I can scarcely imagine, much of it no doubt due to the notion that they were not doing wrong as they were not being driven by personal greed or the desire to harm for personal pleasure but for the greater good.

Dom,

Thanks, my health is improving.

In my previous post I didn't say I would demonstrate your errors and the likeness to the ontological argument I said: "The proof is not very satisfying to myself, that is not to say that I will easily disassemble your position and show your errors but more that much like the ontological argument, it seems a little thin." I can't pick apart Anslem's ontological argument either but it's still not very convincing.

It is like I have said along with other philosophers "You cannot deny it without affirming it".

I suppose the big question is why one should bother doing either. Why take the time to answer a question which answers itself, and what truths does a question that answers itself contain. As is often claimed all metaphysical systems become circular at some point.

All thats left is finding out if its true or false

How do we determine a question is worthy of having only two answers, true or false?

Well, you seem to advocate that objective and relative truth can co-exist, and I still disagree with you on the metaphysics there. You've yet to define a metaphysics structure for my to scrutinize. You've thrown 1 word out there so far you haven't defined called "probability" or "possibility" and you've yet to tell me how that idea relates to the world we live in.

I'm not so much advocating that objective and relative truth can co-exist, more that either view is an extremist position on the nature of truth.

Probability and possibility relate to how we interpret the world. Our expectations for the future and our ideas about how things came to be. Ideas for which we have warrant to believe that don't convince others looking at the same evidence - the obvious implication of design, that life obviously evolved, that the universe obviously had a beginning whilst God obviously didn't begin, the obvious need for a creator, or the obvious absence of one.
We don't know what is going to happen or what has happened but we spend out lives making educated guesses. Capturing the moment is more in realm of art.

1. Narrative is implicit of a narrator, and this carries a presupposition that the narrator cannot make an error in observation and thought. In other words, its not a description at all. Its a perspective that is perverting the propositions.

I don't think it does imply that the narrator cannot make an error in observation and thought. How does one determine that perspective is not perverting the propositions in a true/false manner? A description is implicit of a describer, or should that be scribe? I'm not sure.
I think it's a bit of stretch to claim that a narrative is not a description at all. I'm struggling to think of an observation I made or story I told that did not involve a description at all.

2. Satisfies is arbitrary. Suppose that no observations or thoughts can be satisfactory. Knowledge and the subsequent truth therefore can never be known. Thats alethic skepticism.

Satisfies may be arbitrary but it's really all we have. The idea the "he who speaks does not know" is not a claim that truth cannot be known but more that the very idea of conveying truth through speaking, or the written word, is fraught with perspective. The difficulty is not in the knowing truth, it's how one gets to knowing that one knows.

3. Questioner is again implicit of agent to make a judgement call that presupposes that the agent cannot make an error in observation and thought.

I again don't see why it presupposes that the agent cannot make an error in observation and thought. I can see how such a thought process would lead to a warranted belief in an objective judge that cannot make an error.

Surely, its OBJECTIVELY true that you were DUI according to blood drawn from you at the police station. Surely, its OBJECTIVE that in the crash you hit my friend and killed him.

Friends aren't objetive, friends are perspective.

You paint a picture with very few elements, situations are infinitely complex. Imaginary situations with very few specifications are not in my book perfect mirrors of truth. For someone who doesn't value possibility you seem to place a lot of value on hypothetical situations.

You wouldn't be serious in contending to the judge that tire marks, your blood drawn, and the death of my friend is SUBJECTIVE would you? and contend that instead did brake in time, weren't drunk, and my friend is faking his death in a coffin, right?

I would be contending it was subjective, if I was arrested just now for DUI and causing the death of your friend, I would deny it. Regardless of how convincing the evidence and a huge warrant for it's belief that the majority of humanity found satisfactory, I don't think it could override my perspective that "I" didn't do it. Whilst the justice may be administered on probablity I would like to think that the truth would be pursued.

Rather, my dismissal of eastern thought is because its AGAINST reason and CONTRARY to evidence. Namely, it contends that the Tao cannot be known (How do they know that?). The Tao goes beyond thought (Is that a thought about the Tao?). The Tao cannot be spoken (Who said that?).

