Evidence for God from Science

Adding in "for x" doesn't qualify propositional value. That would be merely smuggling in a perspective and tagging it at the end.

At that point, the question is no longer looking for a description because it has shifted its focus on conforming to a perspective.

As for a moral standpoint, it still applies. "For situation x" would simply pervert the propositional value it could have had by forcing it to be viewed by the proposed perspective and it presupposes that the judgement call made by the agent cannot make an error.

I have to admit that this one is quite hard to digest and brain dazzling.

I will start with a question:

How can you actually know what is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH without any reference point prior to the existence of TRUTH?
What I am trying to say (hopefully it makes sense) is that even if you try to define TRUTH in an objective/absolute manner you don't have the tools to do so.

How can you actually know what is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH without any reference point prior to the existence of TRUTH?

Knowing what is, is an important question.

I think you need rephrase the question. What do you mean by, "reference point prior to the existence of truth? "

What I am trying to say (hopefully it makes sense) is that even if you try to define TRUTH in an objective/absolute manner you don't have the tools to do so.

So then, I take it we can safely say that your statement is NOT true. Since you are 'trying' to make a truth statement.


How can we know a triangle is triangular?

How can we know a triangle is triangular?

Good point. This is similar to a dilemma: Is the reality we live in real or do we just perceive it as being real?

As domokunrox said in his first post, TRUTH is related to the the reality we live in.
But in order to make a connection between truth and reality, you have to be able to define both of them.

So how do you actually know that a triangle is triangular?
You probably don't, unless you use a relative truth.

What do you mean by, "reference point prior to the existence of truth? "

It's quite hard to explain, but I will try. The way we define reality is through empirical axioms mainly based on observation and/or measurements.
It's like the same thing with the triangle: how do you know that a triangle is triangular? There is an axiom saying that, but an axiom is a truth accepted as it is and not demonstrated.
My personal opinion is that in order to actually be able to generate/issue/understand an ABSOLUTE TRUTH is being able to offer non-empirical proof demonstrating an axiom.

BryanH wrote:

How can we know a triangle is triangular?

Good point. This is similar to a dilemma: Is the reality we live in real or do we just perceive it as being real?

As domokunrox said in his first post, TRUTH is related to the the reality we live in.
But in order to make a connection between truth and reality, you have to be able to define both of them.

So how do you actually know that a triangle is triangular?
You probably don't, unless you use a relative truth.

What do you mean by, "reference point prior to the existence of truth? "

It's quite hard to explain, but I will try. The way we define reality is through empirical axioms mainly based on observation and/or measurements.
It's like the same thing with the triangle: how do you know that a triangle is triangular? There is an axiom saying that, but an axiom is a truth accepted as it is and not demonstrated.
My personal opinion is that in order to actually be able to generate/issue/understand an ABSOLUTE TRUTH is being able to offer non-empirical proof demonstrating an axiom.

Are you alive?
-
-
-

Are you alive?

I can only prove that I am alive using my senses thus an empirical method. You can't prove you are alive otherwise.

Byran, thank you for your participation here.

The first thing I notice is that you're struggling with linguistics rather then focus on the value. If we argue linguistics, it gets messy and dry, but we get the same results. Linguistics are added in for our convienence because its easier to communicate in that manner. Unless you want to destroy thousands of years of highly developed language only to learn that you're arguing misrepresentations of metaphysics when there is no such thing? Believe me, don't argue misrepresentations in metaphysics unless you need to refute CLEARLY catogory errors in identities. It takes lots of time and we end up finding out that we got the correct descriptions and wasted our time when we are talking as properly relations in ideas.

You say that there is an axiom that is accepted as true and AS IS. Not demonstrated. It sounds like you don't know that axioms can indeed be demonstrated but generally aren't because its gets messy. I will show you why.

You say that "in my personal opinion" (spoken like a true relativist), in order to understand an absolute, an axiom should be able to be proven in a non-empirical fashion.

First of all, you defeated yourself right off the bat. Because I have to ask, is your statement true? See, the problem here is that you've basically affirmed relativism except for the statement you just made. You expect us to just accept it, and not remain consistent? Truth denying is to affirm another truth. Hence, you cannot deny it without affirming it. Greek philosophers battled this relativism for years, and guess who won that? It wasn't pretty. Believe me, pretty sure there was quite a few demonstrations with death involved.

But anyway, I will go ahead and demonstrate what you ask. Although, I wonder why exactly you demand a non-empirical demonstration.

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.

Do you think?
Yes
You exist

When you are alone:
Do you think?
No answer
You don't exist

Let's take the linguistics out

You E, therefore T MUST OCCUR
Hence
No E, therefore T CANNOT OCCUR

From here we can demonstrate an empirical proof for absolute claims

For example, if you confirm that you are in a state of not in pain. When I kick you hard in the shins, are you in a state of in pain or not in pain?
In pain
Is being in pain the SAME as not in pain?



