There are NO Absolutes. There is NO Absolute Truth!

Asking a charismatic cult leader to define his terms is extremely bad for business! The zombies who blindly empty their pockets for him may be tempted to wake up when their leader is clueless. Please don't wake up....just give him more money!
Asking a charismatic cult leader to define his terms is extremely bad for business! The zombies who blindly empty their pockets for him may be tempted to wake up when their leader is clueless. Please don't wake up....just give him more money!
ASK YOURSELF THIS: Does your Cult Leader possess Absolute Truth? How can your personal con artist claim to have an absolute truth when no Philosopher in the past 5000 years has been able to conceive of one??
ASK YOURSELF THIS: Does your Cult Leader possess Absolute Truth? How can your personal con artist claim to have an absolute truth when no Philosopher in the past 5000 years has been able to conceive of one??

INTRODUCTION

Some people may be surprised to discover tons of self-professed Messiahs of Philosophy on the Internet, especially on YouTube. What is not surprising is that almost none of them have bothered to educate themselves on the 2500-year-old Philosophical concept called the “absolute”. These Priests of Philosophy have no qualms about claiming that there are “absolutes” or “absolute truth”. What kills their claims is that they cannot define the key words that make or break their argument: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’. They are merely parroting what they heard from the grapevine:


“ummm, duh,....are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? See, gotcha....there are absolutes. Also, that there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. Ha ha, gotcha again, I win!”


These Priests of Philosophy are quick to break out the bottle of champagne in celebration of the argument which they won in their own mind. But, they are quite embarrassed when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to define “absolute” and “truth”. What is funnier is that they cannot even give a single example of a statement which resolves to absolute truth.

And more embarrassing for them is that their silly childish questions are not even arguments....THEY ARE TRICKS! These trick questions have a very simple ANTIDOTE. Click on this link to see their tricks exposed:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/ABSOLUTE-TRUTH-Is-it-Absolute-True-there-are-NO-Absolute-Truths


This article exposes the Religion of The Absolute. You will understand why the "absolute" is the Hallmark of Religion and the Opium of Fanatics. We will explain why the word “absolute” ultimately resolves as a synonym of the word RELATIVE. Furthermore, you will understand why these Priests of Philosophy don’t want you to read this article and understand the critical analytical issues behind the words “absolute” and “truth”. Your ignorance is their blessing. After all, they have surreptitiously fooled you into having FAITH in absolutes; so they do deserve some credit.



WHAT IS TRUTH?

The word “truth” is a concept which has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is unwittingly used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.

But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labelled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.

Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?

A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box.

For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself.

Remember: TRUTH = OPINION.

Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience:

1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide?

2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!!

Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or because you don’t know? Be honest with yourself.



WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTE?

The term “absolute” is a Philosophical concept which has had a standard meaning since its first human conception. This article uses the standard Philosophical meaning of the “absolute”. Let’s have a quick look at the standard Philosophical definition and usage of this word in the past 2500 years by citing some references. Note that this is not an argument from authority, as this article does NOT use these references to justify any argument. These references are simply used to justify the CONTEXT of what this article is about; i.e. the standard Philosophical concept of the “absolute”.


Oxford Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: A value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.”


The Free Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.”


Collins Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: that which is totally unconditioned.”


New World Encyclopedia:

Absolute in Philosophy: The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense.”


Wikipedia:

Absolute in Philosophy: The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.


NOTE:

When the term ‘absolute’ qualifies another term (like truth) it decrees that term to be free from any relations, dependencies or restrictions. “Unconditional” and “without relations” means that the qualified term must necessarily be applicable to EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! An absolute has no constraints on time, places, people or any other concepts or objects.



From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

“In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.”

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner



From New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolute_(philosophy)

“Greek philosophers did not explicitly elaborate on the absolute, but, the idea of an ultimate principle drove their inquiries forward. In addition, while medieval philosophers did not use the term absolute, their thoughts on God were the first explicit elaborations on the absolute. Major philosophers who have dealt with the Absolute include the German Idealists such as Schelling, Kant, and Hegel, and British philosophers such as Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton, Bernard Bosanquet, Francis Bradley, and Thomas Hill Green, and American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce.”

“Plato identified the good, which he characterized as permanently existing by itself in the incorporeal world, as the ultimate principle. The good, for Plato, was the absolute. Its goodness was, he argued, established by itself without recourse to any other thing whatsoever.”

“Aristotle placed a study of god (theology) as the first philosophy for the reason that it deals with the “unmoved mover” of all phenomenal. For Aristotle, the ultimate principle [absolute] had to be that which is unconditional and independent, which has no prior condition whatsoever.”

“Absolute means by definition a negation of relativity.”

“When the term absolute is applied to existence, the absolute can be understood as a being whose essence is existence. If the existence of a being is dependent on others, it cannot be absolute. Hence, God was characterized as a unique being whose essence is existence. Anselm of Canterbury used this argument for his Ontological argument for the existence of God.”

So in this context, when the term ‘absolute’ is applied to existence it means ETERNAL. For one to say that “my car exists is absolutely true”....one would have to argue that their car existed eternally. This leads to contradictions. We will see later that “absolute truth” is the Hallmark of Religion because it is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH by definition.


“The term absolute denotes whatever is free from any condition or restriction, and independent from any other element or factor. As with other concepts such as infinite, perfection, eternity, and others, absolute can be articulated only by negating finite concepts.

“German philosophers after Kant such as Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, known as the German idealists, returned to speculative metaphysics and developed various theories based upon their understanding of the absolute. The concept of absoluteness was then adopted into a neo-Hegelian British idealism, where it received an almost mystical exposition at the hands of F.H. Bradley. Bradley (followed by others including Timothy L.S. Sprigge) conceived the absolute as a single all-encompassing experience, along the lines of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta. Likewise, Josiah Roycein the United States conceived the absolute as a unitary Knower whose experience constitutes what we know as the ‘external’ world.”

“As with Spinoza, Hegel attempted to explain the creation of the world without the notion of creation. Hegel developed a pantheistic concept of the absolute and its relationship with the phenomenal world.”

“As in German idealism, the question of absolute/relative is also intertwined with questions of transcendence and immanence.”

For example, Matt Slick of CARM.org blindly asserts that “Logical Absolutes” (a term invented by him) are concepts which transcend space and time.



PHILOSOPHERS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR ABSOLUTES FOR THE PAST 2500 YEARS!!!

Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible, so there can be no absolute truth to be known. He writes...

“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human

“I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’, like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself,’ contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16).


Even Ludwig Wittgenstein came to the realization later in his life that there are no absolute truths. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche destroyed the notion that humans can ever determine a proposition as being certain in reality or absolute.

In his agonized search to find an absolute, Bertrand Russell crossed paths with legendary Philosophers like Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. But Russell’s most ambitious goal (to establish absolute logical foundations of mathematics) eluded him for the rest of his life. Russell persisted in this fruitless mission (to show that math is absolute) until it threatened to claim both his career and his personal happiness. Russell was so ignorant as to what exactly this God-like term, the “absolute”, entailed....that his relentless pursuit for the absolute finally drove him to the brink of insanity. Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann had the same experience as Russell, but it drove them to commit suicide.


NOTE: The reader is encouraged to watch the “Dangerous Knowledge” video series on YouTube in order understand the intellectual failures that Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann experienced during their pursuit of the “absolute”. It drove them to insanity and suicide....and yet we have Priests on the Internet this very second who preach that they KNOW of "absolute truth". If the Priests of today have "absolute truth", then Russell, Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann must have been babbling idiots, right??



WHAT IS “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?

As we have seen, the “absolute” in Philosophy has been conceived by humans to refer that that which is independent, permanent and not subject to any kind of observer, restriction, condition, qualification or relation. It is the antonym of the Philosophical term, the “relative”, which necessitates observers, dependencies, restrictions, references and relations.

So when we put the qualifier of “absolute” in front of the word “truth”,....as in “absolute truth”.... we are actually qualifying the concept of “truth” by necessitating that it is valid in every possible circumstance. This follows directly from the definition of the “absolute”.


Q: So what does “absolute truth” mean?

A: This is an easy question to answer. Just combine these two words and grammatically apply the Philosophical qualification of the “absolute”.


An absolute truth, is a “truth” stemming from a proposition which is VALIDATED by an observer to be TRUE in every possible circumstance. i.e. this proposition is validated to be necessarily TRUE irrespective of any kind of dependency, restriction, qualification or relation which can be conceived by anyone. For...if anyone can conceive of any circumstance in which the proposition is not true, then just what the hell makes it absolute??


So these are the analytical definitions which make all the Absolute Truthers out there run away! It is these issues which make or break a Priest’s insatiable claim that “there are absolutes”. If those Priests, who erroneously call themselves “Philosophers”, had a basic introduction to Philosophy 101, they would understand the Philosophical and analytical ramifications behind the formidable words: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’.

Ignorance is never an excuse. To refuse to acknowledge the Philosophical History behind the “absolute”, and to refuse to concede that they did NOT do their homework on the issue.....well....that is just childish....this is intellectual dishonesty. This is called FRAUD! Nobody should ever mistake these Priests for Philosophers. A real Philosopher can DEFINE the key terms in their argument, and provide a non-contradictory explanation to JUSTIFY their argument.

Ask yourself this: Can YOU justify your argument without contradictions when it comes to asserting absolute truth?

If not, then you are nothing but a Priest. Only Priests make unfounded assertions and have no rational argument to justify them.




WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TRUTH” AND “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?

Contrary to what is claimed by the ignorant, all truth is not absolute. There are two different categories conceived by humans:


Truth: This is your regular plain-Jane vanilla “truth”. It is a STATIC truth which must be validated at a cross-section in time; at “this” instant (i.e. now). Suppose you showcase your "already-validated" truth proposition to an audience who doesn’t believe your alleged “truth”. Then your only option is to re-validate your proposition as "true" in front of a live audience and convince them right there and then!


Absolute Truth: An ETERNAL truth which is alleged to be “true forever and ever, Amen!” Absolute truth necessarily needs to be validated for every possible circumstance because it has no restrictions. If at this point you refuse to understand why absolute truth is the Hallmark of Religion, then you obviously have your own Religion to protect....sorry!





WHY ARE ABSOLUTES AND ABSOLUTE TRUTHS IMPOSSIBLE?

Because both the concepts of “absolute” and “truth” are self-refuting BY DEFINITION. They faithfully assert and promise what they cannot deliver. They are contradictory. A contradiction always shows what is impossible. The "absolute" self-refutes itself in 3 crucial categories as explained below:

1) Conception.

2) Definition.

3) Validation.


Since the “absolute” is a concept that is decreed to be free from restriction or condition, it follows that it must NOT have any relations. Otherwise it will be relative to something and not absolute. So any attempt at a definition refutes it!


Q: Why?

A: Because a concept is a RELATION.

Concept: A relation between two or more objects.


It takes a human observer to establish relations. Relations don’t get magically self-conceived from the void. God doesn’t wave his magic wand and establish conceptual relations in outer space.

You see, the proponent of the word “absolute” is saying to the audience that this word is supposed to conceptualize “that which has no relations”. That is, an “absolute” implies a stand-alone concept which is free from any relation/dependency or restriction. On the other hand, that which has relations is said to be “relative”.

But....and here is the big BUT that most people do not understand: all words that any living entity can conceive; whether a human, an alien or even God Himself....are necessarily relations.


There is no word that is “stand-alone” without a reference to something else. For if there was such an alleged word, it would have NO meaning. Neither we nor God would even be able to understand what such an alleged word is trying to imply or signify. So even if God tries to invent such a word and call it “absolute”...this word would be meaningless, not only to us, but to God Himself. It is no different than God inventing the word “klamokaptica” as a stand-alone word; i.e. without relating it to something else for the purposes of giving it meaning and contextual resolution. It would be very foolish of God to claim that He understands what it means. Not even God can fool anyone with such claims.

All concepts are necessarily RELATIVE to at least 2 “somethings/nouns”, whether they are objects or other concepts. Without first establishing a relation (i.e. a restrictive point of reference), we cannot even conceive of a concept or even hope to impose a meaning to it.

As a concept, the word “absolute” is necessarily dependent on an observer-established RELATION between two or more objects. Only what is RELATIVE can be subject to RELATIONS. And anything “observer-established” is always “relative” (as opposed to absolute). What is declared as “absolute” should have NO dependencies to established relations. But the concept of “absolute” does have these imposed restrictions! Therefore the “absolute” is a self-refuting (contradictory) concept. It cannot even be conceptualized. It is only dogmatically decreed to be what it is CLAIMED to be. The “absolute” is an impossible concept because it necessarily has conditions/dependencies/relations, ....even though its proponents CLAIM that it doesn’t. This is clearly dishonest because it fools so many people who aren’t able to subject it to a rigorous analysis.

Obviously, the word “absolute” cannot be defined in no ambiguous terms, much less be used consistently in any context. It is impossible to objectively define any word which is free from relations to something else.


Q: What is the reason why any attempted definition of “absolute” is really NOT a definition?

A: For many reasons; some of which are:

1) As explained above, the concept of “absolute” and its context are necessarily dependent of relations.

2) In its attempted definition, the “absolute” is NEGATIVELY predicated. What is negative is always in RELATION to its opposite. So we already have established a relation to something whether we like it or not. Furthermore, it is impossible for negative predicated sentences to describe or define anything. As such, they are meaningless. Only definitions which are predicated in the positive sense can convey a specific meaning. For example: To say your car is not red, you aren’t describing what color your car is. Justice and the number 7 are not red either. Any word you can imagine can be said to be not red and the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. But it is not CONTEXTUALLY correct because it has not attributed anything specific to the subject; i.e. it has no meaning! Other attempted definitions for “absolute” contain negated synonyms. Synonyms, whether negated or not, are NOT definitions. Synonyms are labels which are repetitive; i.e. rhetorical. They convey no meaning.

3) The “absolute” is one of those peculiar contradictory concepts which imply eternity. Why? Because what is said to be absolute is not restricted to any particular time frame. So to claim that a proposition is absolute is to claim that said proposition can be validated to be the case for all of eternity....forever in the past and forever in the future. This is impossible.


So when a dictionary, like Oxford for example, claims that an absolute is a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things”....then it is contradicting itself. Sure, a person may “regard” or “believe” it to be without relation to other things, but belief doesn’t make it so. In fact, it is impossible because ALL concepts are relations!

Obviously, the proponents of the “absolute” have not given this God-like word any thought, much less any basic analysis. No wonder they parrot this word without even understanding its underlying contradictions.


Q: If it is impossible to conceive of the “absolute” or even define it, then how can anyone possibly validate and resolve something as being absolute? I mean, they don’t even know or understand what an “absolute” is.....so how can they possibly validate an absolute?

A: They can’t! Absolutes are impossible. Now you understand why Priests and Pop-Philosophers run and hide when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to DEFINE “absolute” in no ambiguous terms. Only a dishonest person will refuse to define and justify their argument, or even refuse to concede they were ignorant on the issue.