Legend and historical narrative tells us that someone with a name that sounds a bit like Lao Tzu might have said something a bit like that in what we now call China at some point a long time ago, the tao the ching is the evidence. The general idea from what I gather is that truth is not always objective, reasonable and logical but is often personal and contrary to reason. Deciding to confine the notion of truth to that which conforms to certain standards is a preference.

For example, its possible that if you jump tomorrow (or right now if you want) that you won't come back. Instead you'll keep going up into the atmosphere.
I mean, you can BELIEVE that if you want. However, even if it were true or false, that doesn't mean your belief is rational.

So if I do believe it, it isn't rational and it was true - what would that mean?

Proinsias,

Quite honestly I'm going to charge you with

1) Pragmatism
1A) As a result, you are apathetic to defining what truth is. Therefore, your thoughts are simply pointless until you abandon your absurd philosophy
2) An Existentialist

You are going to need to answer to them.

Watch

Proinsias wrote:In my previous post I didn't say I would demonstrate your errors and the likeness to the ontological argument I said: "The proof is not very satisfying to myself, that is not to say that I will easily disassemble your position and show your errors but more that much like the ontological argument, it seems a little thin." I can't pick apart Anslem's ontological argument either but it's still not very convincing.

Oh, ok, so you can tell what difference is between identity and predication? Great! I'm going to hold you to your admission of this knowledge from here on out.

Proinsias wrote:I suppose the big question is why one should bother doing either.

This is called begging the question.

Proinsias wrote:Why take the time to answer a question which answers itself, and what truths does a question that answers itself contain. As is often claimed all metaphysical systems become circular at some point.

No, it doesn't answer itself. Being rational about how ideas relate and making sure they don't contradict itself anywhere is simply being logical and structurally sound. The metaphysics structure I present is defined and is not begging the question. Its simply being self demonstrative of its rationality. Your metaphysics structure (lack of), does beg the question.

Proinsias wrote:How do we determine a question is worthy of having only two answers, true or false?

Again, this is called begging the question.

The metaphysics demonstrates itself that it is (is of predication) rational that the truth is (is of identity) objective, and that any other metaphysics structure (like the ambiguous one you haven't defined) completely fails and is (is of predication) irrational.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not so much advocating that objective and relative truth can co-exist, more that either view is an extremist position on the nature of truth.

So, then what position should we take on truth? I've yet to hear your argument. Is your position one that we should being skeptical? to what extent? You tell me how its possible to remain "neutral" or "uncommitted" on what the truth is (identity)? Are you saying we should just be agnostic? we shouldn't care what the truth is? Does it matter what the truth is?

Provide your argument, and your justification for your belief.

Proinsias wrote:Probability and possibility relate to how we interpret the world.

I disagree. It doesn't. Probability and possibility correlate to pure baseless speculation in thoughts and observations and events that HAVE NOT and UNCERTAIN as to weather they CAN or WILL OCCUR.

Proinsias wrote:Our expectations for the future and our ideas about how things came to be. Ideas for which we have warrant to believe that don't convince others looking at the same evidence - the obvious implication of design, that life obviously evolved, that the universe obviously had a beginning whilst God obviously didn't begin, the obvious need for a creator, or the obvious absence of one.
We don't know what is going to happen or what has happened but we spend out lives making educated guesses. Capturing the moment is more in realm of art.

Doesn't make any sense.

Proinsias wrote:I don't think it does imply that the narrator cannot make an error in observation and thought. How does one determine that perspective is not perverting the propositions in a true/false manner? A description is implicit of a describer, or should that be scribe? I'm not sure.
I think it's a bit of stretch to claim that a narrative is not a description at all. I'm struggling to think of an observation I made or story I told that did not involve a description at all.

You make this way too easy, Proinsias. Descriptions are FACTS that are indisputable. Narratives are a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events.

You're not seriously saying that a person cannot make an error in observation or thought, are you?

Proinsias wrote:Satisfies may be arbitrary but it's really all we have.

No, its not.

Proinsias wrote:The idea the "he who speaks does not know" is not a claim that truth cannot be known but more that the very idea of conveying truth through speaking, or the written word, is fraught with perspective. The difficulty is not in the knowing truth, it's how one gets to knowing that one knows.

Too easy. How do you know that the above idea of how one knows that he knows is true? Why stop there? How would you know that you know that you know that you know that you know that you know?
Wait a second.....Oh, thats right! This is an argument from infinity. Invoking an infinite absurdity in order to affirm the existence of a relative/plural truth.

