|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
quote: Well... as a human being I decide the Catholic Church and what they promoted as truth then is not truth at all.... So now where does that leaves with your "the Catholic Church is gonna get you if you disagree with them" theory?? I also decide that if I lived during the time in question that I wouldn't know what the Catholic Church was cause I would live anywhere close to where the Catholic Church was known.... So now what??? Besides... I thought you were a Muslim? |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Nmagniate: (Well... as a human being I decide the Catholic Church and what they promoted as truth then is not truth at all....)
Exactly my point. A point that I have made throughout this thread. Humans define truth. Nmaginate: (So now where does that leaves with your "the Catholic Church is gonna get you if you disagree with them" theory??) My point proven. That all theory, scientific or otherwise can never be universal. You need to see what I have been writing in the past for I do not think that you get it. Nmaginate: (I also decide that if I lived during the time in question that I wouldn't know what the Catholic Church was cause I would live anywhere close to where the Catholic Church was known.... So now what???) You would have a different truth. Which is another point that I made. You are on my side thus far. Unintentional perhaps? Nmaginate: (Besides... I thought you were a Muslim?) What is your idea of a muslim? Are we supposed to be ignorant about others religions? Are we supposed to have a closed mind or something? Perhaps you should review my position here in this thread once again, for I know that you have no desire to agree with me, and quess what, you are. "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) |
|||
|
|
C5 |
quote: ______________________________ May the high praises of YAH be in their mouth and a two edged sword in their hand, To execute vengence on the peoples;to bind their kings with chains,and their nobles in shackles of iron,to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of the saints (psalms149) |
|||
|
A1 |
MBM:
I was asking for some demonstraton of proof for "truth" being in your position. You answered with a series of questions. This is saying that since you can't see any other reason, your conclusion must be the "truth" of the scenario, because, "What else could it be?" ________________________________________________ Why are there so many different views and perspectives in this world? Let's bring the argument down even further, why are there so many different religions? How about languages? What, in your mind, accounts for any differences in people at all? ________________________________________________ There are so many views and perspectives because things being considered are subjective, and not quantitative. Things that are "subjective" are subject to the OPINION of whomever makes an offer. "There are 8 million stories in the Naked City." All are valid. Religion is among the easiest to explain, because its foundation is personal belief. There are so many different religions, because of differences of opinion. Disagreement in Richard Allen's African Methodist Episcopal Church resulted in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Roman Catholicism yielded Greek Orthodox, and/or Russian Orthodox, Baptist yielded Southern Baptist. A difference of belief in Pentacotalism yielded Assemblies of God and Church of God in Christ, and on, and on. In my mind, the differences (in thought) among people is INTERPRETATION, PERSUASION, AND BELIEF. And of course the ultimate determinant, POWER. The ability to make one's thought be true. The point of the discussion. Why else would one accept color as an identity. The INTERPRETATION of one was taken to PERSUADE another until BELIEF was instilled in that other. Then that "other" not only believes it, DEMANDS IT. Your origin thread did not put a fence around "truth." Therefore, it is in order to consider things that are not subjective. The contention that changes are always in play in the physical sciences and mathematics is not always true. In fact, of those things that are considered to be universal laws, I can't think of any that have been changed. Challenged, yes. A short list: Pi, Acceleration of Gravity, Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, The Equation for Energy (still a theory by the way), the value of Sin 30, the relationship of trigonometric functions. The list is almost endless. Your positon must be considered invalid, unless it is limited to subjective issues. Where all things are "a matter of opinion (interpretation), persuasion, and belief." I forgot languages. Languages are very personal. The anguages are the result of environment and need. Language is the result of a series of agreements among individuals as to what something is, or means. It is an establishment of a network of "universal truths" for a given environment (society). Different society. Different language. Neighboring societies produce similar language. The farther away into each society, the more different each language becomes. The ultimate in subjectivity. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Get it right...
I asked you about being a Muslim in reference to the Catholic Church because you seem to give them all the power and authority in the whole world during the time period in question, noted by your repeated references to what happened if someone under their jurisdiction if they disagreed with the C. Church. Well, as I noted in my first response to that, not every human being alive then lived under purview of the power of the C. Church and/or Roman Empire. So not everyone who disagreed with the C. Church's ordained view of science and the Flat World Theory where subject to punishment. My issue with you promoting that as a Muslim is the preeminence you seem to give the C. Church. Here's something you might find interesting: quote:Also... The Influence of the Moors on European culture makes me wonder why you stress the 'importance' of the C. Church as it relates to science. |
|||
|
A1 |
The rational of the opposition and detractors to the concept of universal truths have become as fluid as the Bush Administrations justification for invading Iraq. Each time a justification or rationalization cannot be supported, you all simply move to another rationalization to support your claims.