When we combine the words ABSOLUTE + TRUTH, it is clearly evident that:

a) We are combining two words which are both concepts, and hence, relations. So what we end up with is a concept which is necessarily NOT free from relation. Whenever we use “absolute truth” in a proposition, we are tacitly ascribing relativity to that proposition.

b) We are qualifying the relation TRUTH with the contradictory qualifier ABSOLUTE. We are attempting to impose an impossible attribute or qualifier to “truth”. But the word “truth” is necessarily relational because it invokes an observer who is required to VALIDATE a proposition before he can declare it as “true”. So, what does the qualifier “absolute” demand from an observer’s validation of “truth”? See (c).

c) It is impossible for anyone to validate a proposition in such a way as to show that it is universally valid and WITHOUT relations i.e. valid for EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! It is impossible for a person to validate a proposition to be free from restrictions related to time, to place or to any person (observer). Just how do you propose we can do this? Just how do you propose we can justify a proposition as being “absolute truth”? Do we just have FAITH that it is so? Do we believe a Pop-Philosopher on YouTube who unwittingly claims it to be so? Do we ask our Priest to bless it and make it so? Do we ask God to intervene and force it to be so? I didn’t see your answer to any of these questions!


These are the tough analytical issues that the proponent of “absolute truth” has to understand and explain to the audience. The audience demands objectivity! The audience demands a rational explanation of WHY an alleged statement of “absolute truth”, actually is “as-advertised”. If the proponent cannot demonstrate this to the audience.....if he cannot justify how he VALIDATED such an alleged “absolute” statement to be true in every possible circumstance....then the proponent of “absolute truth” is a snake-oil salesman....a liar, a con-artist. And he should be exposed accordingly!

The proponent of “absolute truth” cannot expect to fool everyone with his bankrupt concept of truth. He certainly cannot fool any intelligent person with his sleight-of-hand tricks. Oh, but he tries....he easily fools those intellectually lazy folks who never bother to critically analyse claims these days. Most people are very comfortable to be spoon-fed everything without questioning it. They have no problem swallowing any claim on faith, including claims of “absolute truth”....as long as it comes from an alleged authority. How sweet is that?


So, what do we objectively have before us after this critical analysis of “absolute truth”?

1. We have rationally demonstrated that the word ABSOLUTE actually resolves to none other than the word RELATIVE when subjected to critical analysis.

2. We have rationally demonstrated that the word TRUTH actually resolves to none other than the word OPINION when subjected to critical analysis.

ABSOLUTE TRUTH objectively resolves to none other than RELATIVE OPINION.




ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

'Absolute', 'truth', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, etc. are just words in language. We must define them objectively (without synonyms or negative predication) to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory. “Absolute” in Philosophy means independent, permanent, observer-less and not subject to qualification or relation. “Relative” means subject to RELATION(S), dependent on circumstances, context or an observer’s point-of-view. The “absolute” is FAITHFULLY DECREED by Religionists and Pop-Philosophers to be free from relations, circumstances or points of view. The “absolute” is a self-refuting concept because it is dependent on relations, even though it is unwittingly decreed to be relation-free by its proponents.

We already hear the Priests and Pop-Philosophers retorting: “YOU ARE IMPOSING AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD ON THE WORD ABSOLUTE! You are creating an impossible case to prop your argument.”

No! Such accusations are strawmen. These dishonest individuals do not wish to concede defeat. They can’t afford to because it’s embarrassing. The word “absolute” had this standard contradictory meaning imposed on it during its conception, over 2500 years ago. Again, the Priest who acts like a Philosopher needs to educate himself before using strawman arguments to obfuscate his ignorance from the audience. A Philosopher is expected to be an honest, educated, intelligent and rational individual who can grab the bull by the horns and justify his argument for the audience. So-called “Philosophers” who FAITHFULLY DECREE absolutes are not intellectuals. They either need to educate themselves on the definition of “absolute”, or stop lying to the audience....there is no other option!

Any critical thinker can reason and explain why the "absolute" is an irrational and impossible concept. It has enjoyed a faithful, ambiguous and contradictory “rhetorical definition” for the past 2500 years. And this is because most people have not been exposed to the rigorous analysis presented in this article. And even if they are, some will simply ignore it because it destroys their Religion! It's time to bury this faithful nonsensical term. Ignorance is not an excuse. Sophistry and lies will not be tolerated in academia.




ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS THE HALLMARK OF RELIGION

All you have to do is just Google “absolute truth” to begin to get an idea of the cesspool that you are dealing with here. It is not a pretty sight. There is tons of alleged ABSOLUTE TRUTH out there and everybody and their brother seems to have it.....from Religionists like Pat Robertson, Matt Slick.....to atheists like Matt Dillahunty.....to Mathematicians like Stephen Hawking, Godel, Cantor, Turing.....to Philosophers like Bertrand Russell, F.H. Bradley, Ayn Rand.....to self-proclaimed Philosophers like Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio,....etc. But all you have to do is ask any of these Priests to define “absolute truth” or even give a single example of one, and they will run away from the argument with their tails between their legs.

What do all these people and their contradictory doctrines have in common? They are all divorced from reality! Irrespective of whether they call themselves Philosopher, Free-Thinker, theist, atheist or agnostic....there is no difference. They have FAITH in contradictory absolutes, but have no argument to justify their incessant fetish in the “absolute”. What they do have though, is a Religion built around the “absolute”, just like Christianity does.

Ever since Religionists usurped the title of “Philosopher” at the dawn of Christian Apologetics, many people came on board and in-tune with this “Philosophy” (for lack of a better word). Today we have a situation where Atheistic and Theistic Philosophers alike only disagree on the concept of “God”, but are in complete agreement on most other issues....including “absolute truth” and creation. Absolute truth is an impossible concept which was initially conceived by Religionists. They refer to their Bibles and scriptures as the Absolute Truth which was handed to them by God. And rightfully so, because an “absolute truth” is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH (has no limitations and is not subject to time) which is true forever and ever, amen! God is alleged to be eternal, and so is His “truth”.

Atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE that they have access to an absolute truth, but without a God. Atheists will unwittingly claim that “2+2=4” is an Absolute Truth! Meanwhile, they are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that Bertrand Russell (Philosopher & Mathematician Extraordinaire) spent his whole life trying to prove that Mathematics is absolute. So did Godel, Cantor, Turing, Boltzmann and others to no avail. Most of them went insane, were institutionalized and committed suicide.

Both theists and atheists alike are oblivious to the fact that any alleged absolute is self-refuting and impossible. Even their High Priests, like Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, etc. haven’t been able to justify anything as absolute.



WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

The word “absolute” is conceptually no different than the word “marriedbachelor”. They are both contradictions.

We have rationally explained why: ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

It is very clear that the Internet Personas who profess the doctrine of the “absolute” are ignorant on the Philosophical issue and its ramifications. They are not critical thinkers. They don’t understand the topic nor the arguments that have been revolving around this term for thousands of years. Since the Greeks conceived of it over 2500 years ago, Philosophers have been struggling to this day to demonstrate or "prove" a single absolute. This is profound.

If not a single Philosopher in the past 2500 years has been able to demonstrate or justify a SINGLE absolute, .....then what makes these clowns on the Internet today think that they are blessed with the gift of the “absolute”?

I don't mind to educate people on the basics of Philosophy 101, but at least they should have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are clueless on the issues of the “absolute”. Instead, they are stubborn and blindly march forward as if nothing so they don’t tarnish their reputation and Internet Persona. This is why they run away when a member of the audience stands up and asks the tough question: “Can you please define your God-like terms: absolute & truth?”

Any intelligent person, who claims there are absolutes, should have no problem justifying their claim with a non-contradictory definition of their term, followed by an example of an absolute.

Any takers??

Obviously not!

@12:04: "You cannot empirically validate a concept [like absolute truth]. It doesn't exist!" - Stefan Molyneux

A Messiah of Philosophy: STEFAN MOLYNEUX

More by this Author


Comments 778 comments

aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 6 years ago from Australia

PROVE?

You started the topic, now I'm supposed to prove?

Your assumptions, (again):

Mythical (?) Jesus

Eternity (past>future)

Non-existence of God

If even one of these is true, (opposite to your assumption), your argument falls.

Please, go ahead and reply to my post, not challenge.

Thanks.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(Please, go ahead and reply to my post, not challenge)

Am I supposed to "interpret" what that list of 3 items means?

You just listed 3 items with no context, reference, or explanation and you want me to reply?

Sorry, you will have to be SPECIFIC and EXPLAIN those items and how they apply to this hub. Explain your grievances please.

Ambiguity is not a virtue.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

dj,

Why have you not provided an example of an absolute truth?

It is contradictory to argue that truth is absolute and provide truths that are all systemic.

It is true that you exist, it is not an absolute truth since you did not always exist.

Any truth you can offer? did not exist prior to language or mind existing. When no minds or languages existed, no truths could exist then. All truths are propositions that are proven true; hence systemic.

This is explained in the hub.


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 6 years ago from Australia

fatfist

"Am I supposed to "interpret" what that list of 3 items means?

You just listed 3 items with no context, reference, or explanation and you want me to reply?

Sorry, you will have to be SPECIFIC and EXPLAIN those items and how they apply to this hub. Explain your grievances please."

dj

You included these in the Hub. I did not introduce them.

You ask me to be specific. OK. I will take one point only.

You dismiss the "existence" of God. (And I am not using your scientific definition for existence, but that He IS, WAS and will always be. He has a mind, a will, and code/ethics/morals/laws He lives by).

He dwells/lives in eternity, which is not time dependent or governed. He is outside of our time domain.

What He decrees (for Himself included) is therefore eternal, and by that virtue alone ABSOLUTE.

Whether or not you or I can "prove" it, is totally irrelevant. I know it is not irrelevant to you, because as you state in your definition of absolute truth, untestable etc.

However, this point in itself is only true for your(mine) time of life on planet Earth. According to the Bible, which you also dismiss, (but I have to use as it is my source), upon death all will be revealed. He will, in fact, present you with ABSOLUTE truth, in every tiny detail. But that's another matter.

My purpose is not to prove anything to anyone. (As I have stated time and again), but to declare. You have read some of my hubs related to this area.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

dj, you made the following statements:

(You dismiss the "existence" of God)

(He IS)

exist = IS = real, synonyms

Since your use of the word 'God' fails the scientific definition of 'exists', it is meaningless for you to claim this thing exists or to assert any other statement about it as matter of fact.

Define 'exists' unambiguously so it includes all of existence, and your use of the key word 'God'.

Failing to define this key word will prevent you from convincing the jury that 'God exists'.

(My purpose is not to prove anything to anyone, but to declare)

Thanks for clarifying your purpose, dj. But I don't see what your declarations have to do with me. You know that I require rational Science for your assertions.

Almost all Christians make their own declarations about 'God', many of which are completely different than yours. So I'm sure you can appreciate my position on this matter.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

dj,

I appreciate your honesty in not being able to prove 'absolute truth'. Most Christians are too stubborn and proud to admit it.

You have faith in what you declare and I do not take any issue with that. I only take issue with declarations that reify faith into the realm of Science. Only then do I step in and ask for the rational science to be presented.

Anyway, I'm sure we understand each other.

Lita Sorensen mentioned that she has some Spinoza proof of absolute truth. I asked her to post it but she just likes to tease me (which I find flattering) rather than post anything of substance.

If you like, talk to her and post it here yourself and challenge me.

I welcome any challenge. Thanks.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

I think there are semantic differences here which need to be unravelled before one can pronounce with absolute certainty that there is no absolute truth. Is that not an absolutist statement in itself? It's a bit like the syllogism that stated for example Androcles is a Greek; Androcles is dishonest, therefore all Greeks are dishonest.

Just thought I would add a little to this interesting philosophical debate! May it long continue.

Love and peace

Tony


maven101 profile image

maven101 6 years ago from Northern Arizona

Lets look at your statement "there are no absolutes." First of all, you are declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute ... there are absolutely no absolutes.

When you say "Truth is relative.", again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative.

Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything, including that statement, would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If the statement "truth is relative" is not always true, then sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

Here's an example of the circular logic of relativists:

A philosophy teacher who declares to their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth."... Then they turn around and grade the papers!... You can't have it both ways...

Here's a question for you...Can absolute Truth be transitory..?

Larry


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(before one can pronounce with absolute certainty that there is no absolute truth. Is that not an absolutist statement in itself?)

Tony,

That issue is specifically addressed in this hub. Look it up.

"There are NO absolutes" is not an absolute statement for the same reasons that "There are NO leprechauns", is not a "leprechauns" statement!

Is this a blue statement: "This statement is blue".

Is this not a blue statement: "This statement is not blue".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.)

maven,

That statement is true, but you forgot one more statement, namely:

'When you follow the logic, absolutist arguments will always contradict themselves.'

An absolute, is a proposition that is true, for every possible circumstance; that is, for all people, all places, all times, etc.

Absolute truth posits that we have no concept of time because all of time exists NOW. Hence the word 'absolute' contradicts itself. This is why it is BELIEVED to be the case, rather than proven. It takes just as much faith to believe in 'absolutes' as it does to believe in a god.


maven101 profile image

maven101 6 years ago from Northern Arizona

Fold ?? My, but aren't we self-congratulatory...How infantile to reduce this discussion to a litany of loquacious lament...Whatever gave you the idea that I believed in absolute truth..? Now that is a straw man, my man...pounding your breast and claiming superior knowledge to those poor, clueless, believers is like an ignored wuss clamoring for attention...Your arguments, while striving to be pragmatic, become simply another tired belief system locked up in a rather tiny perspective...

I don't have to prove anything to anyone...You of the furrowed brow are driven to that necessary conclusion...I am a poet, and as such I have a poet's perspective on truth, in all its forms...again, I ask you, from a poets perspective, is Truth transitory..? Can we not use the allegory of supposed truth to describe, attribute, define, pass judgement, on the human condition..? Is not the pursuit of truth a worthy and honorable challenge..? Does the idea of Absolute Truth, in and of itself, not contribute to the furthering of human inquiry and knowledge..?...Larry


rtdriver 6 years ago

You did a fabulous job in proving theres no truth that can be absolute. And it goes to show why nobody can refute it.

And thats an important point you made about absolute truth being a relative truth in disguise. IT truly is.


person 6 years ago

(How can he possibly argue for absolutes when he can't even produce one? Nobody can, it's impossible! If you read this hub you will see why.)

I can produce an absolute truth:

'This hub page currently exists'

Here's another one:

'This statement is comprised of words'

or:

'You said that you do not believe that we can produce absolute truth'

If you disagree with that last one then you have proven that you do believe in at least one absolute truth.


person 6 years ago

dear fatfist,

sorry for causing you futher frustration! I get your point about absolutes now. They would depend on an eternal, infinite, unbounded and absolute and all powerful mind to be known as absolutely true. Clearly no human has such a mind, so there are no absolute truths.

about the 'hub' question. ok 'hub' was a bad example. I laugh at myself now! haha. Anyway, as i said, i get what you mean by absolutes. I also agree with you about no relative truths - well said.

Ok. I would like to write the following as respectfully and as carefully as possible...

I am not ashamed to admit that i do believe in an eternal and infinite uncreated God. I also admit that i would be happy for you if you did too - but, at the same time, neither will i ridicule you for what you believe, and i hope we might be able to have a friendly discussion about what follows:

It obviously requires faith to assert that God exists. Likewise it would follows that one cant totally prove, but can only believe, that God created the universe since one cannot go back in time to observe God doing so.

It seems to me that it also it requires faith to assert the alternative, that matter/energy (or whatever was) has always existed. I say it requires faith because we cannot empirically prove that it always has existed. We cannot go back in time to observe and prove the various theories about the how the universe came to be as it is. Are there alternative options? Maybe matter/energy didn't always exist in some form at all, and so just came to be at some point. For the same reason that explanation also requires faith.