Proinsias wrote:I again don't see why it presupposes that the agent cannot make an error in observation and thought. I can see how such a thought process would lead to a warranted belief in an objective judge that cannot make an error.

See above

Proinsias wrote:Friends aren't objetive, friends are perspective.

It doesn't matter how you interpet the proposition. Denying absolute truth is to affirm another absolute truth. Watch.

Proinsias wrote:You paint a picture with very few elements, situations are infinitely complex. Imaginary situations with very few specifications are not in my book perfect mirrors of truth. For someone who doesn't value possibility you seem to place a lot of value on hypothetical situations.

I don't at all. I'm glad you agree with me!

Something can be absolutely true, even if no one knows it.
Something can be absolutely true, even if no one admits it.
Something can be absolutely true, even if no one agrees what it is.

Do you agree?
Look back at page 1
Knowledge does fit criteria.
Knowledge is (1) a belief that is (2) true and (3) has warrant for being believed

So immediately we hit a problem.
If you say you know something, you certainly aren't a relativist.

If the knowledge cannot be known or does not exist.

How would you KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the previous statement is ABSOLUTELY TRUE?

Proinsias wrote:I would be contending it was subjective, if I was arrested just now for DUI and causing the death of your friend, I would deny it.

You would deny it on the grounds that it was subjective? or you would deny it on the ground the the situation is false?

Proinsias wrote:Regardless of how convincing the evidence and a huge warrant for it's belief that the majority of humanity found satisfactory, I don't think it could override my perspective that "I" didn't do it. Whilst the justice may be administered on probablity I would like to think that the truth would be pursued.

Spoken like a true existentialist. Whats your "perspective" on who "I" is (Identity)? Is your perspective absolutely true on the matter?

Who are you, Proinsias? What are you? Do you exist? Do I exist? What exists? What are you CERTAIN about in existence?

Proinsias wrote:The general idea from what I gather is that truth is not always objective, reasonable and logical but is often personal and contrary to reason. Deciding to confine the notion of truth to that which conforms to certain standards is a preference.

Is it absolutely true that the truth is not always objective, reasonable, and logical but is often personal and contrary to reason?

Do you believe this? or are you just informing me of its origin?

Proinsias wrote:So if I do believe it, it isn't rational and it was true - what would that mean?

Believe what? Believe in a proposition that does not yet exist?

I'm not sure I see a clear distinction. If TRUTH is what people SHOULD do or put in place to make things more orderly and thus BETTER it seems to paint truth as more of an opinion or subjective truth. That order is BETTER than chaos is also more in line with a point of view than capital letter truth, in many strains of thought order and chaos are seen as mutually arising and co-dependant, you don't get one without the other and to say one is better than the other is really venturing away from objectivity and nearer towards picking a favourite colour. As the most brutal societies throughout history have shown the want to produce a BETTER order the way things SHOULD be has often resulted in suffering on a scale I can scarcely imagine, much of it no doubt due to the notion that they were not doing wrong as they were not being driven by personal greed or the desire to harm for personal pleasure but for the greater good.

And by what standard do you judge 'brutal' and 'suffering.'
And as Dom pointed out. People following through or failing, or missing it all together has nothing to do with whether it is true in the first place.

I feel like I'm in court

My response to the charges:
1)Pragmatism
I don't know much about it. I did cover a little of Durkheim in anthropology classes a while back and reading the wikipedia page it seems more like of a criticism with a hashed together philosophy and new system of logic shoehorned on. It seems more like an attempt to cast a little doubt in the face of the absolute truth of Descartes " I think Therefore I am".

Descartes is known for this proof. I think, therefore I am. He is right in a sense except he got it backwards. You exist because you think. You don't think because you exist. This is an example of having day cartes before da horse. I thought it was funny, but anyway. I believe it was demonstrated before as so.

Descartes got it backwards? Seems more chicken & egg than horse & cart to me.

1A) As a result, you are apathetic to defining what truth is. Therefore, your thoughts are simply pointless until you abandon your absurd philosophy
I would tend to agree, relative to yourself I'm pretty apathetic in regards to defining truth, I am however rather skeptical of those who proclaim absolute truth in self supporting logical statements. I didn't realise this was an exercise in point scoring, if the rules of the game are that I abandon any notion of absurdity before I'm allowed any points then you're going to win.