You might as this point punch me in the nose and ask, is that being in pain?
Yes
Is being in pain the same as not being in pain

Here it is without the linguistics:

You are in S of NOT P, if I K you, is that the same as in the S of P or NOT P?

Clearly not, and this is how we demonstrate the law or non-contradiction. 2 ideas CANNOT BE TRUE at the SAME TIME and SAME SENSE.

So,let's get to this triangular triangle thing. You said

You probably don't (again, spoken like a true relativist), unless you use a relative truth?

I mean, you defeated yourself. Twice actually. You might have even contradicted yourself twice depending on if you read it the way you want us to read it.

But the objection simply self destructs. Is that statement absolutely true?

You see, the problem here and you don't quite see it yet. Is to be a true relativist. You have to say that you don't know anything. Man in ignorance. Not man in enlightenment.

In otherwords, argument from ignorance. Its a fallacy. I find it quite amusing that thoughts on their own refute relativism.

BryanH wrote:

Are you alive?

I can only prove that I am alive using my senses thus an empirical method. You can't prove you are alive otherwise.

I want you to empirically prove that this thought exists. Good luck.

First of all I would like to say that Iam not near your level in philosophy and logic so bare with me and my not so academical choice of words.

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.

You can't actually say

You EXIST because you THINK.


My explanation for not accepting your statement:

1) Axiom: In order for you to EXIST your parents did some "THINKING" for you first.
2) Therefore in terms of timeline and causality, you don't EXIST because you THINK, but you THINK because you EXIST.

Hopefully I will make some sense with this. So I think that Descartes got it right.

No problem, bryan.

Descartes is right in the sense that his existence is unaware of what he is. Just a thinker. That's what he started with and wanted to prove. He wanted to prove his reasoning all the way down to the just the thought as principal.

If you however are selfaware, you have to recognize that you need to exist BEFORE you think. Hence, its why I gave you the next set. You E (exist), therefore T (thinking) MUST OCCUR.

If you can prove you exist, you can prove your thoughts necessarily follow. No need to get it backwards and cause all sorts of existence arguments. That's what I was getting at. Sorry if I confused you over a joke.

1) Appeal to authority has nothing to do with existence. Its backwards. Something MUST exist in order for it to commit the appeal to authority.
2) I am just going to assume the joke confused you.

I am not sure why you can't accept existence and the subsequent thought. The entirely point is that you recognize that you do in fact exist objectively and you think with a working mind. You asked how we know if we in fact are in reality and not just a what we would call a boltzman brain.

BryanH wrote:

Are you alive?

I can only prove that I am alive using my senses thus an empirical method. You can't prove you are alive otherwise.

Then, you are not dead?
-
-
-

No problem, bryan.

Descartes is right in the sense that his existence is unaware of what he is. Just a thinker. That's what he started with and wanted to prove. He wanted to prove his reasoning all the way down to the just the thought as principal.

If you however are selfaware, you have to recognize that you need to exist BEFORE you think. Hence, its why I gave you the next set. You E (exist), therefore T (thinking) MUST OCCUR.

If you can prove you exist, you can prove your thoughts necessarily follow. No need to get it backwards and cause all sorts of existence arguments. That's what I was getting at. Sorry if I confused you over a joke.

1) Appeal to authority has nothing to do with existence. Its backwards. Something MUST exist in order for it to commit the appeal to authority.
2) I am just going to assume the joke confused you.

I am not sure why you can't accept existence and the subsequent thought. The entirely point is that you recognize that you do in fact exist objectively and you think with a working mind. You asked how we know if we in fact are in reality and not just a what we would call a boltzman brain.

I got your joke. But as I said, I don't have your academic background. I am specialized in something else which is close to your field.

Now getting back to the point.

You are saying that a relative statement is in contradiction with itself based on the fact that relativeness is not applied to that same statement.

2 ideas CANNOT BE TRUE at the SAME TIME and SAME SENSE

Yes they can. Let me give you an example: hope it makes sense.

1) I see the world.
2) You see the world.
3) What I see is true.
4) What you see is true.

Do we both see the same thing? I sincerely doubt it (please accept this statement from a psychological point of view, rather than the mechanics of seeing things)

First of all, you defeated yourself right off the bat. Because I have to ask, is your statement true? See, the problem here is that you've basically affirmed relativism except for the statement you just made. You expect us to just accept it, and not remain consistent? Truth denying is to affirm another truth.

Since my statement is relative it doesn't actually matter if it is true or not. It's relative forgot? I didn't say anything about my statement being true or not.

But please take in consideration the following possibility: a relative truth is still a truth which has a value may it be true or false or both at the same time.
The fact that a truth is relative doesn't mean that it should also have an absolute value.

I think that my main point here is that you can't have access to an absolute truth because you don't have access to the BIG PICTURE.

It's like the story with the swans: if count 1 million swans and they are all white, does it mean that that all swans are white?

I understand the topic of this discussion, but at present, neither you or me has access to BIG(ger) picture.