Basically, it seems to me that, if we rely on what is objectively true and based on empirical studies of observation, then, because we weren't there to see what happened, our best explanations are still based on various assumptions about the past. So, to me it seems like a measure of faith is needed whatever we think happened.

Are we left with two options? Did either matter/energy (or whatever matter/energy came from) always existed or that an eternal and uncreated and infinite God did and that God created the universe according to his own will and that it depends on God to exist?

Personally, the solar system, the earth, life on earth, human life all have the appearance of design to me. Therefore, I do not feel that it is irrational to assume that God created it, that he created us. Furthermore, i don't see how an un-caused universe makes sense, and i dont see how the energy/matter could have always been.

I look forward to your response. I anticipate that you will have strong and persuasively argued answers. I hope we may proceed with mutual respect, regardless of our different views, even though they will likely be mutually exclusive in many ways.

If you do want to make fun of me, feel free. In any case may we both enjoy the thinking and writing we have the privilege of doing.

I hope you have a good day, wish yo good health and peace.

Sincerely,

'person'


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(Maybe matter/energy didn't always exist in some form at all, and so just came to be at some point.)

But WHAT is non-existence? Space is nothingness. You cannot take space away. Space cannot disappear. You cannot package space in a box and move it from one location to another, and expect to leave a VOID behind. This is impossible because the VOID = SPACE!

Please, if you don’t believe me, just try out this experiment yourself. Try to pump out air from a glass box and just leave space behind. Now try to package this space into another sealed box and remove it. What are you left with behind? The void? What does this void look like? Well, if you actually removed space, then you would not be able to see anything thru this void.

But yet, you cannot do this, because space is left behind. So really, you cannot package space. It is impossible because space is not physical. SPACE = VOID!

As you see, this doesn’t take any faith, it takes rational reasoning and understanding – and a simple experiment.

(if we rely on what is objectively true)

There is NO true/false, right/wrong, correct/incorrect when it comes to the universe. These concepts can only be applied in the context of systems of logic, like classical, fuzzy, quantum, math, etc. Whenever we talk about the universe or physics, there is only rational explanations and irrational explanations. I hope you understand this, and don’t let other people fool you with proofs and nonsense like that.

( and based on empirical studies of observation)

Observations are subjective, do you agree? If not, please google some videos about how the human eye SEES objects and colors which are NOT really there. You will be amazed! How does the eye do this? It doesn’t!!!! The BRAIN does it!!!!

It is the BRAIN which fills-in information for the eye which is NOT really there in reality. Try it on yourself by viewing these videos.

Therefore, observations CANNOT be trusted. We must get rid of ALL observers and begin to rationally explain the universe. Experiments do not prove anything. They only support our explanations.

(then, because we weren't there to see what happened, our best explanations are still based on various assumptions about the past.)

In physics, we use a HYPOTHESIS to assume an object or a situation. So let us assume that GOD created the universe. Now we must use our Theory to EXPLAIN all the how’s and why’s, specifically, what is a void (if not space), how can God reside in it, and how did God convert the void into space and into matter? If we can’t explain this in a rational manner, then our hypothesis fails us. What else is left for us to do?

Can you explain this God Theory in a rational manner?

(Personally, the solar system, the earth, life on earth, human life all have the appearance of design to me)

Design is a concept. It is word which necessarily requires a human to interpret it. Design is subjective. We can find a pattern on the sand on the beach. You can think it was intelligently designed. But if we leave a video camera all night, the next morning we found it was the wind and the waves that created this nice pattern!

So, argument from design, is subjective, and has nothing to do with physics or the universe.

(Therefore, I do not feel that it is irrational to assume that God created it, that he created us. )

Well, you need to tell us WHAT God is. Is it an object or a concept?

Then you must use your God in the hypothesis, assume it, and then in your God Theory you must explain rationally how God did it. You will not prove, only explain. This is the best we can ask for.

(Furthermore, i don't see how an un-caused universe makes sense, and i dont see how the energy/matter could have always been.)

Consider what you are asserting. You are insisting that existence required a cause; some initial event. But this initial event also needs a cause. To assert that it doesn’t need a cause or that there was no initial event, is to claim that non-existence gave rise to existence. If existence wasn't eternal then the only alternative is non-existence. You are calling for a non-existent mediator for a cause. This is irrational.

( I hope we may proceed with mutual respect, regardless of our different views)

Everybody has different views. This is why there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity. And this is why atheists can’t even agree with each other about the universe. I hope we can put personal opinions aside, and just focus on rational explanations. This is the best we can do.

Thank you for your comments, person!


person 6 years ago

I hope to have a sit down and read and respond to your post sometime soon.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Please bear with me as I am quite busy at present.

It might be a few days, but I will post a response.

Thanks,

person


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(I hope to have a sit down and read and respond to your post sometime soon)

No problem, person. Take all the time you want. I'll be here. Thanks


julia 6 years ago

Are there any absolute distictions about what is true or false?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

julia,

What does the term "absolute distinctions" mean?

How is it different than just using the term "distinctions", in your sentence above?

True and false are concepts. Specifically, they are labels we use to indicate the validation of propositional statements.

For example, a proposition like: “there is $172.43 in my Bank of America savings account”

Can be validated by proving that those funds are in the account. Then we can say that the proposition is “true”. If those exact funds are not indicative of the account, then we say the statement is “false”.

As you can see:

- truth is a concept

- truth stems from propositions which are proven to be true or false

- true and false are binary negations of each other, indicative of dichotomies.

Thanks for your comment!


julia 6 years ago

"Then we can say that the proposition is “true”. If those exact funds are not indicative of the account, then we say the statement is “false” " So it can be true or it can be false, so there is a difference. but how to prove that there is no difference between those two


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

julia,

"but how to prove that there is no difference between those two"

I don't understand your question. What is it that you want to prove?

There is a difference between a statement that is proven true, and one that is proven false. It is a dichotomy.


Winston 6 years ago

A theist philosophy "expert" did not like my claim that an axiom was only assumed to be true. He excitedly pointed to the dictionary that stated an axiom was an "unproven truth".

You should have heard him when I pointed out that "unproven truth" is an oxymoron.


Winston 6 years ago

Another question if I may. One of the "debaters" was not an overt theist but still accepted the idea of the absolute nature of truth. He gave this scenario as reasoning: suppose only two people are left on Earth. One says, No other intelligent life exists in the unviverse. The other says, Intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the universe. Then they both die.

He contends that one of those statements must be true and the other one must be false as per the LNC.

I haven't responded directly to his assertion but it appears to me that once "does exist" and "does not exist" enter the equation that the questions are no longer propositions of logic but are actually two competing hypothesis - and thus can never be true or false.

I think what he was trying to show was the axiom of The Law of Non-Contradiction was really true. Now, this guy is not a bad guy at all, and to a degree I understand what he was trying to say - that for practical purposes we can assume this to true - well, duh! That is the nature of an axiom. But as far as I'm concerned it is shoddy thinking to insist that "assumption for practical purposes" is the same as true.

But as you have said many times, calling it true, believing it true, assuming it true - none of these makes it true.

Very enlightening and helpful. Thank you for sharing your intellect and knowledge.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Hey fatfist, I'm not here to argue, but this vid I found might shed some light.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGNRP6Q-6Q

Be Well


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Thanks for the link, spiderpam.

But as you can see from the video, Frank Turek has no clue what absolute truth means. He claims that ALL truth is absolute. This statement in itself allows the truth claims of Islam to falsify Christianity. So POOF goes Jesus, if what Frank claims is true.

Also, in the temperature example Frank Turek gave, if one person "feels cold" is absolute, then it means that he felt cold for ALL OF TIME.

This clearly wasn't true 1 million years ago, nor will it be true 1 million years from now.

Frank Turek's video is obviously bunk.

Thanks for posting.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Thanks for a kind reply. I read an article from an ex hubber a while ago and as I read through your profile, my mind kept going back to that article . It took a while but I found it.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheism-is-Intellectual-Su...

Enjoy and Be Well.


Dan +†+ 6 years ago

Fatfist,

>>there are no logical absolutes.

Is that absolutely true?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dan,

No, it is NOT! ALL truth is proven to be true. And it is proven in this hub that there are NO absolutes.

It’s that simple, Dan....the so-called “absolute truth” has no resolution, and hence no proof. So it is impossible for it to be a ‘truth’. Thus, it is only a ‘belief’. And since it stems from a supposed authority, it is a ‘relative’ belief.

In other words....your so-called “absolute truth”, upon cursory examination, gets reduced to nothing more than a RELATIVE BELIEF = OPINION!

This famous trick question theists often parrot is actually answered in this hub, believe it or not.

Looks like you didn’t read this hub, but instead chose to ask this typical COOKIE CUTTER question, which I can easily answer.

You can instantly blow my proof out of the water by just proving one absolute truth....be my guest, Dan.

Thanks for trying tho.


Dan +†+ 6 years ago

Fatfist,

As entertaining as it was I must show the incorrectness of your article.

Here is the crust of it:

"It is impossible to prove anything into the future, never mind unchanged. Therefore absolute truth is indeed an impossibility."

What is funny about that claim is the logic itself behind that is totally flawed. We could not exist ad a species if that were actually true. Might as well stay home because the sun may, or may not, rise. Just because someone cannot see the future, or past, does not mean consistency does not exist. The laws of Logic are objective truths. A priori truths, like math, are objective. Since they don't rely on observation, there is no observer to color their findings. So even if it were true, the claims from this article is not the reason. You lost that one.

Plus I see this article addresses the point of “Your statement, there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement"

Fine, now then answer if math is a propositional concept or is there such a thing as an equal sign? In other words, with out absolutes there is no purpose of the "=" sign since it merely is a subjective point being made.

You are claiming that 2+2 suggests a 4? Equals, and the = sign, are absolute statements/symbols.

I will ask this, do the laws of logic exist, have they always existed?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dan,

I see you eluded the question posed to you earlier....”please prove 1, just ONE absolute truth”. Not a single Christian Apologist can answer this formidable question!!

(What is funny about that claim is the logic itself behind that is totally flawed.)

Please explain with the luxury of detail how & why it is flawed. I mean, how do you go about PROVING anything about the future in your religion? Do you have a crystal ball that spits out proofs in some eternal system of logic? If you go learn some basic logic, concepts, and their associated constructs, you will understand that it is impossible to prove anything in the past and in the future. Why? Because the past & future are not available for a system of logic to deduce any proof. Systems of logic require all the logical constructs, assertions, statements, axioms, etc. to be in available in PRESENT MODE in order for a systemic proof to be ‘deduced’ at a specific time.

ALL LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS ARE PROVEN IN THE PRESENT ONLY!

You disagree? Great! Please prove that “1+1=2” next year.....or better yet, please prove that Michael Jackson existed at any time in the past.

Answering these key questions will elucidate whether you understand what you preach.

(We could not exist ad a species if that were actually true. Might as well stay home because the sun may, or may not, rise.)

Existence has nothing to do with the future or the past. Existence is a state of being regardless of time. Time is a human concept. Dinosaurs, bacteria, and the Sun existed before God created Adam & Eve along with their selfish & twisted concepts! Whether the Sun rises or not has nothing to do with humans, their concepts, or with whatever you choose to agree or disagree with. The Sun will always go about its business unless affected in some physical way.

(Just because someone cannot see the future, or past, does not mean consistency does not exist.)

Consistency exists? Really? How does ‘consistency’ exist? What does it mean to ‘exist’ in your religion?

Please draw a picture of this ‘consistency’ or reference one on the internet. Then we will both know whether it exists or not. Ordinary speech is only used in Religion & Politics, Dan. The actuality of the universe is not dependent on your opinions, metaphors and colloquialisms.

(The laws of Logic are objective truths.)

The axioms of Classical logic, like the axioms of any of the thousands of systems of logic out there, are DEFINED and ASSUMED to be the case for the purposes of creating a System of Logic that will be applicable to certain situations. They are only ‘objective’ within their System of Logic which they define. By themselves, without any foundational context, they are not objective and actually meaningless.

And they certainly are NOT truths because ALL truths are PROVEN! Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven. For if they could, they would instantly cease to be axioms and would become ‘truth statements’, which could further be reduced to another set of foundational axioms. This clearly isn’t the case with the axioms of Classical logic. So your church logic fails.

If you disagree, please demonstrate how your religion resolves a truth without proof.

(A priori truths, like math, are objective. Since they don't rely on observation, there is no observer to color their findings.)

All a priori truths are conceived by humans. Math was conceived by humans (Greeks, Egyptians, etc.). And they are most definitely dependent on observers to conceptualize them. It requires an observer to conceive of an a priori system. Without a biological brain consisting of atoms, there are no concepts like math or logic!

(Plus I see this article addresses the point of “Your statement, there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement")

Strawman! This is NOT what this hub is stating. You haven’t even read this article. This is why you don’t even understand 1% of what is written here.

That there are NO absolutes is NOT an absolute statement. It is a PROVEN statement. The proof is crystal clear in the article. Your claim fails the SYNTACTICAL & CONTEXTUAL aspects of any grammar. That is, it fails at the ‘conceptual’ level. So how can it possibly be absolute?

Do you even understand what a predicate is? You need to read read read the bare minimum basics, before you post. Otherwise you will just keep chasing your tail in circles.

(Fine, now then answer if math is a propositional concept)

Math is a concept. ALL concepts are ‘conceived’ by biological brains and ‘proposed’ by living creatures. If you disagree, please explain how a concept can be ‘conceived’ without a biological brain and ‘proposed’ without a living creature.

(is there such a thing as an equal sign?)

You are confusing nouns of ordinary speech with physical objects. An equal sign is a concept. An equal sign is NOT a thing!

Thing = real object, medium, structure, being

(In other words, with out absolutes there is no purpose of the "=" sign)

The purpose of an “=” sign is DEFINED within the conceptual system that uses it.

Ex. In math we can add numbers, but in computer languages we can add any abstract object, like: strings, dates, OOP objects, network packets, code, etc....as defined within each system.

Your claimed “absolutes” are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

(You are claiming that 2+2 suggests a 4?)

I certainly hope that it’s not just “MY” claim, Dan. I hope that some human was kind enough to define the rules of arithmetic so that we can all use it as a tool for conceptual quantifications, and for allowing us to conceive upon other abstractions, like Calculus, Trigonometry, etc.

(Equals, and the = sign, are absolute statements/symbols.)

Really? Is that a fact or just your opinion? Your use or ordinary speech makes all ‘things’ possible for the purposes of protecting your religion.

The “=” sign is NOT a statement because it does not propose anything. You must be consistent with your terms in order to rationally explain your assertions. Learn the basics, Dan.

Language, symbols (=,+,-,/, etc), statements, math, axioms, etc....are all concepts which were not around before humans. And they will not be around when humans (or bio brains) cease to exist. Since they are not eternal, they are NOT absolute!

You really need to teach yourself and your Pastor the basics of human comprehension, Dan!

(I will ask this, do the laws of logic exist, have they always existed?)

See my previous comments on “ordinary speech”.

Thanks for your post.


Winston 6 years ago

You have certainly been proven correct in how the Christian theist philosopher non-argument-argument will go. A few quotes from my recent experience.

First, the assertion: Theist: "... the truth is not contingent... that is as simple as i can put it"

Theist: "True = factual = corresponds with external reality."