2) An Existentialist
I wouldn't call myself an existentialist, and from what I gather that term covers quite a lot of ground. If you're suggesting that I have some existential leaning then, yeah I do. I found worth in Camus' Myth of Sysiphus, although Camus never accepted the label I gather others put this upon him. I've just read Schopenhauer's On the Suffering of the World and also found that of worth and it was apparently a driving force behind the existential movement. Much like the more mainstream philosophies it rests on a lot of arbitrary distinctions. In a more sociological pov I think these sort of philosophies are a reaction to the oppressive nature of philosophical systems in other areas, the rise of these systems of thought may be more accurately measured in their impact in the arts such as painting and sculpture which was previously approached in a more systematic and logical fashion than in the amount of points they score on the scale of absolute truth.
These philosophies do seem to be more of an attempt to translate eastern doctrines into the western philosophical tradition which is never going to be a perfect representation of the original.

This is called begging the question.

Yes, and in my understanding so is the statement "does absolute truth exist?". I've been through this many times on this board and others and many times it does almost come down to begging for an affirmation or denial of absolute truth. Begging to answer a question which has been conceptually set up as two doors to the same room. Answer 'yes' or 'no', 'true' or 'false' and then one can proceed to show why the answer makes no difference. Or the question "do you exist", in my experience it's asked with little interest of what 'you' 'do' and 'existence' might be and simply begging for an affirmation or denial.

No, it doesn't answer itself. Being rational about how ideas relate and making sure they don't contradict itself anywhere is simply being logical and structurally sound. The metaphysics structure I present is defined and is not begging the question. Its simply being self demonstrative of its rationality. Your metaphysics structure (lack of), does beg the question.

I'm not denying it's being logically and structurally sound I'm questioning if what we experience as reality is best expressed in a logical and structural fashion, that at a base level is we are discovering logical and structural truth or simply making an attempt to impose logic and structure upon reality.

That reality should be explained, or is best explained, by logic and structure which is free from contradiction is an opinion from a perspective.

By having a rational explanation which is self demonstrative of it's rationality is to me begging the question.

The metaphysics demonstrates itself that it is (is of predication) rational that the truth is (is of identity) objective, and that any other metaphysics structure (like the ambiguous one you haven't defined) completely fails and is (is of predication) irrational.

You have moved away from the idea that truth is not relative and towards the more positive affirmation that it is objective. Can you explain why rational and logical thought is a hallmark of truth?

So, then what position should we take on truth? I've yet to hear your argument. Is your position one that we should being skeptical? to what extent? You tell me how its possible to remain "neutral" or "uncommitted" on what the truth is (identity)? Are you saying we should just be agnostic? we shouldn't care what the truth is? Does it matter what the truth is?

Provide your argument, and your justification for your belief.

I'm not saying we should remain agnostic or shouldn't care what the truth is, personally I'm fairly agnostic on the issue but I'm not telling you what you should be doing or thinking as I don't know for certain. It seems that relative to each other I have a more open definition of truth than you do but that's really just preference. Whether the future will be better or worse or the afterlife good or bad depending on how we approach truth is anyone's guess, and the deciding factor will also be a matter of perspective.
I don't know if it matters what truth is, how does one prove it matters what truth is without perspective? And what does it mean, beyond personal preference to say that truth matters?

My position is that when we make black and white distinctions it is often folly to put complete faith in them, I would advocate a balance of faith and doubt in all areas of life. If you're happy to make absolute distinctions as long as they appear logical and reasonable from your perspective then go for it. Philosophies are no more true or false than political ideologies or works or art in my opinion. To reject Camus' philospophy as it is absurd is no more truth than to reject modern art due to its absurdity.
I don't know if it's possible to remain neutral or uncommitted. I hear people like yourself claiming objective truths in self supporting rational statements and at the other end of scale people claiming enlightenment. Both claim to have gone beyond the self but the transmission is always laden with their own perspective. Anytime I've felt I've stepped out of time and space has been less than logical and rational and anytime I've felt anything close to what I've heard described as enlightenment vanishes pretty quickly and like a dream slips though the fingers by the minute.

domokunrox wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Probability and possibility relate to how we interpret the world.