I guess that what I want to say is that discussion is pretty much pointless at this given time because we have little knowledge about so many things.

Another thing is that you can't apply logic to prove all your statements. You can't actually use one measure for all things. At least anyways, not yet.

I am not sure why you can't accept existence and the subsequent thought. The entirely point is that you recognize that you do in fact exist objectively and you think with a working mind. You asked how we know if we in fact are in reality and not just a what we would call a boltzman brain.

This is more like a metaphysics discussion because I don't think you can prove that you exist without using an analogy or empirical proof. It's kind of hard to explain in words how such a demonstration would actually take place, but it would probably require for a human being to have access to "divine power"

BryanH,

Does life and death exist?
-
-
-

BryanH,

Does life and death exist?

As I said to you before: from an empirical point of view life and death exist, but it might be a relative concept.

But the issue remains: we have little knowledge about life and death at this point so saying that L&D exist, well, it's relative at this point in time.

Again we come back at the same example with the swans: counting 1 millionw white swans doesn't mean that all swans are white.

Bryan,

Are you a psychologist? Or student in? You're going to need to go against everything your professors taught you in order to understand the field of philosophy. Whatever your field is, its not even close. Relativism is a well taught idea here in in the US due to how diverse our country is. Professors in the field of psychology have been teaching political correctness under the shroud of tolerance.

True tolerance is freedom to disagree with one another by peaceful means. It is NOT acceptance of other views as truth. Today, these professors in various fields of studies have been attacking absolutists with calling us intolerant bigots, hate groups, etc.

So again, if you want to learn, Byran, you are going to need to take everything your professors told you and throw it all in the trash. Your education system has unfortunately failed you by telling you that if you think you the true description of something, that there are lots of others who have their own descriptions and they got the truth too even if its completely contrary to yours.

So, let's go on here. With your example of 2 ideas being true at the same time and same sense.

You ask, do we both see the same thing? We absolutely do. You sincerely doubt it, but you are sincerely wrong. What you're trying to illustrate is that we have different perspectives, therefore we can't see things objectively. That's fallacious. Again, I have to ask is it absolutely true that because we have different perspectives, we therefore cannot view the world objectively?

If no, then the statement admits that its false. Discard it.
If yes, then the statement contradicts itself and attempts to persuade us to make only one exception to it (itself, which is fallacious)

But then you present door number 3, it doesn't have to be true or false. Its relative, remember?
Again, in true relativist fashion. You basically admit ignorance. You don't affirm knowledge.
Knowledge fits criteria
Knowledge is a belief (if you don't believe your own statement, why should I?) that is true (if you dont say it is THE truth, its false), and has warrant for being believed (if you can't offer evidence, you've lost any hope of credibility).

All 3 must be present in order to claim knowledge.

You actually make a claim to warrant your belief you don't want to admit is true. However, you start off by saying "please look at the possibility". Possibilities are NOT CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE! This is EXACTLY what I expected! You don't KNOW anything, you don't have the integrity to admit it, but you still want me accept your propositions have value even though I just proved you want me to conform to your perspective and that's all you wanted! You don't care if its true or not.

A relative "truth" carries absolutely no value at all. Once you pervert a proposition, you've essentially done the equivalent of writing VOID on a check or try to pay with funny money.

However, let's go ahead to your main point. Now this one really floored me. You make this statement:

You don't have access to absolute truth because you don't have access to the BIGGER picture?

Wow, groundbreaking, Byran. You have done your relativist homework very good. A simple word substitution does not fool me, however. I have to ask, Byran. "Access" is analogous to "know". Example, I do not have access to this computer, therefore I cannot KNOW what information is on it.

Its an interesting statement, but how do you KNOW that we don't have "access" to the "bigger picture" (excluding this statement) and subsequently we don't have "access" to absolute knowledge? (Double whammy).

Again, is this absolutely true, Bryan? Somehow, you got a peep at the "bigger picture" for maybe a few seconds and came back to tell us that we can do what you just did, but trust you on this ONE EXCEPTION that nothing is absolutely true?

This is mind boggling. We're glad you came back alive to give us this important piece of information. You've came back with good news, however. That we don't have access, yet. Is science or empirical statistics working hard at finding these absolute truths? Or the powers of our imagination?

You know what, Bryan? I take back what I said earlier. You last statements floored me.

You said that we can't we exist without an analogy or empirical proof (or at least you THINK so) and that a demonstration would require humans to access a "divine power" (or at least PROBABLY it does).

I will tell you what, Bryan. Let's go ahead and do it with pure logic. I will blow your mind here. However, let's get something straight here. Let's be completely consistent with being skeptical. Let's be skeptical of EVERYTHING. Even our senses. Because it could be possible that what we see is a complete trick from evil gnomes and sprites are actually making realistic sounding noises near our ears like that guy from police academy.

If you doubt everything and anything.

WHO is doing the doubting?

I await your answer.