Theist: it's hard for me to believe that you still don't understand what you are saying... don't you see that the claim itself is a claim of absolute truth?

Theist: "but just in case it doesn't do the job, i state as an absolute truth this - something exists... do you disagree?"

Then finally the appeal to authority: Theist duo: "Now see Edmund Gettier 'Is Justified True belief Knowledge' 1963."

"excellent book, as are plantinga's works which delve much deeper"

I have repeatedly asked for any logical proof of an absolute truth - the above assertions and appeals have been the only answers received.


Winston 6 years ago

Continuing the previous thoughts, it becomes extremely frustrating to attempt rational discourse with the Christian Philosopher who responds as follows:

Me: Truth is a concept. Truth cannot be resolved to any object in the known universe. Truth is a resolution of the dichotomy true or false, which must be proven. The proof of true/false can be empirical or reasoned (a priori).

CP: You are making up you own definition of truth. Truth does not require proof to be true.

Me: A proposition left unproven is not a form of truth but only opinion, belief.

CP: According to YOUR definition. You make up your own definitions that fit your worldview - they are nothing more than assertions.

At this point I usually get a deja vu about the Monty Python skit: Is this the right room for an argument?

"That's not an argument. It's only contradiction."

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

And then CP references some dictionary or philosopher or some other authority to "prove" his belief about truth is correct.

I think I shall rename this fallacy: The Appeal to Python.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

Here are some comments to help you out. I would love for this theist to come and post his nonsense here.

(Theist: "True = factual = corresponds with external reality.")

A truth is never a fact, and vice versa. Only that which is PROVEN can ever be classified as a ‘truth’. See my comments in the Plantinga Naturalism hub.

(don't you see that the claim itself is a claim of absolute truth?)

But a ‘claim’ is not truth unless proven. And it’s not ‘absolute’ unless proven to be ETERNAL!!!!!!!!!!

(i state as an absolute truth this - something exists)

Empirical reality is not subject to proof and truth. Can he prove to me right this second that his right arm exists? Does his right arm not exist if he cannot prove it? It is a fact that his right arm exists irrespective of any observer, evidence, axiom, logic, proof, or truth. So it is not even conceptual, and not even a truth.... never mind absolute!

(I have repeatedly asked for any logical proof of an absolute truth)

So have I. They know they can’t produce the goose that lays the golden eggs. So they give excuses or completely ignore this question.

(Truth does not require proof to be true.)

Oh I love this one!!

I like to use the banking example. The bank has a list of axioms or rules which dictate each transaction. This is part of their system of business logic rules....aka, ‘business rules’.

If what the theist claims were true, then I would be able to walk into any bank in the world and withdraw ALL the money from their safe by merely claiming as truth that it is in my account. And of course, according to the theist, no proof of my identity or account verification is required. So the bank will happily comply and give me the money and I will exit the door.....I WISH!!

He has it backwards.....it is FACT which cannot be proven. Without proof, there is no truth.

I’ve had the same exchange with theists. Their whole argument collapses with the banking example, one of “thousands” of examples we have in society. Another good example is court cases. Proof in court consists of the axiom or rule they call: “beyond reasonable doubt”. So according to a legal system of logic, it is ‘true’ that you are guilty of a crime if it is shown via evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And this truth is only valid within the context of a legal system, not outside of it. It is not rare for an innocent person to be declared guilty in such a system which requires observers to subjectively determine truths from empirical evidence. Now do you understand why nothing empirical can ever be proven with 100% certainty?

Hope this helps


Winston 6 years ago

I wonder if the theist crew I have been engaging can have their own definitions and axioms turned against them? Consider this post one made:

"Truth can only be attributed to judgments, which are expressed as propositions that note the degree, or lack, of agreement between two or more ideas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

That seems to be a clear statement that truth is subjective. It then follows that:

Truth cannot be absolute if it is subjective.

Truth is subjective or truth is not subjective.

Truth cannot be subjective and not subjective at the same time.

If truth is subjective it must be subjective in all possible worlds.

If truth is subjective in all possible worlds, it is subjective in this world.

If truth is subjective in this world, it cannot be absolute in this world.

Therefore, truth is not absolute.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

(Truth can only be attributed to judgments)

What ‘we’ as humans ‘judge’ or ‘agree’ to, has nothing to do with truth. Truth is based on objective criteria. It is validated via a logical deduction (without violating the axioms) within a logical “system”. It is rule-based and devoid of any one's opinion.

You cannot bend the axioms, just like you cannot bend the Law! But you CAN change the axioms just like you can change the Law. In this case you develop a NEW system of logic, just like you develop new laws.

(propositions that note the degree, or lack, of agreement between two or more ideas)

Propositions have nothing to do with any ‘degree’ of anything. They have nothing to do with a ‘lack’ of any agreement of any ‘idea’. Propositions PROPOSE a logical CLAIM – that’s it!

The claim is then “mapped” into a system of logic we choose for the best modelling of the concepts stated within the proposition. When it is evaluated within that system of logic, a ‘true’ or ‘false’ may be the result. If no result is possible, then the ideas expressed in the proposition are outside the realm of that ‘particular’ system of logic. So either another system of logic should be used, or the proposition should be taken outside the scope of logical ‘proof’, and into an explanatory analysis to determine whether it is ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’. That is all we can do!

So yes, there are a million ways to refute the theistic claim for “absolutes” because it violates all logic and reason. They have no leg to stand on.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Truth is an idea, a thought – a concept!

When somebody claims: “there is absolute truth”

....they are attributing “thought” to when there was no biological brain to facilitate the thought. This is a complete violation of all forms of logic – it is irrational.

How exactly can they suggest any proposition exists in lieu of language and in lieu of brains existing? And with no explanation as to how or why? How can such a person be taken seriously? We need to call in the men with the white jackets to take this person to a nice place with lots of trees and flowers, for immediate therapy!

Saying truth is “absolute” violates all forms of formal logic, because none of them are available eternally.

All that a rational person has to say is: "When there was no language, there was no truth; never mind absolute truth".

This kills absolute truth by logical necessity alone.

Theists have no idea of what truth & logic even is, for if they did, they wouldn’t be arguing against something which is proven and irrefutable!

Nothing was true prior to mind and language. Nothing could be true then, as no languages were available and all truths are propositions within a language. Nothing is true before it is proven. Absolute truth violates the laws of modern and classical logic.

The ‘NOW’ is available for instant consideration in a logical deduction, but the ‘PAST’ and ‘FUTURE’ are NOT! Therefore there are NO truths for the past or the future, hence no absolute truths. This is one more nail in the coffin of "absolute truth", which is contradictory and obviously impossible.

No logical proposition can be proven true for 1 second ago or for 1 second into the future. Neither the past or the future are available for such a deductive proof. It is impossible to prove that “2+2=4”, 1 second ago, or 1 second into the future. You can only get your pen & paper out and prove that “2+2=4” right NOW!

It is a FACT of the reality of the Universe that the Sun existed 1 second ago. It is impossible to ‘prove’ this. Why? Because the ‘past’ is not available for an immediate logical deduction of proof.

You see, such empirical claims have nothing to do with truth or axiomatic systems of logic. They only have to do with what is rational or irrational, and not what is true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong, belief/disbelief.

People and all sectors of society use these terms in the context of “ordinary speech”, without even understanding where these terms are even applicable. This type of reasoning allows theists to get away with murder by claiming to “prove” the existence of God, Devil, Angels, Ghosts, Spirits, etc.

Anything & everything is ‘provable’ when people base the proof on ordinary speech and vague terms!


Winston 6 years ago

Thanks again.

It is tiring to keep running into claims about definitions instead of having discussion coming about from inate reasoning skills. The latest in the "truth doesn't have to be proven war" is that a conclusion doesn't prove truth - it only shows if the argument was "sound".

The claim is that the argument itself does resolve to a proof of true or false; however, the axioms are true.

I ask - if you do not prove truth through systemic reasoning, what the HELL do you use, a magic 8-ball? Should we roll dice for verdicts, read tea leaves to find and burn some witches, or just go "all in" by donating our life's savings to the pastor in exchange for a ticket to our heavenly reward?

It is as if all of philosophical education has been turned 180 degrees from reasoned and logical thinking in order to prove a presupposed idea.

Law of Excluded Middle, my ass. It's now The Law of Excluded Reason.


ceciliabeltran profile image

ceciliabeltran 6 years ago from New York

Interesting, fatfist. It's a good discussion. Absolutists are really over simplifying the conundrum of diversity. Not to say that I agree with you,because i think you know my stand. But I also was delighted to be educated at how a person can view absolutism as oppressive.

You will have many friends here in Hubpages. But I will be seeing you on the opposite side of the ring.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Thank you for the comment cecilia.

Everyone has the right the disagree. But the only way to resolve disagreements is with rational discussions.

"You will have many friends here in Hubpages."

I still don't think you understand me, cecilia.

I didn't come here to make friends. Hopefully I can wake up one person and get them to embrace reality, rather than be a puppet that is controlled by religion and authority.

"But I will be seeing you on the opposite side of the ring"

Everybody sees me on the opposite side of the ring..LOL

I am used to it.

The only thing I ask, is for people to do their research, and to use logic, reason, and consistent terms when engaging me. Otherwise, my language and analysis will seem very foreign to them.

Cheers :-)


Winston 6 years ago

I enjoy you sharing the way your mind works. I have a question. If we ask how a concept can be resolved to an object in the universe, how do we explain the idea of gravity? We can observe the effects of gravity, but to my knowledge gravity itself is not an object in the universe.

So would you say gravity exists or does not exist? Or does it take seperate axioms and a seperate system of logic to explain gravity? I mean, it seems to fit a posteriori as a casual agent but only reveals itself a priori as a concept.

Thanks in advance for answering.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(I enjoy you sharing the way your mind works.)

Thank you for the compliments, Winston. If there is at least one person who finds my discussions here useful, and actually “learns” something, then that is all I need to be happy :-)

(how a concept can be resolved to an object in the universe)

This is where you are exiting systems of logic with their proofs, truths, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, holy/sinful, etc....and are entering a totally different realm we call ‘physics’.

All objects in the universe are physical, even if they are invisible!

For visible objects, we “point” to them and name them. For example, if an alien lands on Earth and you want to offer them an apple, you will “point” to the object and say: “apple”. The alien immediately associates the concept “apple”, with the object you pointed to. The next time the alien wants an apple, they will say the word “apple” to you. Now you have established a “language”, a level of conceptual communication with the alien.

That was a simple resolution. And this is how humans did all the physical mappings of words (concepts) to physical objects – they simply pointed to them and gave them a name.

The tougher resolutions, for invisible objects, are done via the scientific method: Hypotheses & Theories.

(how do we explain the idea of gravity?)

Simple!

First we must understand that “gravity” is a concept that establishes a relation to the “effects” (verb) we experience. Only physical objects can make other physical objects (ie. us) experience effects. This necessarily implies that gravity is facilitated by some physical mediator; namely, an object!!

(We can observe the effects of gravity, but to my knowledge gravity itself is not an object in the universe.)

When a concept makes us experience physical effects, it’s time to see the psychiatrist. Does “love” actually move mountains, or does a bulldozer do it? This is the scientific question we must ask every single time....and for anything!

This is how we do it in physics:

Hypothesis: Assume object X is the physical mediator for the effects of gravity.

Theory: I can now rationally explain the effects of gravity using X as follows.....blah blah.

(So would you say gravity exists or does not exist?)

Gravity is a concept, as discussed above. There were no concepts before God made Adam & Eve. Therefore “gravity” does not exist. What actually exists, is the physical MEDIATOR, that mediates this effect we call gravity.

This mediator is indeed a physical “object” in the universe. Yes, it is invisible, but so what? Remember: light is INVISIBLE!! Light is only visible when it reflects off surfaces and interacts with our retinas. If light were visible as it travelled, then all of space would be permeated with light in our visible spectrum, and we wouldn’t even be able to see our hand in front of us. There would be no night sky in space; it would all be washed by light. Clearly, this isn’t the case. So light MUST be invisible to us!!

As luck would have it, the mediator for gravity, as for light, is also invisible to us. Imagine if we could see gravity. It would be the same situation with seeing light – we would be blinded! It’s a good thing God knew what he was doing when he made our eyes only see things in a VERY LIMITED spectral bandwidth.

(Or does it take separate axioms and a separate system of logic to explain gravity?)

Axioms are NEVER applicable to physical reality. There we no axioms before humans. Yet physical reality managed just fine without us and our stupid concepts! Axioms necessarily require a subject to interpret and apply them. Any use of axioms, concepts, math, or systems of logic, necessarily injects subjectivity into our understanding of the universe.

If we hope to understand the physical phenomena of the universe, we MUST use observer-free analysis. That is, a “human” should not be the center of the explanation. No observations, experiments, mathematics, opinions, or authorities are allowed to inject any subjectivity into our Theory (rational explanation).

This is the only OBJECTIVE way that we, as stupid apes, can ever hope to understand and explain natural phenomena.


Winston 6 years ago

It is interesting to me how convoluted the ideas must become in order to attempt to hold onto belief in the face of reason. For example, I simply Googled "define postulate" and the results backed what you have been saying almost to the letter (assumed, foundational, etc.). Yet the theist philosopher I have engaged keeeps hounding that axioms themselves ARE true. "You cannot be sitting there reading this and be somewhere else reading this at the same time. That is true!"

It seems to me his worldview requires this belief in order to have a consistency with a belief in absolute truth.

Of course, he worships Plantinga as a philosophical Einstein, and he believes Intelligent Design equal to evolutionary theory, too.

I took two dictionary definitions of the word absolute, and then I showed him how an absolute truth was an impossibility by those defintions (basically the concept of unconditional), using simple and straightforward reasoning to prove there were conditions on absolute both in time and conceptual recognition that made the concept of an unconditional absolute impossible.

He did not challenge the reasoning, nor did he offer his own proof of absolute truth, instead he offered a different definition of "absolute truth":

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner

The theist philosopher went on to say this to me, "you wanted to equate truth with that which is only conceptual, not real... i do not accept this..."

Our entire discussion began because I challenged his claim that theism and atheism were both "beliefs". I pointed out that theism had only belief as its basis yet atheism required nothing more than recognition that empirical evidence for a deity did not exist, i.e., attempting to equate theism and atheism as opposing "religions" based on opposing "beliefs" was not making a valid comparison. Atheism is a rejection of the theist belief, it is not an opposing belief in and of itself.

With this final statement of his that truth is not a concept but real, I rest my case. I will wait patiently for him to capture truth in a truth trap and send it to me via Federal Express. Until then, I reject his beliefs.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

"You cannot be sitting there reading this and be somewhere else reading this at the same time. That is true!"

No! That has nothing to do with ‘truth’. That has to do with FACT!

It is a FACT that at any given moment, an object can only have ONE ‘static’ location with respect to all other objects in the universe. And it is a fact irrespective of axioms, truth, belief, opinion, knowledge, wisdom, hope, or proof. It was the case even when humans and their stupid ideas didn't exist.

Also, when YOU didn’t exist, that statement was not true either. Hence it was not true for ALL of time. Therefore it is not absolute. And this is why the axioms are not absolute!!

“He did not challenge the reasoning, nor did he offer his own proof of absolute truth, instead he offered a different definition of "absolute truth"

BINGO! That’s what they all do. They change the goalposts so you can’t score.