I disagree. It doesn't. Probability and possibility correlate to pure baseless speculation in thoughts and observations and events that HAVE NOT and UNCERTAIN as to weather they CAN or WILL OCCUR.

Probability and possibility is not limited to what may occur or what has happened. It is also related to the possibility and probability that current description is the truth of what is happening. As soon as you advance a description of anything past, present or future you enter into the realm of possibility and probability. Pure baseless speculation is an interesting point, most speculation I've come across has some sort of base or an origin that be traced to some degree, classical logic, mathematics and Cartesian faith is as close as I can imagine to baseless speculation. It strikes me as similar to the woman who answered that the earth is supported by a turtle and when asked what was supporting the turtle said "it's turtles all the way down". What supports logic and rationality, it's logic and rationally all the way down.

In a nod to the element of satisfaction Descartes wrote:

"How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world."

Whether one is satisfied by infinity or not, as I gather you are not, is personal preference. To what degree does personal satisfaction influence truth?

Proinsias wrote:Our expectations for the future and our ideas about how things came to be. Ideas for which we have warrant to believe that don't convince others looking at the same evidence - the obvious implication of design, that life obviously evolved, that the universe obviously had a beginning whilst God obviously didn't begin, the obvious need for a creator, or the obvious absence of one.
We don't know what is going to happen or what has happened but we spend out lives making educated guesses. Capturing the moment is more in realm of art.

Doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure it matters that it makes sense to you, where do you draw the line between a belief that has warrant for being believed and a belief that is true?

You make this way too easy, Proinsias. Descriptions are FACTS that are indisputable. Narratives are a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events.

It think we have a fundamental difference in the meaning of a description, if I describe something I am not claiming my description is an indisputable fact that is true, it's just a description, my perspective. To conflate a description with truth and fact is again personal preference in how we approach linguistics.

Too easy. How do you know that the above idea of how one knows that he knows is true? Why stop there? How would you know that you know that you know that you know that you know that you know?
Wait a second.....Oh, thats right! This is an argument from infinity. Invoking an infinite absurdity in order to affirm the existence of a relative/plural truth.

I don't, the question is how do you know what you know and how it can be enforced with self supporting statements like " I think therefore I am" and my faith in logic and reason is based in logic and reason. If you know that know, who's doing the knowing?

Something can be absolutely true, even if no one knows it.
Something can be absolutely true, even if no one admits it.
Something can be absolutely true, even if no one agrees what it is.

Do you agree?

No, first you need to prove absolute truth exists. If nothing can be absolutely true the proposition falls on it's ****.

Knowledge does fit criteria.
Knowledge is (1) a belief that is (2) true and (3) has warrant for being believed

So immediately we hit a problem.
If you say you know something, you certainly aren't a relativist.

I make claims to knowledge, they are not absolute. I know I like ice cream, I'm sure there are many ice creams I would not like.

If the knowledge is a human perspective then what do we make of it?

How would you KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the previous statement is ABSOLUTELY TRUE?

I don't subscribe to that view. If knowledge can be known to what degree can it be known, what is the possibility and probability that you are wrong?

Proinsias wrote:I would be contending it was subjective, if I was arrested just now for DUI and causing the death of your friend, I would deny it.

You would deny it on the grounds that it was subjective? or you would deny it on the ground the the situation is false?

I would deny it on the grounds that I have never driven much less driven under the influence, the evidence must be false in my opinion. That a jury found it to be reasonable and logical I could not deny. That I went to jail for a long time or suffered the death penalty whilst believing it wasn't me, [poop] happens. I'm about halfway through the Malleus Maleficarum at the moment and it's full of killing people with s a self supporting logic which seems madness to my perspective but perfectly logical at the time.

Who are you, Proinsias? What are you? Do you exist? Do I exist? What exists? What are you CERTAIN about in existence?

What is existence? And does it matter?
Proinsias is my online handle and has been for many years, Proinsias exists dependant upon relative notions of existence. It's relative. If the internet vanishes Proinsias does not exist. My meat life name is Gary, I'm not sure if that has objective existence either.\

Proinsias wrote:My response to the charges:
1)Pragmatism
I don't know much about it.

