|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
C5 |
Nmaginate: (Oh... and Khalilallah...
"What if"... aka hypothetical, non-reality based statements are not arguments.) Whose reality? Yours? Are you defining my reality and that of others? Nmaginate: (What if... What if... What if you were INTELLIGENT???) Then I would still be smarter than you, lol. "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
A1 |
quote: This statement by MBM implies that there would be no purpose for debate as there would exist no credible benchmark for determing truth and hence, who is right or most right or wrong or mostly wrong. ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America |
|||
|
A1 |
quote:So you are saying that since people can levitate and since things can be made to orbit... that "gravity" is not universal. Regardless, Gravity is still in the equation. It doesn't go anywhere when someone levitates. In fact it still pulls on them. They just have the ability to defy it for some period of time. It's just like having a bowel movement. You can hold it sometimes long enough for you to get to facilities. But sooner or later... you're gonna have to take a seat. BM's are universal... and so is gravity... When you can find a scientific equation that defies what we know as gravity and does not allow for or calculate for gravity then you might be on to something. But by ALL accounts any scientific endeavour on this planet earth - the human universe - gravity is accounted for and recognized as universal. -------------------------- MBM... Your two people, two perspectives idea does not negate that they are observing the same phenomenon. Just because they describe it differently does not make it, whatever it is into two different things. |
|||
|
Founder |
quote: So, who judges the truthfulness of the perspective? Either of the parties? Some arbitrary judge looking down upon them? Who? How? If it's some third party, won't their perspective color their judgment of the truth as well? quote: Isn't the true fact that there are competing truths? Why must there be singular truth? Why must it be binary? Could not the truth be that both truths are true?  quote: False. I contend no such thing. I define a universal truth to be something that was, is, and will always be. In that instance there is no debate about the truth, per se. There can only be a debate about the perception of that truth. What you are attempting to label a "truth" perhaps is only an observation. |
|||
|
A1 |
There is so much here to address I just grabbed.
Kahlilallah: ________________________________________________ Which means that there is one absolute truth, one Universal Truth. That there is no Universal Truth. ________________________________________________ I thought we were on the same wavelength. You accepted all the laws of physical science and mathmaics. Then you turn around and say,"... there is no universal truth." It is my understanding that the laws of physical science and mathmatics have thus far been found be, and are accepted as, irrefutable, and therefore universal. MBM: I may be wrong here, I didn't check for practical application. I always thought the reason for concern about the theft of fissionable materials was the ability produce other materials that could be used in nuclear weaponry. That would be a practical appication. I know for certain that fission reactors are preferred method of nuclear energy, because they can produce other nuclear material, I think fusion material. The reason fission plants are not use is because of they so hazardous. They can't get cited. I also think fission is being used to produce nuclear material on a practical, and continuing basis. It's a small point in a mountain of material, but should not be allowed to stand simply because of the inaccuracy. Excuse me for interrupting. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: Just curious... Would you apply that idea to a "debate" such as one's we've had here with say the Protest Warrior crowd on an issue like AA? Would you say that neither side is telling or has a firmer grasp on the truth? The problem with this is that those whole discussion has remained in the abstract for the most part. Anyway... MBM, I would be interested in your answer. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Nmaginate: So you are saying that since people can levitate and since things can be made to orbit... that "gravity" is not universal.
I am actually saying that you can dictate what is true to you, but not necessarily true to another. What you may call gravity could be known as an act of a diety. What we know as gravity could later be replaced with another theory... Nmaginate: Regardless, Gravity is still in the equation. It doesn't go anywhere when someone levitates. In fact it still pulls on them. They just have the ability to defy it for some period of time. Until the next scientist comes up with different evidence. That still does not change its designation as only a truth since it can never be universal. Nmaginate: It's just like having a bowel movement. You can hold it sometimes long enough for you to get to facilities. But sooner or later... you're gonna have to take a seat. BM's are universal... and so is gravity... Actually it is not. Some actually can not do so (take a s&@t)and they end up dying. Nmaginate: When you can find a scientific equation that defies what we know as gravity and does not allow for or calculate for gravity then you might be on to something. But by ALL accounts any scientific endeavour on this planet earth - the human universe - gravity is accounted for and recognized as universal. That is like saying, until you can prove that the Earth is round, the flatness of the Earth will be universal. You see, nature will always be defined by humans. Truths