“truth is not a concept but real”

The word “real” is a synonym for “exist”. Get him to define the word “exist” so that it captures both objects and concepts, without using ‘truth’ or ‘axioms’. This is an impossible task. Any such attempt is easily refuted. And this is why concepts are NOT “real”.

If truth is not a concept, then it is an ‘object’. All he has to do is reference a picture of truth on the internet so we can see how this little devil looks like.

There are only concepts, objects, and space (nothing).

Before humans, there were only objects and space (nothing).


Winston 6 years ago

I really want to thank you for helping me crystallize my thinking in these areas. I was posting to another thread earlier - a hub started by some women who wanted to pontificate how god had to exist and atheism was simply wrong-headed.

It took no time at all to devour her lame arguments - and while being civil the whole time - reduce her to babbling about "her" authorities.

Then she began to delete comments. And as the final insult she used the fallacious "appeal to authority" by turning us in (the dissenters) for "harrassment.

This after making the spectacularly aggressive statement that she hoped we would get to meet god sooner rather than later. She didn't like hearing how her absolutist beliefs made her no different than Muslim absolutists or David Koresh.

I used to think it was O.K. to ignore these people. But now that they have organized somewhat for political purposes I feel they need to be called out and shown to be the charlatans they really are.

Thanks for the help.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

You are very welcome Winston.

As you can see, I present nothing "new" or "earth shattering" here. Just some common sense, that one would hope, was taught in schools....but unfortunately it isn't.

The school system does make you smarter in many areas, but in some areas, it really dumbs down society.

This is why most cannot tell you what truth is. They instead prefer to parrot what their Pastor taught them at the monastery: that "truth" is out there somewhere, floating in the universe....and it was "put" there by God.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Well you got me, and I was so careful. I don't like being trolled or harassed and since you and yours are such anti-religious religious zealots who use the most vile, blasphemes language I use ello. Sorry if that upsets you, but I can only stand so much foul language, threats, and blasphemy . If you ever want to have exchange with me you would have to control yourself. If you felt deceived I apologize, but there was no smokescreen, so please avoid the crocodile tears. I do not expect you to be honest about your socks, but I will and from I deal with I have good reason to do so.

"Your responses are perfect examples of what is defined as the workings of a primitive, not fully evolved, and not fully functioning APE brain. I'm sure you will be happy to know that I will add you to my list of primitive thinkers, like Mickey Mouse & Goofy, who offer nothing of value to consider."

You've use this often it's a great script, but what facts are involved here? None, just speculation.


Haruka 6 years ago

I'm very inspired by what you wrote. I understund what you're trying to say and I do believe it is true, I also understund the opposite side though since humans want to believe in something. In case of god.

For the ancient greeks the 12 gods of olympus were an absolute truth , until it was proven wrong. So I think that it's gonna happen for these human generations sometime in the future as well.

Anyhow,

I am still a bit confused and I would much appreciate it if you made some things clear for me. :)

If I touch something, I know it's hot.

So is it not an absolute truth that it's hot?

The scientist have constructed a full genome for the e.coli, and some other bacterium.

Is it not absolute truth that that is the genome of a bacterium?

So are some things absolute truths until proven wrong?

Looking forward to your reply.

Haruka :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Haruka,

(I'm very inspired by what you wrote.)

Thank you for the kind words. But my articles offer nothing “new” or “groundbreaking”. I’d like to think that I am offering common sense that every human should have thought about while growing up in society. But when I see how humans have messed up the planet and massacred each other, it is obvious that they haven’t put any thought into “common sense”.

(I understund what you're trying to say and I do believe it is true)

Hopefully you don’t “believe” what anybody tells you – especially me!!

As a rational human, I would hope that you instead “evaluate” what one tells you. And ask them to “explain” rather than preach. And don’t let “authority” twist your arm. Make sure you can reason and understand the explanation. The universe has NO authorities. There is no person on this planet who is more mentally capable than you – nor will there ever be. We are all born with the same thinking capabilities. Some choose to exercise them, but the vast majority don’t. Sure, there are people who will always be smarter than you in math, languages, or any other conceptual domain. But when it comes to matters of ontology, we are all on an EQUAL footing.

(For the ancient greeks the 12 gods of olympus were an absolute truth , until it was proven wrong.)

Actually, not quite.

The Greeks held that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter (Greeks discovered the atom) out of which the world has come into its present form. Aristotle (384-322 BC), the foremost natural philosopher of his day, had developed a philosophical argument for the eternity of the world (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). Philosophers of other schools such as the Stoics and the Epicureans also reasoned that the world or its underlying reality is eternal. All these thinkers were led to this conclusion because they reasoned that "nothing can come out of nothing," and so there always has to be a "something" that other things can come from.

As for the Greek Gods, NONE were “creator” gods. The Greeks were NOT that stupid!! They did do some irrational things.....but they were not stupid.

The Greeks conceived of the 12 Gods of Olympus because, at that time (the dawn of scientific thought), they had no explanations for natural phenomena. Each god was used to explain different phenomena in nature. The Greeks claimed that the gods had “evolved” in nature, just as everything else evolves. It was the Greeks (Empedocles) who had discovered evolution of the species, not Darwin!

Against this reasoning of an eternal cosmos, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam reasserted their biblical doctrine of creation. They asserted that God did not form the world out of a pre-existent matter, but spoke into being ("Let there be!") that which literally did not exist before. Initially, it was Judaism that had a HUGE problem with the eternal universe the Greeks had reasoned. They wanted their own personal God who created everything and only existed for them and their culture, as they were to be “God’s Chosen People”. They called their God Yahweh! Then Christianity came along and offered salvation, eternal life, eternal hell, sin, and cleansing of sins (none of which Judaism offered) through Yahweh’s son Jesus. I’m sure you know the rest.

This doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not a teaching dependent upon particular biblical passages. It is solely dependent upon Theologians, who constantly drill the word CREATION into your brain. And they don’t even know what this word CREATION actually means, nor can they offer any explanation!!

Creatio ex nihilo is a principle drawn from an “interpretation” of biblical revelation, not a conclusion drawn from scientific or philosophical reasoning.

(If I touch something, I know it's hot. So is it not an absolute truth that it's hot?)

No. The word “hot” is a word of “ordinary speech” – used colloquially. It has no “scientific” usage whatsoever!

Why? Because it is a word that necessarily requires a human “observer” to COMPARE one sensation (what you deem as hot), relative to another REFERENCE sensation, which is deemed to be the demarcation between hot to cool. This is all subjective and completely different for each person. For example, some people in a room will feel “hot”, while others feel “cold”.

No truth can be resolved from any proposition that is subjective, ie. dependent on opinion.

(The scientist have constructed a full genome for the e.coli, and some other bacterium. Is it not absolute truth that that is the genome of a bacterium?)

No. There are NO truths in science. Why? Because Science has NO right/wrong, true/false, correct/incorrect, proof/disproof, beliefs, or opinions, or knowledge. Science only has Hypotheses (physical assumptions) and Theories (explanations). That’s it!!

Science is the study of existence. Existence is the objective reality which does not depend on any observers, their systems of logic, and their subjective “authoritative” opinions. The existence of the Sun does not depend on any authoritative statements from Einstein, Hawking, or The Pope, in order to establish that it exists and interacts with all the orbiting planets.

In science, there is NO authority that can decree that something is “true” or “proven”. Science only has Theories which offer explanations to natural phenomena.

Consequently, science either has RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL explanations (Theories) – never true/false or proven ones!

The genome is based on the hypotheses and theories stemming from Molecular Biology. There is no 100% certainty or proof anywhere in science, especially molecular structures. To help you understand the importance of what I am saying, consider this:

Currently, there is no atomic model or theory that can explain what the atom is or how it works. The Bohr model, which is still used today in science, has been thoroughly DEBUNKED! It is irrational and definitely irreconcilable with the workings of mother nature.

(So are some things absolute truths until proven wrong?)

Nothing is absolute. Absolute truth means “eternal truth”. Truth is a concept that was invented by the human mind. Only “cognitive propositions” can be proven true or false. All truth is proven. Nothing can be proven in the past or in the future because the past & future are not available for a logical deduction. You can only prove what is true “right now”.

You cannot prove that “1+1=2”, 5 seconds ago, or even 5 seconds from now. You can only “reason” it using induction – not with deduction. No proposition can be deemed to be “true” before it is proven.

Truth is not a property of the Universe. It does not exist and it cannot be found. Truth can only be “conceived” within a system of logic in which it can be resolved.

Does this help?


Haruka 6 years ago

It sure does! thank you so much! you made things clear now.


nicator 6 years ago

Holy crap! You're the god and the saviour!

Translated : most intriguing read, helped me with formulating my own ideas into my current tast. Thanks!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

nicator,

(Holy crap! You're the god and the saviour!)

Nope! You got me all wrong....

I am just another APE living on the Planet of The Apes.

I differ from all the others, in that I don't let my brain to be "molested" by the OPINIONS and INVENTED CONCEPTS of other humans apes.

Other than that....I'm your average ape!

I am so glad that this article was of help to you ;-)


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

I am somewhat confused by TastyWallet's simpleminded claim. First off, truth is opinion, meaning it must be proved by a system of logic. How can opinion be absolute?

Absolute means that there can be no variations, a constant - how can an idea (truth) be said to be absolute, i.e., a constant when truth requires biological brains to dream up, and biological brains have not been a constant.

Listen, if this guy asks you to pull his finger, DON'T DO IT.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Well, I am an open-minded person.

I am willing to give TastyWallet the benefit of the doubt.

Actually, if he can explain how "absolute truth", or even regular vanilla "truth", EXISTS.....then I will PayPal him $5000 US, which he can use for charity, feed the hungry, or whatever.

If he can't, then all I ask of him is to please donate $10 to his local animal shelter.

Do we have a deal TastyWallet?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

I'm feelin' lucky today.

From now on, ANYBODY who can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists", or even that simple "truth exists"......I will PayPal them $10,000 to donate to their favorite charity to feed some hungry or homeless children.

This is for a good cause. It's summertime, people are on vacation, and they are forgetting the starving children of this world. I need to do my part and donate.

Please people, answer the question above and help out the kids.

Allan Bogle....here's your chance!


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

True. At the same time, I personally don't have a problem with engaging in some debates for the mental exercise of utilizing precise thinking - as long as everyone playing knows we are engaged in nothing but mind games and they are willing to adhere to consistent definitions.

It is when there is an attempt to crossbreed that problems arise with discussions - like with those who keep trying to argue truths and proofs of science, as if science were a math-based system, or with those who are so blinded by their faith that they believe that filling the gap between science and religion with God's Missing Link, ID, will somehow through the mysterious ways of God create a new species of thought in science classrooms - and, of course, have a gazillion holy book quotes to prove it - fastest quotes in the West.

Someday I fully expect to casually ask one of these people, How ya doing, and get the response, Ezekiel 4:14.


Hi 6 years ago

It really seems to me that you are ripping the "conceptual" aspect of truth, and only using that. Of course, by that logic, nothing is anything, nothing is false, nothing is. If you enjoy arguing over half of a topic, that is fine. But why not reunite the two ideas of "conceptual" truth, and "real" truth (for lack of a better term)?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi,

Truth is a concept, and as such, it is rigorously defined.

By your view...

a) what is conceptual truth?

b) what is real truth?

There are many systems of logic conceived by humans, and each has its own axiomatic rules of truth. They are all conceptual, and none are "real".

Truth is not "real", in the sense that it is NOT part of the reality of nature/universe. It is only part of the human conceptual realm. Before humans came on board, there was no truth and no concepts at all.


interested 5 years ago

Fatfist, I am delighted to read the words of someone who so delicately is convinced of the same thing I am. Im not here to discuss one of the common issues your readers seem to have, but a slightly different one. Somewhere in your original post you claim that it is unreasonable to live according to the bible.

This is the only thing i dont agree with. its perfectly reasonable to live according and believing in the bible. You must understand that the salvation that comes to the minds of people like you and me in the form of scientific knowledge is worthless to the majority of the human race. Life sucks for a lot of people(poverty, opression, feeling of no point in life) and rational and proven logic just wouldn't do the same as the actual belief that you go to heaven after you die. I mean, wouldnt it be fantastic if we actually did? so, in a way, they are more reasonable than us to believe in these awesome things. And i dont think they have any other choice. Let people have their faith; it makes them just as happy as our logic does. people can only really prefer one or the other, depending on the person...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Interested,

(Somewhere in your original post you claim that it is unreasonable to live according to the bible.)

People can live their lives according to the bible of Jeffery Dahmer for all I care. The government ensures that each individual has the ABSOLUTE right to kill people and chop up their bodies and eat them. They only kindly ask that you refrain from doing so because it takes away the rights and liberties of others who wish to live. That’s why they pass LAWS against it. You can be like Dahmer, but if you do, then you will pay a price as decided by the court.

It’s not my nor anybody else’s business to pass on OPINIONS of what you should or shouldn’t do. The Bible gives its OPINION! The Government and the courts give their OPINIONS. If you want to call these opinions MORALS or TRUTH.....then knock yourself out. They are all subjective and have nothing to do with reality or with anything being ABSOLUTE. There are merely human actions.

It is impossible to have absolute truth because all truth is based on the opinion of the person who subjectively resolves the truth via their 5 senses. This has nothing to do with nature’s reality, which cannot possibly be proven because our senses only sense less than 1% of nature’s reality. Just take a look at the human visual EM spectrum. It’s only an infinitesimal fraction of the overall EM spectrum.

This hub only explains why the Bible is NOT absolute truth, and why absolute truth is an impossibility.

(its perfectly reasonable to live according and believing in the bible.)

So you don’t mind if your mailman rapes your 12-year old daughter?

So you don’t mind if the Court System suddenly passed Bible Law, so that nobody can be punished after performing the acts described in the Bible: rape, murder, genocide, etc.

You sound exactly like a theist! That is EXACTLY what a theist would do!

(Life sucks for a lot of people)

Life sucks for everybody, including for me and you. But that is no excuse to be ignorant of reality. That is no excuse to praise the Bible as some morally divine revelation, when it is in fact the complete opposite.

(belief that you go to heaven after you die. I mean, wouldn't it be fantastic if we actually did?)

You really need to think HARD about this question you asked me!

If people are bored to death in THIS life, and need to go out and rape, murder, and do all sorts of things, nasty or otherwise, to alleviate their boredom,......then what sense does it make to be bored forever? If people actually DID go to Heaven after death, then Heaven would be absolute HELL by now....guaranteed! The people in heaven would be fighting and killing each other right now. And that’s why the Universe is eternal, but thankfully, life is not. Nature cannot support eternal fighting and killing. That’s why you only get ONE chance at THIS life. Think about it.....

(Let people have their faith)

What people believe is their business and not mine. But when they proclaim their beliefs to be nature’s reality,......then I’m sorry to be curt,.....but I will explain to them in detail exactly why they are full of BS. It’s just my FREE gift to humanity......and Jesus would approve of this good deed!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

interested,

The Bible and its conceptual faith system is based solely on one objective criterion....THE DEATH OF HUMANITY! Murder, rape, genocide, torture, and destruction are the ONLY objective disciplines of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

There are NO other objective verses in their scriptures. Except that God is a Creator entity with shape/form, and is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to exist or to have ever existed.

It's a dead giveaway in their own scriptures that it is impossible for their God entity to exist!