Pragmatism is a philosophy that truth can only be experienced. This is contradictory idea to itself. You can't "experience" thought without invoking metaphysic definitions and recognizing that you are tinkering with ideas to avoid contrary thought.

Also, pragmatists believe that metaphysics cannot be represented because personal experiences are multitudinous beyond imagination, tangled, muddy, painful and perplexed.

This is an argument from infinity and an argument from ignorance.

Proinsias wrote:I would tend to agree, relative to yourself I'm pretty apathetic in regards to defining truth, I am however rather skeptical of those who proclaim absolute truth in self supporting logical statements. I didn't realise this was an exercise in point scoring, if the rules of the game are that I abandon any notion of absurdity before I'm allowed any points then you're going to win.

No, you see you're trying to say that I'm perverting what I see with "perspective"
If you're apathetic. You're practically saying. "I don't know. Don't want to know. Doesn't matter to me."
If you're a skeptic, you're at least asking good fundamental questions that don't go AGAINST reasonable thought.

Its a question that NEEDS to be answered on YOUR BEHALF. If you have an attitude that says "I don't know. Don't want to know. Doesn't matter to me", but then turn around and go "You're wrong."

Thats 2 completely contrary ideas you are flip flopping on. Its intellectually dishonestly and arrogant.

Proinsias wrote:2) An Existentialist
I wouldn't call myself an existentialist, and from what I gather that term covers quite a lot of ground. If you're suggesting that I have some existential leaning then, yeah I do. I found worth in Camus' Myth of Sysiphus, although Camus never accepted the label I gather others put this upon him. I've just read Schopenhauer's On the Suffering of the World and also found that of worth and it was apparently a driving force behind the existential movement. Much like the more mainstream philosophies it rests on a lot of arbitrary distinctions. In a more sociological pov I think these sort of philosophies are a reaction to the oppressive nature of philosophical systems in other areas, the rise of these systems of thought may be more accurately measured in their impact in the arts such as painting and sculpture which was previously approached in a more systematic and logical fashion than in the amount of points they score on the scale of absolute truth.
These philosophies do seem to be more of an attempt to translate eastern doctrines into the western philosophical tradition which is never going to be a perfect representation of the original.

It doesn't cover much ground. Shorthanded, all its saying is that you believe nothing exists. Not even yourself. Is that your belief? We'll find out.

Proinsias wrote:Yes, and in my understanding so is the statement "does absolute truth exist?". I've been through this many times on this board and others and many times it does almost come down to begging for an affirmation or denial of absolute truth. Begging to answer a question which has been conceptually set up as two doors to the same room. Answer 'yes' or 'no', 'true' or 'false' and then one can proceed to show why the answer makes no difference. Or the question "do you exist", in my experience it's asked with little interest of what 'you' 'do' and 'existence' might be and simply begging for an affirmation or denial.

Your understanding is, again, wrong. I didn't ask you if absolute truth exists. I told you it does, and heres why. You see the difference?

You're begging the question and trying to equivocate your self admitted philosophical dishonesty with my philosophy. Its an invalid argument.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not denying it's being logically and structurally sound I'm questioning if what we experience as reality is best expressed in a logical and structural fashion, that at a base level is we are discovering logical and structural truth or simply making an attempt to impose logic and structure upon reality.

In otherwords, your argument is that our thoughts don't come from reality or that reality is too chaotic to enter the realm of our thought, therefore we cannot impose logic or define truth on/from it?
First of all, thats your question. You answer it, and you are responsible for the presuppositions that come with your method.

Saying I don't know, and saying you're wrong are 2 different ideas. One argues from ignorance. The other doesn't.

Proinsias wrote:That reality should be explained, or is best explained, by logic and structure which is free from contradiction is an opinion from a perspective.

No, its not. It may appear trivial, but it isn't an "opinion" or "perspective".
Ideas themselves are indubitable as just ideas.
For example, I think I'm EXPERIENCING a philosophical discussion at godandscience.org
I can doubt the experience
But I can't doubt that I think I'm EXPERIENCING a philosophical discussion at godandscience.org

However, this actually gives us a very special question. Lets see if you ask it.

Proinsias wrote:By having a rational explanation which is self demonstrative of it's rationality is to me begging the question.