about nature will never be universal. Case in point, hot water springs were thought to be inhospitable to life and yet many years later, they find bacteria... Scientific law was changed yet again. -------------------------- MBM... Your two people, two perspectives idea does not negate that they are observing the same phenomenon. Just because they describe it differently does not make it, whatever it is into two different things. A sun to you may be a diety to another, a chariot perhaps. Apollo? So if your truth about things goes against another societies beliefs, does it make their version of truth, no longer truth? "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: No. Perspectives are extremely dynamic. Two people debating, hopefully, are impacting each others' perspectives. They are learning and growing. People change their minds every day based upon new information to them. What is "right" for them changes. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM:
Am I correct in understanding that your position is that if the human becomes involved the univesality of any truth is compromised? You are saying that all the laws of nature cannot be laws of nature because they were discovered by the human mind!! The human mind is a contaminating agent to the validity of irrefutable truth. Therefore, there can never be the discovery of a universal truth because it will not longer be applicable across the spectrum of the universal. Negation by the human mind. Or are you saying the law, the truth, still works, but it is simply no longer universal. I'm going back to read your posts in this thread. My conclusions are contrary to the reasoning you usaully demonstrate. It seems like you are off-track. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
posted August 21, 2003 12:39 PM
There is so much here to address I just grabbed. Kahlilallah: ________________________________________________ Which means that there is one absolute truth, one Universal Truth. That there is no Universal Truth. ________________________________________________ James Wesley Chester : I thought we were on the same wavelength. You accepted all the laws of physical science and mathmaics. Then you turn around and say,"... there is no universal truth." No, my position has always been that truth is based on human perception. Since human perception is never the same, there will always be different versions of truth. No matter how far off they may turn out, still, it is truth in their minds. James Wesley Chester: It is my understanding that the laws of physical science and mathmatics have thus far been found be, and are accepted as, irrefutable, and therefore universal. They are irrefutable until another discovery is made or technology changes things. Science once believed the Earth was flat, they then believed it was irrefutable. Then you have scientists who can come up with a different plausable theory. That theory could be seen as law in his country. What would happen then? This is very much like conventional medicine versus alternative medicine. One thinks the other is wrong. Each believes theirs is irrefutable science. "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
What we know as gravity could later be replaced with another theory...
AND... on the other hand, it could NOT! So what's your point? I can call gravity by any other name and can attribute it to anything I like but that doesn't change what it is. About BM's... Well the fact that those that some are not able to perform that necessary function for life... does not negate that it eventually happens. Could you tell me what it is that the die from? I think it has something to do with those involuntary functions we know as bowel movements... It is the BM, by whatever technical term you want to use that poisons then eventually kills... The function is and does gonna happen. That's universal. If it doesn't happen properly you die. That's universal. "One of the things that made the Black Muslim movement grow was its emphasis upon things African. This was the secret to the growth of the Black Muslim movement. *African blood, African origin, African culture, African ties.* And you'd be surprised... We discovered that deep within the subconscious of the black man in this country , he is still more African than he is American. - Malcolm X, February 14, 1965 |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM, the ultimate judge is the universe and its natural laws. That is what I keep saying. Newton's third law of motion in the universe is that every action creates an equal and opposite reaction. I recently read a simplified version, which says: One cannot touch without being touched back in the universe. This has always been a truth in the universe, but mankind was learned to discover, qualify and quantity this phenomenon mathematically and scientifically. Thus, what was once conjecture, hypothesis and or philosophy, later being a PROOF.
Thus, in this context the judge of truth is the ability to map it to the logic of the universe. Without doing that, there is no anchor for ones proposition. Logical deduction and induction starts with what is known and makes logical inferences from the facts. For example: If A = B and B = C, it therefore logical holds truth that A = C, via logical deduction of the given facts. Simply replacing the variable with some entity can PROVE this. Thus, the MEASURE or benchmark of truth starts from what is KNOWN to be true and can be proven as truth. All else builds from that point. So your proposition that there is not impartial judge is incorrect, for the laws of nature is the impartial judge, jury and executioner. Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America |
|||
|
|
C5 |
What I am trying to impress upon everyone is that we define what is truth.