The Suburban Poet profile image

The Suburban Poet 5 years ago from Austin, Texas

"Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives which determine any possible judgment of truth or value that we may make; this implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily propose that all perspectives are equally valid." So sayeth Wikipedia.....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

TSP,

It is irrelevant what wiki says.

What is it that you would like to explain to us about truth and absolute truth?

Are either of them objective?


The Suburban Poet profile image

The Suburban Poet 5 years ago from Austin, Texas

Is your comment about the relevancy of truth or absolute truth? In whose opinion?

I just thought I'd post something that someone else had thought long ago about this subject. This is nothing new... in the Bible, ironically, Pontius Pilot asked "what is truth?" Nobody knows.

I can tell you that people exist on a planet the humans called Earth but I can't tell you how or why we are here. That's the difference to me....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

TSP,

What do you mean "nobody knows"?

Truth was already defined by the Greeks way before the Bible came to be. And truth was later formalized by an axiomatic system of logic by Aristotle.

Truth is a concept that embodies the validation of propositional statements.

Truth depends on a system of resolution; that is; truth is relative to a system of proof as dictated by its axiomatic rules. The “system” is composed of at least a sentient being, a language, and a logical method (axioms) of resolving a statement of proposition to ascertain its truth value. This system must be available for use before any truth can be determined. Truth is language-dependent because we must understand what the proposition is before we can ascertain its truth.

(I can tell you that people exist on a planet the humans called Earth )

Objects like people, planets, stars, etc. exist irrespective of any observer being present to give an opinion or to formulate a propositional statement.


The Suburban Poet profile image

The Suburban Poet 5 years ago from Austin, Texas

It's a matter of the degree of certainty. That's all... when I say nobody knows I was referring to how we got here.... certainly there are things we know beyond a shadow of a doubt but we are still arguing today about the meaining of existence and if there is a God or not. These things are not certain so in that regard I say nobody knows.

Pilot was being rhetorical in my view by asking this question because so many people operate with absolute certainty only to be proven wrong later.... they were dealing with the question of Jesus' identity so the context of the question is why I said "nobody knows."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

I see what direction you are going, but issues of reality have no dependency on what anybody "knows", especially since "knowledge" is subjective (observer-dependent).

- some know that Jesus is God

- others know that Jesus is not God

- others know that Buddha is God

- yet other know that Tom Cruise is God

What does "certainty" have to do with these opinions?

A rational person is able to rationally explain WHY Jesus would be God, the creator. This has nothing to do with "truth" which is only resolved by individual opinion.

Reality can only be explained, never asserted by knowledge, certainty, opinion, truth, proof, etc.


The Suburban Poet profile image

The Suburban Poet 5 years ago from Austin, Texas

We are all in the business of obvervation. But let me give you some certainty: Tom Cruise is not God! Ha....

I have people very close to me who are certain that Jesus is God but from my view they can't adequately explain the Trinity to me and some of the other problems with the Bible. I'm happy for them if it works for them but I don't like the fact that they think I'm going to hell or the devil is in me because they are quite aggressive about it at times and it tells me they really believe this stuff. I've had them cry and practically beg me to accept Christ.

And yes knowledge is observer-dependent and I am wise enough to know that there is much that I have not seen. I believe John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln but I wasn't there and frankly it's not that important to me that I challenge this "truth." As for God and Jesus it's not clear to me what is true so I don't walk around citing them as legal or moral references to get my way.

As for reality as an explanation or an assertion I guess it depends on what you mean by reality. I know I exist. I assume you do because you are responding and I know that I didn't type what you typed. That is by observation. But if I am real and what you type is real (as it is to me) then I would say I can assert that it is true that you exist by knowledge (the mere fact that I learned to read)....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

(But let me give you some certainty: Tom Cruise is not God!)

But that is only your opinion!

How can you possibly contradict all those people who claim that Cruise is God? Would you admit that you can’t? Just be honest with me ;-)

(I've had them cry and practically beg me to accept Christ.)

Yes, they are obviously delusional. Why wouldn’t they cry and beg you to accept gravity, magnetism, and light, which are just as invisible as their claimed God?

The answer has nothing to do with observations. It has to do with explaining reality. You cannot observe gravity pull the ball to the floor. That is only a phenomenon which you can only describe. And every single person on the planet will give me a slightly DIFFERENT description of it. A rational person will propose an object in nature that is there and is capable of pulling the ball to the floor.

That’s what theists do.......they propose an object (God) that is there to create existence from nothing, and then give humans morals and free will.

God is a Hypothesis. Theists ASSUME that God exists for the sole purpose of “explaining” their subjective interaction with reality. I say “subjective”, because not a single theologian on the planet has a rational explanation for anything when they invoke their God Hypothesis.

(I know I exist. I assume you do)

You or me, or any object, exist by definition.....not by observer seeing/touching or “sensing”.

To exist means to have “physical presence”. It means that you must be an object (that which has shape), and that you must have a location (exactly where is irrelevant).

Light is a physical object that has a location, even though light is completely invisible to us. We are able to stop light with our hand. So it is real (ie. exists) as an object (it has shape) and a location between all objects.


brotheryochanan profile image

brotheryochanan 5 years ago from BC, canada

hahahaha funny

the only absolute truth is

Gods truth

absolutely

lol

waste of a hub


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi brother,

(the only absolute truth is)

STOP RIGHT THERE!!

Before you go any further with your circus show, please objectively define these 2 terms:

1) absolute

2) truth

Otherwise.....YOU'VE SAID NOTHING!

(hahahaha funny)

We are in total agreement, brother. Clowns like to come here and make outlandish statements which even they haven't the slightest clue of what they mean.


Steve 5 years ago

Hello, I am a primary school teacher and some years ago when challenging a student to obey the law (a posited absolute) he replied "What law...I don't believe in no law!" Just yesterday I taught in a grade two class in an indigenous school where there was no law that they recognised. I hope you are ready for a world with no absolutes, it's well on it's way and I can tell you it's not going to be pretty.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Steve,

Let me ask you a very important question: Did you understand anything from what you posted?

Steve, do you know what we did to idiotic teachers when I was in high school?

Ohhhh, let's just say that all the smart students came together and agreed upon a LAW. The Law went as follows:

"Any stupid idiotic moronic teacher who didn't understand what he was talking about, or whose dissertations were contradictory,....would get his tires slashed."

Let me tell ya, Steve, there were many a teacher in our high school who weren't ready for absolutes.....and it wasn't pretty for them either!

Steve, when you finally graduate from high school and have a diploma with your name on it, please come back here and talk rationally, ok?

....and when you do, I have 2 extremely simple objective definitions I expect from you.

1) Define 'absolute'.

2) Define 'truth'.

When you can answer the above 2 questions rationally, then you will be worthy of a high school diploma.

P.S. If you wish to graduate from University, then I have 3 more questions for you:

1) Define 'object'.

2) Define 'concept'.

3) Define 'nothing'.

If you cannot answer these 3 questions, then you are no University graduate.


Chris 5 years ago

Nothing in this article refutes absolute truth. Absolute truth was not invented by Humans because if our minds stopped existing they would stop existing. But that is not true, Consider the Law of identity, something is what it is and is not what it is not. That is still true if our minds did not exist. If there are no absolutes than i can say "Blue sleeps faster then Wednesday." and be totally logical.It is also funny how you preach logic but you use straw man tactics in order to disprove Christianity. All you have tried to do is disprove logical absolutes through your naturalism/materialistic presuppositions, and you have not logically done that.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Chris,

I am happy that someone of your knowledge took interest in my article. It seems that you have an understanding that my article has various errors. I always welcome readers to point out errors so I can correct them. Sometimes I am very busy with other priorities, and errors can slip into my articles, which I would like to fix immediately.

I would like to begin with your primary concerns so we can rationally address them. You raised issues which have a recurring theme; that being common usage of terms and clauses which are in the following statements you made:

1) “Absolute truth was not invented by Humans because if our minds stopped existing they would stop existing.”

2) “That is still true if our minds did not exist.”

From your concerns, it appears that I may have misinterpreted 3 very important terms. Can you please define the following 3 terms for me in an objective manner? I would like to understand what they mean from an unambiguous perspective, because the issues you are raising directly pertain to these crucial terms.

1) absolute

2) truth

3) exist

I am looking forward to your objective definitions.

Thank you


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Chris,

"Blue sleeps faster then Wednesday."

Ok, now this statement is objectively resolved using Grammar. Since it is in English, we have to look up the English Grammar rules. So let us analyze it:

“Blue” is the primary subject of this sentence. The rest is the predicate which gives us the attributes and qualitative aspects applied to the primary subject, and it also contains “Wednesday”, which is the subordinate subject.

a) “Blue” is color, an adjective which describes properties of objects.

b) “Sleeps” is a verb. This means that it must refer to an object that is capable of the activity of sleep.

c) “Faster” is an adverb. This means that it must qualify a verb; and it does so to the verb “sleep”.

d) “Wednesday” is an adverb because it qualifies our categorization of time, which itself is a verb.

Now, using Grammar, we see that:

1) “blue” cannot sleep because it is not an object, specifically one that is capable of the activity of sleep.

2) and “blue” cannot sleep “faster”, because of 1.

3) Wednesday is not an object, it is a concept, hence it has no motion or activity that it can perform. Therefore it is irrational to compare the speed (i.e. faster) of “Wednesday” to “blue”, because none of them are objects which can move and perform actions, like sleeping.

So it is quite obvious that from English Grammar alone, your statement above violates grammatical rules. This makes it irrational and devoid of any meaning. So really, the meaning of that sentence falls in the domain of Grammar alone, and has completely nothing to do with “absolutes” (which I kindly asked you to define earlier).

“your naturalism/materialistic presuppositions”

I am sorry, but I don’t understand what you are referring to here. What are naturalism/materialistic presuppositions?

I don’t have any presuppositions. I only have explanations. Maybe you misunderstood something.


chris 5 years ago

Actually i have not misunderstood anything, because if you say there are no absolutes that means you must use your relative subjective presuppositions to show me that. The sentence i gave does have to do with it. It is the second law of logic the Law of non-contradiction two things cannot be contradictory and be true, this is an absolute truth, a logical absolute. If you say there is nothing absolute then we can go around contradicting ourselves and that is not logical. Oh, yes and Logical absolutes is the basis of logic, and you used logic to talk to me in your Grammar method since you gave me a logical statement and a conclusion.


Chris 5 years ago

Term definitions:

objective is something that is is based on your subjective opinions, something that is universally true.

An Absolute is something like A=A and not B, the letter A cannot be A and B at the same time.

Truth: State of being in accord with a particular fact or reality

And if i can ask a favor, what is the main reason that you think Logical Absolutes or (Absolute truth) does not exist?


Chris 5 years ago

And i would also like to say Grammar is based on logical absolutes, because we use it to grade papers, we must use it to point out people and their errors, so Grammar is logically based on absolute knowledge.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“objective is something that is is based on your subjective....”

Sorry, Chris, but you get no cigar. Objective is not a ‘synonym’ for Subjective. These are 2 different concepts.

a) What is “subjective” is what is ascertained by the testimony of a sentient observer who injects his own opinions, biases, assertions, or his own 5 senses in a statement.

b) What is “objective” is what is rationally explained WITHOUT the testimony of a sentient observer. There are no opinions, biases, assertions, or any claim stemming from the 5 human senses.

“An Absolute is something like A=A and not B, the letter A cannot be A and B at the same time.”

So let me get this straight......an “absolute”, according to your claim, is ‘something’ like symbols, A, =, B?

Sorry, Chris, you get no cigar. Like I explained in my previous post, all alphabets, letters, symbols, words, and grammar rules were conceived by humans BEFORE you can come here and claim that “letters” are absolutes. Letters & symbols, like ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘=’, and even the word “absolute”, were not around before humans were around. The English language was conceived 1200 years ago. The Greek language was conceived almost 5000 years ago. You cannot write these letters and symbols without “first” having some sort of language in place. This is basic stuff.

“Truth: State of being in accord with a particular fact or reality”

‘being’ is a synonym for object (that which has shape/form). The God of the Bible is purported to be a ‘being’.

‘reality’ is a synonym for ‘existence’. To exist is to be real and vice versa. But you did not define what ‘exist’ means.

And what is a ‘fact’. What does this word even mean?

Sorry, Chris, but you failed to unambiguously define the term ‘truth’. You see, it is very ambiguous as it depends on the definitions of other non-trivial terms which don’t make sense when you mix them together.

“And if i can ask a favor, what is the main reason that you think Logical Absolutes or (Absolute truth) does not exist?”

Well, I would first like to fairly address your concerns and make sure that we BOTH understand these crucial terms: truth, absolute, and exist. If we don’t, then we won’t understand what we are saying when we use the term: truth.

The phrase, “Absolute truth”, is defined as a “truth” that is always true, regardless of parameters or context. This means that the statement embodying this truth, is true for every possible circumstance. This is what almost all online sources and philosophers define it as.

Now the only questions that remain are:

1) What is truth? What does “truth” mean?

2) What does “exist” mean? What does it mean when someone says “X exists”?

I will provide an unambiguous, consistent, and objective (i.e. observer-independent) definition for ‘exist’ just to get the ball rolling.

Exist: Physical presence. The term ‘physical’ invokes an object. The term ‘presence’ invokes a location. X is said to exist if and only if, X is an object with a location.

Object: That which has shape.

Location: The set of static distances to all other objects.

Notice that this definition is objective, i.e. observer-independent. The Sun exists irrespective of whether an observer is present to provide his subjective testimony on the issue. The Sun has shape all on its own. What its shape is,....is completely irrelevant. There are static (not measured) distances from the Sun to all other objects in the universe. No human observer is required to give his opinion on this. This means that the Sun exists even when all humans, say, ceased to exist right now.

Now please, I expect you to provide a similar unambiguous, consistent, and objective (i.e. observer-independent) definition for “truth”. And please explain how a statement would be “resolved” as being ‘true’ or not.

Thanks


Chris 5 years ago

Logical absolutes are not Axioms, axioms are truths that are self-evident. Now, LA’s exist in classical logic are “axioms” according to you. Yet, you have depended on their axiomatic (universal) truths in order to argue with me by saying they aren’t universally true. So, if these axioms are true part of the time, then how are they foundational to rationality? Are they situational and axiomatic at the same time? Also, the logical systems you propose (trivalent logic, fuzzy logic) must themselves have axiomatic truths or they are arbitrary. So, how do you provide the necessary preconditions for the axioms of those systems (or any system) that aren’t arbitrarily decided and/or dependent upon human invention/brain-chemistry without begging the question and without offering relativism? If you can’t, you have no argument and you’ve not disproven their universality. If you try, you have to assume the axioms’ validity, then I’ll ask you to logical provide the necessary preconditions for those axioms in trivalent and fuzzy logic, etc. from your naturalism/materialism presuppositions. If you can’t, then Absolute truths still stand because you’ve not refuted them.

And yes, logical absolutes are the foundation of grammar because Grammar rules apply to everyone at all times.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“Logical absolutes are not Axioms”

That’s Notterism. You can’t tell me what something IS by telling me what it is not.

Saying that a ‘wooton’ is not a car, is not saying what a ‘wooton’ is. Understand?

So what exactly are LOGICAL ABSOLUTES???

There is NO such terminology to be found in all of Academia ever recorded by the human race!

“axioms are truths that are self-evident.”