MBM, absorbing your reasoning, I am left with the impression that the human mind has thus far never been able to grasp the truth. For the life of me, I cannot see how you can think we can set out to send a space probe to mars, without having sufficiently understood ENOUGH truths about the physical laws of the universe, to do so. Explain to me how humanity has managed to do so, without grasping the truth of physics? It is a weak defense to rebuttal with the fact that humans do not know ALL the laws of physics and therefore that negates the truths of the universe that they do comprehend. I think your love for debate is making you play the devils advocate, just to keep the debate going, for your propositions and reasoning leads me to conclude as Nmaginate did. What is the use of learning? What is the use of information and data? Every opinion is of equal ignorance, for humans always warp what is really true. It seems that you are suggesting that if you do not know the WHOLE truth of the universe, then you do not know the truths of its parts as well. However, that is a known logical fallacy to try and convince people that what is true for the whole is thus true of the parts or that what is true of the parts is thus true for the whole. Kh….You could be Bush, Rumsfield or Cheney in that you are impressive how avoid relevant questions. The reason that mathematics works is because it has set rules of order and precedence in mathematical operations and equations. The equation you presented has a logical order of operation that that is born trial and error as to what will produce the correct resultant, which can be proved out. You seem to erroneously believe that the order of operation and the precedence of characters in those operations, are some how arbitrary and willy nilly. Certainly you can interchange symbols and switch them around, but the RULES of precedence and operation must follow a LOGICAL formula consistently. That logical formula is born from TRUTH. You have also consistently failed to find repudiation via example, of two contradictions that I presented to your premise. I will repeat them: Everything in the universe is part of the universe. Everything touched in the universe touches back. Now you say truth is bound by perception, thus so is falsity. Consequently, how does one perceive the fact that you cannot contradict these statements with examples? The fact that you cannot perceive an example that would make those propositions false, based upon your own reasoning, makes them to be true. However, I am sure that you have invested so much emotion into your position by now, that you can never turn your back on it. 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: We understand truths as they make sense to us, viewed through our eyes, and synthesized through our brains. Can you see that a being in another part of the universe, with a wholly different context, could generate "laws" and "truths" that while perfectly consistent with their reality, are wholly inconsistent with ours? quote: Again, you're seeing this as a binary, on/off, yes/no, right/wrong, all or nothing proposition. I do not. I think we understand lots. I just contend that we understand it through our viewpoint: whether human or Western or however broadly you want to define it. We understand the universe through the filter of humanity. That's all. Just as the learning in quantum mechanics that it is, in fact, possible for one thing to be in two places at one time stretches the limits of comprehension for most - there are all sorts of "realities" that our brains just won't allow us to consider because of the naturally limited purview of our experiences. We understand lots. It's just that our understanding is filtered through our perspective. Plus, maybe it only takes 3% of knowledge to get to Mars. All I'm contending is that the rest of the 97% that we don't know could meaningfully impact that 3% that we do. quote: I just took the training wheels off of my five year old son's bike on Sunday. He's had a chance to ride a couple of times this week since. Can he get from point A to B in front of our house with my supervision? Sure. While he does wonderfully well, do you think he really knows how to ride a bicycle? Could he compete in the Tour de France? quote: I never suggested that. All I'm saying is that our comprehension of truth is molded to our perspective. In that process some elements of a truth can be filtered out. quote: Can you see that, in general, African Americans' worldview is such that we positively embrace something like affirmative action, but that because of a different worldview, others (white conservatives, for example) might view the same empirical data but derive a wholly different point-of-view about it? We know that that occurs. We know that David Duke disagrees with Jesse Jackson on this issue. If we can acknowledge this difference between people, can we not also extrapolate that concept out to see that there might be a bias that humans, in general, hold based upon our experience and reality here on Earth? Unless you believe that the Earth = the Universe, then it seems that you have to accept the notion that anything that we perceive is done so through the filter of "Earthly humanity". I contend that there are extraordinary truths all around us, but that when we discover/learn them - we do so based upon our human worldview. I contend that the human worldview is not the only one in the universe and that laws exist in the universe - some of which are outside of the ability of the human worldview to comprehend. It's like the fact that I know that my dog can hear things that I cannot. Just because I can't hear them doesn't mean that they don't exist. It only means that I can't hear them. But if something occurred that allowed me to perceive those sounds, I would be doing so through my ears - which perceive the sound in uniquely human ways. quote: I am doing no such thing. I've made absolutely no inferences about this. I hope the above answer helps to explain my position better. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: What other filters are we suppose to use?? (Humans should use human filters... right? Are we suppose to use doggy filters?  )I think Noah's question really hinges on a fundamental philosophic-religious principle: "Who is to say that the human filter by its nature corrupts it?" I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian idea of the "Original Sin" which I believe is what makes people generally believe that: Humans by their very nature are corrupt/sinful. The logical following is or seems to be what MBM is saying that everything humans touch is then subject to corruption and actually is. Since human beings are not "perfect" then nothing humans are involved in can be perfect. To me, the Original Sin theory is borderline fatalism. I just happen to find it hard to believe that if you do believe in a Creator that HE/SHE made us "corrupt" or sinful, less than perfect. [I won't get into the 'sins of the father' debate...] My position is that GOD made us into "perfect" human-BEings... (whatever that is) I just think that it is our lot in life as humans to constantly strive to BE and BEcome better. If we do that, I think we can say we are "perfect" because that's exactly how and what we were made for, IMO. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Please tell me where I have said that anything is false? More than anything I am perhaps saying that things are incomplete or "textured" by our perspective. You have said false and continue to run that course - really arguing only with yourself. I thought I rather clearly stated that I do not view the world in such an all or nothing way. BTW - your definition of truth is curious. You're attempting to define truth by saying what it is not. It seems more logical to me to define truths by what they are then by what they are not. You're suggesting that love is defined by the presence of hate. While the relative elements of your definition are at the heart of what I've been typing about for the last 2 days, love = love. Love is not defined because there is hate. The Transitive Property of Equality says that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. It does not say that A = C because A ≠ D. Further, I'm intrigued by your Mars example. In your opinion is that the culmination of humanity's scientific achievement or something? Do you somehow believe that the principles required to send a rocket to Mars are somehow manifestly more complex than sending one to the moon - which we accomplished in the 1960s? So what we're sending a ship to Mars? Does that in your view demonstrate the we are Masters of The Universe or something?  Come back when we can send people to Alpha Centaur or when we've figured out wormholes or discovered the Unified Theory! quote: Huh?  What does this have to do with our conversation? I've not discussed wholes or parts or anything of the kind? I've "proposed" no such thing.Further, aren't ALL propositions false without proof otherwise?  But if I were to have fun with you about this, I'd say AMEN. You've solved this debate in my favor because it is a FACT that we only know a small part about how our universe works. Therefore what we know is only a "part" of the "whole". Since you suggest that "What is true of the whole cannot be assumed to be true of the parts and what is true of a part cannot be assumed to be true of the whole" then by definition we cannot make any assumptions about what we know about the whole based upon what we know of our small "part". My entire contention has been that there are "whole" truths that supersede "part" truths and that being naturally bound to understanding only of the "part", we cannot fully comprehend the truths of the "whole". |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: EXACTLY. YOU SUMMARIZE MY ARGUMENT PRECISELY! quote: You all are reading way too much into the words warp or corrupt. I merely mean that our perspective impacts our understanding of the truth. That' all. For example, if someone translates something from one language to another, often times nuances are lost because of the limitations of language. quote: Guys - respectfully, I'm not writing in riddles. Agree or disagree, but please don't attempt to infer meaning or foundation to what I'm saying. I'm pretty transparent on this. I have no ulterior agenda. If my words are unclear then ask me to explain them. I imbue no such meaning to the word "warp". I believe someone else introduced the word "corrupt". My thinking has absolutely nothing to do with anything but understanding how people digest information and extrapolating that to our synthesis of universal truths. Period. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: I can agree with that... However can you say that intepreting the "Law Of Nature" automatically leads to interpolation? How do we know that the lanuage of Nature is being compromised?  |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: I think that our little planet is but a speck of dust in the scope of the Universe. I believe that the power of God is so far beyond the comprehension of man as to make our level of understanding almost meaningless. We know so little. With all of our technology and knowledge, in 2003 we still don't even know how man built the pyramids - thousands of years ago! My 5 year old son understands the basics of addition and subtraction. He can add and subtract and even perform simple compound equations (e.g. 3+5-2=6). He is a very very bright boy, but in real terms, his understanding of mathematics at this point is insignificant. Any attempt to teach him some of the more complex laws and fundamentals of math are just beyond him at this point. Now, there will be a time when that is not the case - but not now. I believe that our capacity and our points-of-view are so defined by our reality, that as it relates to our understanding of the Universe, it has no chance but to be limited by our perspective. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