What is true today, may not be true tomorrow. Especially when human ingenuity in discovering new facts about nature. There is so much that we have yet to know and for us to sit here and define universal truth goes well beyond what we should be capable of. All that we can define is the truth, never the universal truth. If I were to define universal truth according to my religion. I would say that Allah is the universal truth, everyone just don't know it yet. "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Yes. For all practical purposes, I believe that there are two truths there. I think they believe their position as deeply and honestly and sincerely as we do. Based upon their life experience and world view, they believe everything that they say. Because we have a very different perspective, we see things very differently. Progress and growth occurs only if both parties seek to understand other perspectives and see the truths inherent in those other views. Whether there are higher truths on any one particular side of an issue is of little practical relevance if you can't communicate that through the perspective of an opposing view. |
|||
|
C1 |
Kahlilallah writes:
quote: What is "truth"? Who defines it? Is truth universal? Conditional? Is there only one truth or many? What do you think? Coming into the subject on the 7th page and not reading all the postings, I am adding my two cents which maybe repeating what someone else has already said. I do like what I have read by various posters including the above quote. Truth is what YOU have defined in your mind to be explicit. Truth can be what you have been told, seen an example of and concluded because it conforms with your reality. Not all that is true is the truth. For example, I grew up believing my grandfather was mean. As an adult, I revisited this notion in writing about him and realized what I thought for the past 25 years was true but not the truth. I knew his adult children were afraid of him as well as my grandmother by their actions, " don't tell Daddy", "Daddy doesn't know", " Daddy would not approve" and to hear my grandfather raise his voice or see him frown in disapproval and see others reaction confirmed this for me as a child. Based on their reality he was mean. But for me, I set out to list the mean things he did to me. Hmm, I use to run down the road to meet him coming home from work at the mill. I would carry his lunch bucket the rest of the way home and he always had a Twinkie left for me. Well, I can't consider that mean. Did he ever beat me? NO. I use to comb his hair and I loved doing this. I know it had to be annoying to have a little girl climbing all over you as she combed and parted your hair over and over again. I use to sit out on the porch swing with my grandfather and tell him all I knew. Then, he would go inside and the house would be in an uproar with him ranting and raving. Little did I know I was telling all my aunts', uncles' and mother's secrets that he wasn't suppose know. I concluded, from being around them I had accepted their truth as mine. The statement "Grandfather is mean" is true for them (his children) but not for me. Therefore, truth is also conditional on your reality, which means there is more than one truth. Universal truth requires more thought. The more I think about the phrase "Universal truth" it brings to mind physical components of my environment that doesn't disappear. Such as, the clouds in the sky, the ocean, revolving of the earth, the sun and the moon that can be describe by scientific theory. I am also inclined to think spiritually. As a Christian, God represents universal truth for me. So yes, truth IS universal. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: How can you confuse THEORY which does not purport to be absolute with what are in fact, FACTS, that by every scientific measure are proven. You keep using hypotheticals... Deal with what IS! Scientist are careful to list what is TRUTH and what is THEORY and make a distinction between the two. When you say "what if", "maybe" you are talking about at least TWO distinct possibilities. One is what might be if it changes... the other is that things can simply stay the same. So you are in now wise able to make a strong case for the one without allowing for the other. In other words it's a toss-up which nobody knows and therefore is not relevant to discussion because you can't intelligently discussed something you have NO idea about! |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Kahlilallah:
A flat earth was not a law. It was a belief. Theory is theory. To replace a law of science that theory must use the "scientific method" of proof to demonstrate that new precept. That's what makes these laws accepted as "universal." If it is true in this country, it must be true in every country, and in space, and under water. Universal. MBM: I went back to find your definition of "universal." This is what I found on page 2: ________________________________________________ I wanted to ask a clarifying question. Saying that the sun's existence is an absolute truth seems to be tricky as well. There was a time when the sun did not exist. There will be a time in the future when it does not exist again. Isn't the fact that we happen to exist during the period when the sun also exists merely a rank coincidence when considering things on a Universal scale? While life on earth is dependent upon the sun, in the realm of absolute truths as they are being discussed here, isn't that just a coincidence? If our perspective is truly on a universal scale, our 70 - 100 years alive is a mere bat of the Universal eye. Therefore the sun's existence would seem to be really more of a conditional truth. As a truth it is contingent upon our perspective, of being alive. Can it really be "universal" or "absolute" then? Just want to explore the point. ________________________________________________ The determinent parameter of your definition is time. Your position is that, in the ultimate, when the universe is gone then all is gone. Clearly, for that to be true, the Universe is not true. You are arguing a diminishing rationale that is ultimate "yes, but.." position. You can never be wrong because there is always the prospect of nonexistence to challenge the validity of any opposing position. The fallacy of that argument is that to be true the Universe must also not be true. Universality for the rest of the world is now and the calculable future. Not non-existence. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
No, the flat Earth theory was scientific law back then... As was the Sun revolving around the Earth. To say otherwise would get you excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
In regards to Universal Truth, it is still the Universal Truth that there is no Universal Truth. Time is a truth but never universal. So no it is not the parameter of my definition. Why is everyone trying to define what I have already defined? It is a rather simple position that I have and every time that I make a crazy response, I disprove your points. Human perception, as long as there are humans, dictate what is true as everyone here is trying to do. The question in regards to Universal Truth, is what is the one thing that everyone finds to be true? What is the one truth that no one can deny? I have denied gravity, the sun, everything with superstition and theories that have been used throughout time. Not to mentioned that in which could be. Nature is not a universal truth. "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
KH, newtons third LAW: Every action creates and equal and opposite reaction: Paraphrasing: Nothing can touch without being toched back. Is this statement universally true? If not, give any example of a contradiction. If you cannot, then your premise is FALSE, based upon your ability to percieve a logical contradiction, since perception is reality, in your reasoning.
Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: No. Time is mentioned merely to illustrate the point that the "the sun is in the sky" is not a universal truth. quote: No. My position is that there are ultimate truths but that their perception is warped by their interaction with the human mind. quote: No, I have said that my definition of a universal truth is something that was, is, and forever will be. |
|||
|