Nonsense! You need to learn the bare basics.

There are NO self-evident truths. Before you can declare something as being ‘truth’, you must first resolve its “truth value” via some systematic manner.....ie. proof. Truths are ALWAYS proven within a system of logic. The axioms MUST BE IN PLACE before any truth can be resolved. You are trying to put the carriage before the horse. It doesn’t work that way.

Axioms are RULES which are ASSUMED in order to lay the initial foundation for any system of logic. They are never true and never proven. They can never be resolved as being ‘true’. They are only “assumed rules”.

“Now, LA’s exist in classical logic”

What do you mean by ‘exist’? What does this word even mean in the instant context?

“Yet, you have depended on their axiomatic (universal) truths in order to argue with me by saying they aren’t universally true.”

Nonsense. Pure gibberish!

A UNIVERSAL TRUTH is predicated upon a category and is of the form: “All X are/have Y”. It is common to a “category”.

i.e. All men have bones. All cognacs are brandies.

You really need to understand what you are saying before trying to form your argument.....that’s why your argument refutes itself.

And what I am saying to you is NOT dependent on any axioms. Where do you even get this idea? I am only giving you rational explanations. There was no word ‘truth’ or such concept before formal language was conceived, and yet people were still able to communicate. There was no system of logic before Aristotle conceived of the very first one – Classical Logic. Your argument fails.

“if these axioms are true part of the time”

Huh??

What does that statement even mean?

“then how are they foundational to rationality?”

Rationality has nothing to do with axioms or truths. Rationality has to do with what makes sense and can be explained and understood by everyone, and doesn’t violate reality. For example, a rational explanation in science is called a “Theory”....and it has nothing to do with axioms, truths, or proofs. Got it?

“the logical systems you propose (trivalent logic, fuzzy logic) must themselves have axiomatic truths or they are arbitrary.”

Nonsense! And this is where your argument fails again, .....so listen up....

Fuzzy logic has no truths or falsehoods. The outputs consist of numbers ranging between 0 and 1, and not ‘true’ or ‘false’.

Quantum logic has no truths either, as the logical system is UNSATISFIABLE. This means that there can never be any proposed Quantum state that can be said to be either ‘true’ or ‘false’ under any circumstances, as defined by the axioms of Quantum Logic.

So as you can see, my dear Chris,....not all logical systems are based on truth. Just because we use the label “logic” on something does not mean that it has anything to do with ‘truth’.....as the system can be unsatisfiable.

Therefore, axioms are NOT truths. Got it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“then Absolute truths still stand”

Oh, sure.....nice try. Let’s get serious and talk like adults, ok?

All you need to do is answer this question for the audience who is watching your presentation.

Q: What is truth?

You haven’t provided an objective definition for this key term which makes or breaks your argument.

Until you do, then you don’t even understand yourself what you just wrote above.....and worse still.....you don’t even understand the argument you are attempting to present to the audience.

“logical absolutes are the foundation of grammar”

What are LOGICAL ABSOLUTES???????

There is no such terminology anywhere to be found in all of Academia.....ever.

Call any University on the planet. None of them have ever heard of this contrived terminology.

You are inventing nonsensical terms in order to define your argument as being valid. That’s why you don’t understand what you are saying. That’s why you cannot define ‘truth’.

Please quote ANY Grammatical Academic Reference which states that LOGICAL ABSOLUTES are the foundation to the English grammar.......or of any grammar of any language on the planet. If you can’t, then you have no argument.

“Grammar rules apply to everyone at all times.”

Nonsense!

The English, Aramaic, Swedish and Greek grammar rules are completely different and none of them apply to each other. So this explains exactly why grammar rules are NOT absolute. For if they were, Yiddish and Klingon grammar would be 100% applicable to English.

Therefore.....

Grammar is not absolute.

Axioms are not absolute.

Logic is not absolute.

I have explained why your argument fails on all points.

Would you like to try another route to resurrect this “absolute truth” argument of yours?

If so, start by defining the term “truth” in an objective manner. If you cannot define this key term objectively so that it is independent of any possible circumstance, then you cannot CLAIM it to be absolute. Got it?

Chris, every single point you are attempting to make is actually in favor of MY article here which explains why absolute truth is IMPOSSIBLE.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

@ Chris,

The LNC only provides a structured dichotomy, an either/or proposition that by itself is neither true nor false; only the resolution of the dichotomy can determine if the proposition or its negation is "true".

Here is a test. If the LNC is a logical truth, then you should be able to solve the following problem without any further information: I have a brother (P) or I do not have a brother (-P)

So, using only your absolute logical truth, you must be able to tell me if I do or do not have a brother? Well?

If P not-P. Axiom.


Chris 5 years ago

"Therefore, “There are no absolutes”, is NOT an absolute statement. It is a propositional statement that is PROVEN true."

This is not true, this begs the question.


Chris 5 years ago

I am talking like an Adult, And logical absolutes and truth statements that are always true, they are conceptual by nature and transcend space and time.


Chris 5 years ago

You also gave me different Grammar rules in other cultures, but this is a red herring fallacy since that had nothing to do with what i said. Grammar applies to everyone. Everyone at all times have to capitalize the first letter of a sentence right? or put a period at the end? If there are no absolute truths, than why must people follow grammatical structure at all times?

P.S. This will be my final statement sense counterpoint counterpoint can go back and fourth ad nauseum.


Chris 5 years ago

@ AKA WISDOM

when you call them axioms and, basically, admit you can’t account for them except to say they are true because they are true. Okay then, here’s an axiom: G=E?E; God exists because he exists.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(admit you can’t account for them except to say they are true because they are true)

Chris,

Please find a single example where I said an axiom is true.

I specifically stated the LNC only creates a dichotomy. It is the resolution of the dichotomy that determines true/false.

I think I see where you are coming from, though, in that semantics and definitions play a huge part in discussions about logic. Suffice it to look at it this way: the axiom is assumed valid, not true. It is the resolution of the valid dichotomy that establishes true/false.

In this sense we consider the LNC a valid starting point for Aristotilean logic, and one may even consider this starting point as absolutely valid - but believing it to be absolutely valid does not make it absolutely valid.

Your biggest problem is that you seen unwilling to define the words you work with - you claim LNC is true without explaining what you mean by the word "true".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“This is not **true**, this begs the question.”

How so? That there are no absolutes is proven within the system of axioms. Without the conception of those axioms there is no proof possible, and hence, no absolutes. Before Aristotle conceived of the 3 axioms of classical logic, there was no proposition that was ‘true’ within that system of axioms. There was no “classical” axiomatic truth. There was only unsystemic asserted “opinion”. With the axioms in place, all you have is systemic asserted opinion.

“And logical absolutes and truth statements that are always **true**”

For the FOURTH time.....what are LOGICAL ABSOLUTES?

All you’ve said is: L.A. are always TRUE. So in your religion, L.A. is a SYNONYMOUS with ‘truth’.

And for the FOURTH time.....what is TRUTH?

Until you objectively define this term, all you have is opinion, conjecture, and blind faith in your above statements. Therefore they do not concern reality.

So is L.A. = TRUTH a concept or an object? Is it ‘nothing’ or ‘something’?

“they are conceptual”

GREAT!!!!

Thank you.....they are CONCEPTS. Hip, hip....hooooraaaay!

1) All concepts are preceded by objects, namely, all concepts require a sentient being with memory to conceive of them.

2) Before there were sentient beings, there were no concepts.

3) Therefore, since L.A. = TRUTH are concepts, they were not conceived before humans were around....and hence, they are impossible to be absolute!

“they are conceptual by nature and transcend space and time.”

Only objects can transcend other objects. In order for ‘something’ to be transcended, it MUST have shape and a physical structure & boundary. For example, you can transcend your house by simply exiting its perimeter.

All of these terms refer to concepts, not objects: L.A.= truth, space, time.

Therefore, it is impossible for concepts like L.A. = truth, which lack shape, to transcend objects,....much less concepts!

This is basic stuff we learn on the first day of Junior Kindergarten, Chris. I mean, did your “love” for that girl in your JK class, transcend your “commitment” for her? Did your “love” transcend that “chair” you sat on?

1) Concepts cannot transcend concepts or objects.

2) Only objects can transcend other objects, and not concepts.

Got it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“You also gave me different Grammar rules in other cultures, but this is a red herring fallacy since that had nothing to do with what i said.”

Nonsense. You said Grammar is absolute. If that was the case, then Greek Grammar would be identical to English Grammar. They are not even close! Your argument fails.

“Grammar applies to everyone.”

If that is the case, then please translate the following sentences to Greek:

1) “The chair”

2) “The airplane”

3) “The astronaut”

Since those Grammars clearly apply to YOU, as per your claims, then you should have no problem translating them and showing that English and Greek follow the EXACT SAME grammar rules for the DEFINITE ARTICLE ‘the’. If the translations in Greek do not use the same definite article in all 3 cases, then Grammar is not absolute, and hence, not based on absolutes. It does not apply to every possible circumstance, for all people. Got it?

Oh, I can’t wait for you to answer this question!!

“Everyone at all times have to capitalize the first letter of a sentence right?”

Wrong! Not in Chinese! Your every attempt at this argument has failed.

“This will be my final statement sense counterpoint”

Oh, I see.....you have no argument to support your unexplainable faith-based claims, huh?

Your argument has failed from the get-go because you cannot define ‘truth’, nor do you understand what it means when you use it in a sentence.

Let me ask you this......do you know anybody who is more qualified than you to come here and argue for ‘absolute truth’? If so, please ask them to drop by.....thanks.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris, Winston, and everyone else.....have a happy and healthy New Year!!!


Chris 5 years ago

You too, Hold on, I am sorry. Did i say they were no axioms. I mean yes they are axioms. But that does not account for the laws of logic, If they are self-evident. They still transcend space and time and my opinion the atheist's cannot rationally account for them. If they cannot than these absolute logic's require an absolute mind.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Chris,

“the laws of logic, If they are self-evident. They still transcend space and time”

Please do me a favour, Chris. You gotta define your key terms so we can understand what you mean. I already explained to you in my previous post that space & time are concepts. Concepts cannot be transcended because they have no shape and no boundary to ‘transcend’.

If they were indeed transcendable, then we would be able to illustrate an image of these alleged objects.

“and my opinion the atheist's cannot rationally account for them.”

Well, I most certainly agree with you here, Chris. 99.999999999% of atheists cannot account for the laws of logic or for most of what they parrot. Most atheists believe in spirits, souls, energy, time, 0D particles, 1D strings, dark matter, black holes, waves, particle-waves,....and other impossible objects.

Atheists are not much different than theists....they just believe in the existence of different concepts. So please give them a little slack, as they know not what they preach!

Whenever I give a proud atheist some slack, he always ends up hanging himself with it before the end of their argument.

Every religion has goofballs. I have respect for the theist who claims to have "faith" in God or whatever they preach. I have no respect for the arrogant theist who claims that God exists. By doing so, he has knowingly encroached into the realm of Physics (the study of existence), where he will be met head on. Same goes for goofball atheists who so arrogantly make wild claims they cannot support!

But a rational person can certainly explain that the laws of Classical Logic are axioms. They are concepts, and not objects, since they have no shape. Before they can be conceived, a sentient being (an object) must exist to “conceive” them, as objects precede all concepts. And a language must be in place so that they can be conceptualized into words and/or symbols with an explicit definition and context of application. The Classical laws of logic are 100% inapplicable in the context of Quantum Logic, and many other logical systems. This means that they are unequivocally 100% not absolute. Understand?

These Classical Axioms were first conceived and documented by Aristotle. And there are thousands of other laws of logic, and many more are conceived on a daily basis by businesses...i.e business laws of logic for implementing fault-tolerant transactions over TCP/IP.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(these absolute logics require an absolute mind)

Chris,

You are begging the question by assuming your conclusion in your proposition.

A. There can be no logical absolutes without a mind to understand them.

B. There are logical absolutes.

C. Therefore, there must be an absolute mind.

This is nothing more than a circular assertion of an opinion.


truesay 5 years ago

If there is no absolute truth, why does it matter?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

truesay,

It's not a matter of "if". This is an objective issue.

Absolute truth is a positive CLAIM that is posited by ignorant theists and brain-dead atheists/agnostics (who think they have superior brain capacities over their theist counterparts). These are the same lesser-evolved humanoids who BELIEVE in the existence of truth, lies, proof, angels, souls, heaven, love, evil, morals, God, spirits, energy, space, forces, time, field, mass, black holes, 0D particles, warped space, dilated time, graviton balls, electron balls, proton balls, neutron balls, quarks, bosons, higgs, tachyons, mathematical equations, dark matter, dark energy, heat, cold, darkness, .....etc.

Absolute truth is first and foremost, a CLAIM which posits that a human-conceived concept (in this case, a verb), specifically, an abstract concept like truth, has a one-to-one direct correspondence to the eternalness of reality, i.e. existence!

All concepts are predicated upon a pre-existing object, namely a sentient being with memory and an abstract thinking capacity that is capable of conceptual “relational” thought.

This means that all objects PRECEDE concepts; especially truth, absolute or otherwise. Therefore absolute truth is an impossibility – it cannot be conceived nor realized. Absolute truth remains only as an IRRATIONAL, IRRENCONCILABLE, and CONTRADICTORY abstract idea.....no different than the idea that “blue travels faster than Wednesday”.

Let me put it to you this way so I can be more succinct.......to CLAIM that “absolute truth” is possible, is to claim that all of time (eternal motion of matter) is in the PRESENT. Think about it!


Chris 5 years ago

Winston: If you may recall i did not try to construct a syllogism. Don't read what you only want to hear.


Chris 5 years ago

Fatfist- If absolute truth is impossible, than rational thought is too.


Chris 5 years ago

absolute truths are deteremined from rational thought.. but of course you would have to presuppose that the mind is making the statement... but how did we get from rational thought if the mind couldn't determine absolute truth.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(But that does not account for the laws of logic, If they are self-evident. They still transcend space and time and my opinion the atheist's cannot rationally account for them. If they cannot than these absolute logic's require an absolute mind)

Chris,

I am trying to understand your position but frankly I am having a time of it. First off, isn't logic an invention of the human mind, a method of thinking? If so, then a functioning human brain is required as precedent of logic, that is, man preceded logic.

Are not axioms simply building blocks of logic systems? They of themselves are neither true nor false, but only offer a structure that helps determine true/false by the resolution of the dichotomy they present.

Take the LNC. We can say according to the LNC that either there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe or there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.

Your positions about Logic Law indicates you believe this statement to be a true statement - but that is a trick - it is not true or false of itself, but only a guidepost to help you find what is true or false, which is the yes/no dichotomy established by the propositions. What the axiom states is that one of these two propositions is a true statement - it does not say the axiom itself is a true statement, as it does not resolve a dichotomy.

I agree that without an eternal mind, logic is not eternal. So, according to the LNC, logic is either eternal or not eternal. Human minds are not eternal. Logic requires a human mind. Ergo, logic is not eternal.

Positing an eternal mind requires the modal property of possibly the case, so that all you can claim is that it is possible that there is an eternal mind, which is simply a reshaping of Plantinga's argument for god, which in its tautologous glory concluded that if there is a god, there might be a god.

Same thing for your conclusion, either way you posit it. If there is an eternal mind, there might be an eternal mind, or if logic laws are eternal, then logic laws may be eternal.