 Brother, brother, brother…Truth only exist due to the existence of falsity, otherwise, there would be no reason to create such a term, for it would be a distinction without difference. Reality is simply reality. Not true or false, but the benchmark of existence nonetheless. You are trying. You are computer person and thus I am sure you are aware that computer code is all reduced to bits, which are binary switches of on (1) and off (0). There is no other option, either the switch is on or it is off. There would not exist an “on†if there did not exist an “off†for there would again manifest a distinction without a difference. The only reason that we culture and language creates a term is to communicate via DISTINCTION. You say that love could exist without the existence of hate. However, hate is not the opposite of love. The opposite of love is to be void of love, which is not Hate. Moreover, if no one were the opposite of love, which is to be void of love, then culture and language would not need a term of distinction called “loveâ€. Either love is “on†or love is “off†and it is the opposite states that create distinction and difference and hence the unique terms for distinction. Binary options are one or the other and you cannot logically dispute this. Thus, what you are attempting is to say that the option is not binary, when truth and falsity are only binary option. If I want to prove that something is “on†I can do it via proving that it is not “off†for the only other possible state defaults to being on. TRUTH TABLES PS. MBM what happened to my other post that you just quoted from? Did you accidentally delete it or am I just blind and cannot find it? 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: I disagree. Truth exists because the underlying components of a truth exist. Truth is truth. By understanding a truth, it perhaps allows one to better identify what is not truth, but it seems . . . um . . . "imprecise" (at best) to attempt to define something by what it is not. You could define yourself as a "non-white non woman", but why? That is less of a truth than an observation - a not very useful one at that. quote: And this has what to do with your point? quote: I am not a "computer person". I am a person that uses a computer. BTW - while it may be, what I do know of computer code is not consistent with your characterization. Further, what does this have to do with the topic or your point? quote: There you go creating definitions that only define themselves again. Of course love is love and the absence of love is the absence of love! According to you then, everything is a truth because you define the truth only as the existence of that truth, with the existence of everything else as "non truth". How is that at all meaningful?quote: How about the interaction of love with other states? You write as if love operates in a complete vacuum. Further, is the love that is the "love at first sight" the same "love" that is "eternal love"? How about the "love" between a brother and sister? How about the love between two life long friends? In your world, there is only love and the absence of love? Does that make any sense? Explain. quote: There you go again. This is your favorite way of thinking isn't it? How about if something were on a continuum? You'd be thrown completely for a loop wouldn't you? quote: Not sure, BTW how is it that you can contemplate multiple contemporaneous scenarios in this instance? A) I deleted the post. B) I did not delete the post. C) You are blind. D) You are not blind. How about: E) You inadvertently deleted it. F) There are software difficulties that deleted it. G) Someone at the hosting company was offended by your logic and deleted it. H) God deleted it. Isn't the world binary? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
You are correct that truth exists, but truth only exists as a concept due to the existence of the concept of falsity. You would exist even without a name and social security number, but you are given a name and social security number to communicate distinction between you and another. If there were only two people on earth, then you would not need a name, for when the other person talked, he or she could only be talking to you. If you have kids, do you need to use your sir name when calling them? No you do not, because I would assume that they all have the same sir name. Thus, it is sufficeint to just call them by their first name, assuming that they are unique. Terms are created and used in language to communicate distinct thoughts and ideas and realites, which seperate it from other realities and ideas and thoughts. a phenomenon only becomes distinct, and worthy of a term for distinction, when it is separated by another reality, usually an opposite reality.
My point of bringing reality up is that truth is reality and falsity is not reality. Thus, truth and falsity are terms that represent the state of reality or what nature manifests in actions and reactions and mutations. It is not germane to the topic to explain to you that all computer code is ultimately stored in bytes and bits, which are simply switches that represent and electronic state of currents either being on or off, burnt into a microchip. As we discussed, absence of knowledge of something does not negated the truth of the something. I suggest that if you want to know, to do some goggling in regards to the history of computer language and the different “Generations of language†that are all built off binary code, at its core. I see that you have begun to digress off topic, by commenting on the examples that I use to make my point as opposed to the relevant logic involved in my example, regardless of its redundancy of use. I hope you took the time to read the “truth†table that I presented a link to. I know some folks still believe that the white man’s ice is colder than the black man’s ice. Therefore, I thought maybe some people would take what the white man says with more credibility than what a black man says? I’m off this topic. You have reverted to being “Cuteâ€. 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: Huh? Because I challenge examples you raise to support your argument, I am somehow off-topic or being "cute"? If your examples were relevant to the debate wouldn't my discussing them also be? quote: Oh, so my disagreement with you is predicated on your blackness? Is that what you're saying? Are you serious???  |
|||
|