No, its not begging the question. You're trying to say its trivial, correct? I would agree. However, I have to be trivial because I'm giving an argument that refutes your pragmatic thought.
In reality, you're wrong if you think its begging the question. David Hume doesn't think its begging the question. David Hume disagrees with you, in fact. Relations of ideas are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.

Proinsias wrote:You have moved away from the idea that truth is not relative and towards the more positive affirmation that it is objective. Can you explain why rational and logical thought is a hallmark of truth?

Is 2 the same as 2?
Yep, the idea of 2 is the same thing as the idea of 2.
Are dreams real?
Of course it is. If you're dreaming, you're having a dream. Thats real.

Any questions that are not begging the question?

Proinsias wrote:I'm not saying we should remain agnostic or shouldn't care what the truth is, personally I'm fairly agnostic on the issue but I'm not telling you what you should be doing or thinking as I don't know for certain. It seems that relative to each other I have a more open definition of truth than you do but that's really just preference. Whether the future will be better or worse or the afterlife good or bad depending on how we approach truth is anyone's guess, and the deciding factor will also be a matter of perspective.
I don't know if it matters what truth is, how does one prove it matters what truth is without perspective? And what does it mean, beyond personal preference to say that truth matters?

Wait a second. Hold the presses.
If you don't know for CERTAIN, then why are you arguing with an absurd philosophy?

If you don't know if it matters what truth is, why are you here? Why are you begging the question to affirm an absurd philosophy that contradicts itself in saying that nobody knows what the truth is?
It doesn't matter if you think its a personal preference on why the truth matters.
By the metaphysics defined, something is true, even if you don't care if it is true. Your position is apathy. Not knowledge.

Proinsias wrote:My position is that when we make black and white distinctions it is often folly to put complete faith in them, I would advocate a balance of faith and doubt in all areas of life. If you're happy to make absolute distinctions as long as they appear logical and reasonable from your perspective then go for it. Philosophies are no more true or false than political ideologies or works or art in my opinion.

This is an illicit process. Philosophy is not the predication of politics or works of art by any stretch.

Proinsias wrote:To reject Camus' philospophy as it is absurd is no more truth than to reject modern art due to its absurdity.

Rejecting your truth on the basis of rejecting modern art is another illicit process.

Proinsias wrote:I don't know if it's possible to remain neutral or uncommitted. I hear people like yourself claiming objective truths in self supporting rational statements and at the other end of scale people claiming enlightenment. Both claim to have gone beyond the self but the transmission is always laden with their own perspective. Anytime I've felt I've stepped out of time and space has been less than logical and rational and anytime I've felt anything close to what I've heard described as enlightenment vanishes pretty quickly and like a dream slips though the fingers by the minute.

Where did I claim I went "beyond the self" to claim objective truth? You're presupposing that someone has to go "beyond the self" in order to claim objective truth? Define it. What is "beyond the self"? Its your metaphysics. Tell me what you KNOW and how it relates to IDEAS.

Proinsias wrote:Probability and possibility is not limited to what may occur or what has happened. It is also related to the possibility and probability that current description is the truth of what is happening. As soon as you advance a description of anything past, present or future you enter into the realm of possibility and probability. Pure baseless speculation is an interesting point, most speculation I've come across has some sort of base or an origin that be traced to some degree, classical logic, mathematics and Cartesian faith is as close as I can imagine to baseless speculation. It strikes me as similar to the woman who answered that the earth is supported by a turtle and when asked what was supporting the turtle said "it's turtles all the way down". What supports logic and rationality, it's logic and rationally all the way down.

You have to have a foundation for knowledge. Descartes began that foundation. All of it is logical, not baseless speculation. Do you have specific objections against Descartes conclusion to get out of the realm of solipsism? Go ahead and present your argument against.

Proinsias wrote:In a nod to the element of satisfaction Descartes wrote:

"How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world."

Whether one is satisfied by infinity or not, as I gather you are not, is personal preference. To what degree does personal satisfaction influence truth?

You misunderstood him. He says that ACTUAL infinity does not exist in reality. Calling truth ACTUALLY infinite is arbitrary and completely baseless aside from saying you don't know, therefore it must be infinite. (Argument from ignorance and infinity)
Infinity does not exist. Proven fact. Lookup Hilbert's hotel.

