Ok boys and girls...give me an absolute truth.

OI, lets cut the theology stuff out. You guys know you'll NEVER come to an agreement, less an agreement to disagree.
 
The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Actually, it has been proven otherwise numerous times.
@ Alpha

Kat, in another thread, says that if something cannot be detected, it does not exist. (Of course she was saying God cannot be 'detected', which is ultimately false)

In fact, I will state this as an absolute truth to see what the general response is.



If something cannot be detected, it does not exist.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that.
You want an answer to that? How about: Everything exists!
For it does, everything exists somewhere, it may differ in form, but it is there. Even god exists in a way. He is in your mind, but not needfully outside of it. Fairies or dragons also exist, in books, in our fantasy. But you cannot detect them, can you? They are not real, but that does not keep them from existing.

If you think I am wrong, you should better go and define existence.
Click to expand...
There is actually a flaw in your reasoning. The claim, "everything exists" presumes the claim it's making. "Everything" presupposes existance, therefore it is not a logically valid claim.
And I use "god" for the same reason I use "tree", there are lots of them, so why should I write one of them in capitals?
Click to expand...
Because "god" is used to refer to any being considered worthy of worship. "God" refers to the supposed creator of the universe.
Everything is truth.
Click to expand...
Really? Even lies and falsehoods? Hardly.
That's where my argument started, with those statements. You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. The purpose of my bringing up Descartes was that the argument that refutes his claim does that same for yours. Without observation, nothing can be said to exist; to claim that thought exists, it must be observed. To claim that thought is being observed, you must prove the existance of an observer.
Click to expand...
This has the same flaw as the nihilist argument. You presume that in order for something to exist there must be observation of it. Do you have anything to support this claim? If so, does that mean Denmark doesn't exist, since I've never seen it?

"The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely."

The above statement is an absolute truth only to yourself, and only in your own reality.
Click to expand...
Then by definition it is a subjective truth, and is not absolutely true.
"If something cannot be detected, it does not exist."

The voices in a schizophrenics head, although undetected by us, is a reality that exists in the mind of the schizophrenic. Do the voices exist?
Click to expand...
They exist as thoughts and/or perceptions in that person's mind, and yes they can be detected. Not only can they be detected by the influence they have over the person, but also through reading their brainwaves via an EEG.
 
There is actually a flaw in your reasoning. The claim, "everything exists" presumes the claim it's making. "Everything" presupposes existance, therefore it is not a logically valid claim.
Click to expand...

I know that it is not logically valid, but I also don´t think that logic is absolute...
 
§outh§tar said:
Ok Girls! This is what Descarte said:
Click to expand...

Don't throw a fit. Insults are innappropriate. Your cut and paste doesn't change anything insofar as the present argument, maybe you can justify it for us?
 
halcyon,
"You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. "

That is a good point. I disagree because I consider thought itself to be the observer. I can think of any number of fantastical matrix-style scenarios where "I" do not exist. There could be a large intelligent entity that consists only of consciousness and we are only elements of its imagination, along with everything else in the universe. In this case, what is the observer? Merely another element. My point is that when I observe thought, I do it with thought. I am not sure this makes any sense...the function of thought absolutely exists, while an outside and separate observer does not necessarily. Eh, I am no philosopher. These are only mental gymnastics.
 
Halcyon said:
Don't throw a fit. Insults are innappropriate. Your cut and paste doesn't change anything insofar as the present argument, maybe you can justify it for us?
Click to expand...

Are you mad? There was no insult in that at all. I cited the source just fine, unfortunately you ignored that in an attempt to accuse me falsely.

Eh well, good day. :)
 
I know that it is not logically valid, but I also don´t think that logic is absolute...
Click to expand...
Really? Odd. Show me one paradox that exists in reality then. If you can't, then what reason do you have to doubt... reason.
o_O
 
Alpha said:
Really? Odd. Show me one paradox that exists in reality then. If you can't, then what reason do you have to doubt... reason.
o_O
Click to expand...

Are my opinions or feelings real? If so, then I can name a thousand paradoxes for each person that exists.

I can like and dislike you simultaneously, for starters.
 
§outh§tar said:
Are you mad? There was no insult in that at all. I cited the source just fine, unfortunately you ignored that in an attempt to accuse me falsely.

Eh well, good day. :)
Click to expand...

I took the "OK GIRLS," remark as an attempt to be insulting. I didn't accuse you of anything; well cited or not, you still cut and pasted it. I guess I've already showed that we're free to apply our own meaning to these things, and we both have.

I did not ignore the post in any way. It didn't contribute anything to the exchange between fadingCaptain and I, and I only asked you clarify the point you were trying to make with it; justify it. The assumption I made that your post was directed as fadingCaptain and myself was because I did not recall anyone else discussing Descartes in this thread, though I may be wrong.
 
wesmorris said:
Are my opinions or feelings real? If so, then I can name a thousand paradoxes for each person that exists.

I can like and dislike you simultaneously, for starters.
Click to expand...
Those are subjective. And I could still argue that there's no paradox.
 
You didn't say "objective reality", and even then it's arguable that your subjective state is part of "objective reality". I don't think you could argue that "there's no paradox" for every possible mental state (e.g., the possiblities with delusional schizophrenics, etc.).
 
fadingCaptain said:
halcyon,
That is a good point. I disagree because I consider thought itself to be the observer. I can think of any number of fantastical matrix-style scenarios where "I" do not exist. There could be a large intelligent entity that consists only of consciousness and we are only elements of its imagination, along with everything else in the universe. In this case, what is the observer? Merely another element. My point is that when I observe thought, I do it with thought. I am not sure this makes any sense...the function of thought absolutely exists, while an outside and separate observer does not necessarily. Eh, I am no philosopher. These are only mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
Got it. From my perspective; I've learned that in essence nothing can be said to exist unless it is observed, thus the necessity of an observer. I suppose this is where it'll stand. If your interested in taking a tour through a different perspective, try "Consciousness Explained," By Dan Dennet.
 
You didn't say "objective reality", and even then it's arguable that your subjective state is part of "objective reality". I don't think you could argue that "there's no paradox" for every possible mental state (e.g., the possiblities with delusional schizophrenics, etc.).
Click to expand...
You're right, I didn't. That's why I clarified my position. Of course your subjective state is part of objective reality. And, I believe I could argue that there's no paradoxes regardless of your mental state. Any apparent paradox is due to incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise erroneous information, logic errors, or faulty assumptions. A person with a mental disorder who prefesses contradictory claims does not create a paradox, as there's nothing contradictory in reality. They have abstract ideas that are contrary to each other, but the abstracts themselves are just that. Thus, no actual paradox exists.
 
"If your interested in taking a tour through a different perspective, try "Consciousness Explained," By Dan Dennet. "

Added to my list. Its getting rather large but hopefully I'll get to it. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Alpha said:
They have abstract ideas that are contrary to each other, but the abstracts themselves are just that. Thus, no actual paradox exists.
Click to expand...

I think that abstracts are the only important aspect of reality.

It's through them that we understand what we see as "objective reality".

Abstract paradoxes are real and part of objective reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top