Descartes doesn't give you a cop out. If you don't know what the truth is, thats because you've made an error. Not logic, not science.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not sure it matters that it makes sense to you, where do you draw the line between a belief that has warrant for being believed and a belief that is true?

No, it does matter. Because IF ITS TRUE, then its TRUE FOR ME, too. It logically follows. However, that isn't the case. If something doesn't exist in understanding, it doesn't exist in reality. But if you've failed to understand something because you can't understand it, that is YOUR ERROR in application of logic and science. What makes you conclude something so absurd that because you don't understand it, therefore its infinite or doesn't exist? Instead of saying "Well, I must not have done it right"?

Proinsias wrote:It think we have a fundamental difference in the meaning of a description, if I describe something I am not claiming my description is an indisputable fact that is true, it's just a description, my perspective. To conflate a description with truth and fact is again personal preference in how we approach linguistics.

If you want to approach linguistics, you'd still be wrong. You'd be guilty of the misrepresentational fallacy. A description is not a perspective. If you apply your perspective, you've perverted the propositional value. Therefore, has no truth bearers, and you have voided it.

Proinsias wrote:I don't, the question is how do you know what you know and how it can be enforced with self supporting statements like " I think therefore I am" and my faith in logic and reason is based in logic and reason. If you know that know, who's doing the knowing?

Nope, doesn't work that way. Descartes isn't arguing from infinity because it STOPS. What am I CERTAIN about if I doubt everything?

A thing that thinks. Its cannot be doubted.
I have ideas. They cannot be doubted as ideas. The ideas are real as ideas.

From here, we can ask a very special question so that we can know truth. Again, we'll see if you get it.

Proinsias wrote:No, first you need to prove absolute truth exists. If nothing can be absolutely true the proposition falls on it's ****.

First, I need to prove God exists with just my mind. You interested?

Proinsias wrote:I make claims to knowledge, they are not absolute. I know I like ice cream, I'm sure there are many ice creams I would not like.

This is an illicit process. Knowing absolute truth IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH related to knowing what ice cream you like. Watch.

I do not know X
But I do know Y
Therefore, not X

Proinsias wrote:I don't subscribe to that view. If knowledge can be known to what degree can it be known, what is the possibility and probability that you are wrong?

Nope, thats begging the question. You're trying to equivocate an example of a circular argument to knowledge itself, and heres a good rational question we could ask. How would you KNOW that KNOWLEDGE AS A WHOLE is circular? We're back at square 1, Proinsias.

Proinsias wrote:I would deny it on the grounds that I have never driven much less driven under the influence, the evidence must be false in my opinion. That a jury found it to be reasonable and logical I could not deny. That I went to jail for a long time or suffered the death penalty whilst believing it wasn't me, [poop] happens. I'm about halfway through the Malleus Maleficarum at the moment and it's full of killing people with s a self supporting logic which seems madness to my perspective but perfectly logical at the time.

Oh, so, you're saying you would deny it because its impossible, right? Wow, this gets even worse for you. In otherwords, you admit that possibilities don't reflect reality in any way. Got it!

Proinsias wrote:What is existence? And does it matter?
Proinsias is my online handle and has been for many years, Proinsias exists dependant upon relative notions of existence. It's relative. If the internet vanishes Proinsias does not exist. My meat life name is Gary, I'm not sure if that has objective existence either.\

We come full circle. You're an existentialist or begging the question. Then you're apathetic or begging the question.
Proinsias exists objectively here. Its not relative. Regardless of perspective, or weather anyone else who used the internet came to Godandscience.org to verify Proinsias exists, Proinsias exists objectively. It is indisputable, even if the internet vanished. Because if the internet vanishes, we never assumed Proinsias or the internet would exist tomorrow because it didn't matter. I will remember proinsias, everyone here will remember proinsias, everyone who didn't come here to remember proinsias, proinsias objectively existed, and its indisputable that proinsias' existed here at godandscience.org

As for "meatlife gary", you're not sure if he exists? Not being sure if "meatlife gary" exists isn't proof that "meatlife gary" doesn't exist. Thats just an argument from ignorance.

Basically, you're saying that you deny that your mind is part of spatial extension. I suppose thats all you're left with, Solipsism. Would you like confirmation of "meatlife gary's" real existence by just your mind alone?

Do you understand what perfection is?