The contingency of the word "if" excludes the model property of necessarily the case. So if there is an eternal mind cannot suddenly be transformed into a conclusion resolved as therefore it is necessarily the case there is an eternal mind - this confusion is called the Model Muddle - as in muddled thinking.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Chris,

“If absolute truth is impossible, than rational thought is too.”

You are assuming that “rational thought/statements” is dependent on truth. As I explain below, this is not the case.

But what does RATIONAL mean?

Here is an unambiguous definition.....

The word ‘rational’ applies specifically to statements, which are the linguistic outputs of our thoughts. We say that a statement is RATIONAL, when it meets ALL of the following criteria:

1. It does not reify concepts into objects and does not attempt to apply motion to concepts or to nothing.

2. It can be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen without any missing frames.

3. Every crucial term that is referenced can be defined unambiguously and used consistently.

Where....

Object: that which has shape (something)

Concept: that which doesn’t have shape (nothing)

So clearly, what is RATIONAL has, without question, nothing to do with truth, absolutes, proof, or logic.

Rational thought is 100% without question, completely divorced from LOGICAL thought. They are in completely different categories.

1) Logical thought (truth, proof) is founded upon artificial axiomatic rules conceived by humans. Logical systems come in 2 forms which are represented in either SYMBOLIC or CONTEXTUAL languages. They are only DESCRIPTIVE, and never prescriptive. They cannot prescribe or explain reality. This means that as a language, logic (truth, proof, etc.) deals exclusively with concepts, and not objects. Hence, logic can NEVER have any EXPLANATORY power. Logic can never be used to EXPLAIN why natural phenomena happen a certain way because it deals with concepts (verbs & adverbs), and NOT objects (the nouns of reality)! Logic is only descriptive.....it can only DESCRIBE the subjective and opinionated observations a human made via his physically limited sensory system. This is why logic is 100% DIVORCED from reality!

2) Rational thought is predicated upon reality, Mother Nature’s realm, which can only be critically reasoned by humans. It is not based on artificial axiomatic rules or any systems of logic. It is based on the realization that the universe consists of either SOMETHING (that which has shape), or NOTHING (that which doesn’t). There is NO conceivable middle ground between shape and no-shape, or any other option.....ever! This is reality, and this is what the word RATIONAL is predicated upon!!

What is rational is not subject to someone’s opinion. This is the objective criterion demanded by reality....Mother Nature’s realm. Rationality is necessarily predicated upon OBJECTIVITY, without the injection of the opinions of human observers. Otherwise, it will degrade to an issue of ordinary speech, religion, opinion, or the Symbolic Logical Religious sect known as Mathematical Physics, which is 100% dependent upon the subjectively biased observations, opinions & descriptions of humans. Not a single rational explanation can ever be offered by any discipline which is based on LOGIC.

If somebody claims that their God Theory is RATIONAL, then they had better know what they’re talking about. If they cannot visualize their own theory, and make a movie out of it, then they have NO clue of what they are talking about. They do not have a ‘rational explanation’ by any stretch of the imagination.

For example, a God Theory would have to show in frame #1 of the movie, God with his magic wand, existing in nothing; i.e. no space, no matter, no void. In frame #2 and later frames, the movie would have to show how God creates space. We cannot just have space magically appear in frame #2. How did God do it? Similarly, in say frame #100, the movie would have to show how God created the first bit of matter. It is irrational to just have matter appear in frame #100, when it didn’t even exist in frame #99. The movie is supposed to explain all these issues by showing how no-shape can surreptitiously acquire Length, Width, and Height, and turn into shape/form with internal structure.

An irrational explanation consists of a scene that cannot be visualized or imagined. An irrational explanation is one that the proponent cannot illustrate or convert into a movie.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“absolute truths are deteremined from rational thought”

I clearly explained above that this is not the case. In fact, absolute truth is an impossible notion as I explained in my previous comments above. Please read them again. If “absolute truth” is possible, then all of time must be in the PRESENT. Clearly, this is not the case. That’s why absolute truth is impossible.

“but how did we get from rational thought if the mind couldn't determine absolute truth.”

Truth is a concept that is unequivocally predicated upon a system of logic and it axiomatic rules. So clearly, truth is divorced from what is rational. Truth is 100% based upon the OPINION of a human observer. It is subjective. Truth is based upon our conception of artificial rules which we used to develop a symbolic language, like Classical Logic, which is only DESCRIPTIVE in nature, and has no EXPLANATORY power whatsoever.

Rational thought is based upon our critical analysis of reality for the purpose of critically reasoning EXPLANATIONS. Rational thought is 100% observer-independent. This is why what is rational, is OBJECTIVE!

To equate “rational” to “truth” is akin to equating apples to giraffes.

Thanks for your input, Chris, and for continuing the discussion!


me 5 years ago

fatfist

Actually read through most of this.

I'm not going to try to push anything on you because obviously you're an intellegent man... assuming of course that you are a man...which... I think according you assuming that you are anything... a man, a fish, a taco is a bad bet.

I'm just curious about a couple of things.

One... your overall tone in your responses...to the outside reader it dips heavily into the snide and insulting. Is this necessary?

Two... Playing devil's advocate here (excuse the term)...but if truth = proof and you have just proven with entry upon entry of dizzying logic that absolute truth cannot possibly exist... explain to me again how if the converse of absolute truth or the non existence of an absolute truth is a proven thing how then does that NOT become an absolute truth in and of itself? I read your hub... I know what you said about grammar...I'm just not following how if the one thing that we know is that there is NOT an absolute truth...how can that possibly be anything BUT an absolute truth in which case it would negate itself?

3... Do you know everything? Without omnipotence... without knowing everything in the universe how can you offer proof. You made a mention of space earlier and void...but how do you know what the Universe is made up of in every square inch. What if there were intellects (not saying there are but for the sake of argument) around before humankind and after humankind that know truth or in this case a truth or the truth...I guess then we go back to the "proof" argument...but then just because I've never heard of China or seen a Chinese person doesn't negate their existence. Logically I guess you could argue that they don't exist if they aren't observed but isn't that going a little too cerebral and not very practical? Doesn't the proof argument get a little circular? Using human logic to define something that is beyond human understanding seems a little self defeating.

Ultimately...I'll admit that I can't prove that God exists (in whatever sense of the word you care to call exist)... Really I'm not interested in trying to change your mind or make you believe in a God and/or Gods. I have a belief which I know is not a truth to everybody...I just think that speaking of position where you don't know everything about...well everything... how can you deride those who believe differently than you. Meaning... you think you know there is no absolute truth...but... Is it possible that you're wrong?

Finally and you don't have to answer this but it really is a matter of curiousity to me. Assuming (at least this is what I'm taking away from your posts) that you don't believe in some sort of after life. What happens to you (you personally) when you die?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“assuming of course that you are a man”

Actually, I’m a woman in disguise. You see, my Pastor used to peek up my dress during Sunday Service, so I left a moustache and started wearing men’s clothes in the hopes that it would put a damper on his manhood. Sadly, it didn’t work!

“your overall tone in your responses”

You seem to be distracted by form, and sacrifice it at the expense of substance. But it’s quite common newbies to distract themselves in this way. Try to read what is written without being distracted by emotion.

“if truth = proof”

Really? Truth is a synonym for proof, according to you? Isn’t there a difference between these 2 terms? You really need to learn the basics.

HOMEWORK: Please define “TRUTH” and “PROOF” and post it in your next response here. Otherwise the audience won’t understand what you mean when you reference these terms, ok?

“absolute truth cannot possibly exist”

Truth is a concept, right? How is it possible for concepts to exist when they are not part of reality? I mean, do we find them in stars or planets?

But as it turns out, your problem is not with the term “absolute” or “truth”......instead, your problem is with the term EXIST.

HOMEWORK: Please define the word ‘exist’ so it objectively & unambiguously explains what it means to ‘exist’. Only then can the audience understand your above statement, ok?

“explain to me again how if the converse of absolute truth or the non existence of an absolute truth is a proven thing how then does that NOT become an absolute truth in and of itself?”

Huh? Until you define your terms ‘truth’, ‘proof’ and ‘exist’, nobody can answer that Q for you. I hope you can understand that.

“I know what you said about grammar...I'm just not following”

Absolute truth fails, among many things, the basic grammar test. It is self-explanatory in my article as long as you understand what predicates, subjects, syntactical grammar, and contextual grammar are.

But the underlying issue is that grammar and language were not around at a time before humans. So this is a POSSIBLE circumstance where any “supposed” absolute statement, is actually NOT absolute. It’s alleged “absoluteness” fails. And that’s one of the many reasons why absolute truth is impossible.

“Do you know everything? Without omnipotence... without knowing everything in the universe how can you offer proof”

Omnipotence? You mean “omniscience”.

Regardless.....this is not an issue of omniscience, knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, opinion, evidence, belief, faith, authority, etc. This is an issue that falls squarely on DEFINITION!!

An ABSOLUTE TRUTH stems from a propositional statement that is resolved to be “true” for every possible circumstance (for all people, all places, all of time). For if there was a SINGLE circumstance it wasn’t true, then it would not be absolute....right?

But above I already explained why absolute truth fails the very instant it is defined.

“but how do you know what the Universe is made up of in every square inch”

This is not an issue of knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, opinion, evidence, belief, faith, authority, etc. This is an issue that falls squarely on DEFINITION!!

What do you mean by UNIVERSE? Can you even define this term objectively (observer-independent)?

Universe: a concept which embodies space and matter.

Now please tell the audience......what does Universe have to do with square INCHES, FEET, CENTIMETERS, OR METERS? These terms are dependent on observers who perform an action in order to realize them. Space & matter has NO dependency on observers!

“What if there were intellects (not saying there are but for the sake of argument) around before humankind and after humankind that know truth”

Please define this crucial term, TRUTH, which you use to make your arguments. Only then will we understand what you are talking about, so we can appropriately respond to you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“but then just because I've never heard of China or seen a Chinese person doesn't negate their existence.”

A person exists or the sun exists, irrespective of whether you were born or not in order to observe them and give an opinion about it.....understand?

Existence falls squarely on definition. Unless we can define this crucial term, ‘exist’ in an observer-independent way, then nobody can understand what we are talking about, and the term becomes nothing but “gibberish”.

Exist: objective presence. Objective invokes an object. Presence invokes a location.

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

“Logically I guess you could argue that they don't exist if they aren't observed”

Nonsense! This has nothing to do with logic. This has to do with the MEANING of ‘exist’.

X exists, if-and-only-if, X refers to an object with a location (i.e. a real object, not an abstract one).

The Sun exists because it is an object with a location.

This definition is OBJECTIVE and indicative of reality because it is not dependent on any observers and their observer-defined systems of logic.

“Using human logic to define something that is beyond human understanding seems a little self defeating.”

Exactly! This is the reason why ALL definitions which are applicable to reality must, without question, be observer-independent! This means: no systems of logic, no axioms, no observers, no emotions, no wisdom, no knowledge, no omniscience, no belief, no truth, no lies, no proof, no authority, etc.

“Ultimately...I'll admit that I can't prove that God exists”

Actually, you can go a step further. It is impossible for you to prove existence. Any attempt at such a formidable feat will result in your personal opinion. Reality (existence) is not dependent on human observers. Objects exist irrespective of observers and their opinions on the issue. Objects exist by DEFINITION alone!

Now if you disagree, then I will give you the litmus test which will show you exactly why proof is completely impossible in any context having to do with reality. Can you objectively prove that your right arm exists? How do you propose that you will accomplish such a formidable task?

Proof is ONLY possible in the context of axiomatic systems of logic, which are tautological and pre-defined! Outside of this scope, proof is IMPOSSIBLE.

If there is a God, then God exists by DEFINITION, and not because some stupid human gave his opinion on the issue. Make sense?

“Really I'm not interested in trying to change your mind or make you believe in a God and/or Gods. I have a belief which I know is not a truth to everybody”

Great! So your God exists because you BELIEVE it. Fine. Then this does not concern science or reality. You are free to your opinions.

Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics, the study of reality. He will be met head on.

“those who believe differently than you”

Believe differently than me???

What does this irrational opinion which you call “belief” have to do with anything? And where did you get the idea that I have beliefs?

Belief is divorced from reality. A rational human is able to EXPLAIN, just like I did to you. Belief is only practiced by those who have a religion.

“Meaning... you think you know there is no absolute truth...but... Is it possible that you're wrong?”

No! You missed the point entirely. There is NO absolute truth by DEFINITION of absolute truth. This is an objective issue which falls squarely on definitions, and not on “knowledge” or “wisdom” or “opinion”....got it?

“What happens to you (you personally) when you die?”

The same that happens to you. Your matter (atoms) are recycled forever! That is the only “after-life” you will ever get. Nobody likes it..... but that is reality, my friend. The sooner you reason it and understand it, the happier and fuller life you will have! And you won't be obsessed with guilt over the irrational ideas of overly-emotional stupid human apes.


me 5 years ago

fatfist,

As I have stated... I have no interest in trying to prove to you an absolute truth. I'm not trying to reach an audience. I know you always tell people define these three words or prove that. But in doing so they have locked themselves into your argument. Which because language is dependent upon man... and man has not always existed...

My purpose with these posts was to try to understand exactly what you are saying...which by your own admittance from ealier posts... makes you happy.

In response to my first point... you didn't answer the question which was.... Is your tone necessary? You told me not to be distracted... but it still avoided the question.

You told me that truth is not synonymous with proof....but in your orginal post you state that truth is proven... so truth is truth and proof is what.... proof? Once again I'm sure you'll ask me to define them.

Barring the proof that my right arm exists... lets take me. I can't prove that I exist because I count as an observer and according to you ... it must be proven free from observer dependent data?

ok... out of time...

so if before you were born... you were oblivion...you have no memory... now presently there's you... although technically speaking I guess you don't exist now either...but I didn't define exist so... presently speaking I can't prove that you are a sentient creature...after you die you become oblivion again... this whatever you want to call it between oblivions is a hiccup that I guess technically speaking doesn't exis. What's the point?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me

“I have no interest in trying to prove to you an absolute truth.”

Well, hopefully you have understood by our exchange that if you did try to “prove” an absolute, it is an exercise in futility. By the very nature of the “definition” of absolute truth, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Did you understand that?

Proof is only possible in logical axiomatic systems whose rules are defined by man. The concept of “absolute” is outside the contextual scope of any system. That’s why it’s irrational and impossible to posit any statement as being “absolute”. This is basic stuff.

“you didn't answer the question which was.... Is your tone necessary? You told me not to be distracted... but it still avoided the question.”

I did answer the Q. But you still are trying to form some emotional argument which is irrelevant to the context of this article. You really need to stick to the instant context of your argument. But in any case.....if you wish to pursue this further, then you really need to be more specific and give an example (copy & paste) of what exactly is emotionally offending/bothering you. Only then can we address it and I can hopefully try to reassure you that all is well.

“You told me that truth is not synonymous with proof”

Exactly! We learn this on the first day of Logic 101 class.

“but in your orginal post you state that truth is proven”

Exactly! Again, Logic 101.

“so truth is truth and proof is what.... proof? Once again I'm sure you'll ask me to define them.”

It’s ok, don’t worry about it.....almost 100% of theists, atheists, and agnostics alike who come here, cannot for the life of them define the terms which make or break their arguments: ‘truth’, ‘proof’, ‘absolute’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, ‘nothing’, ‘exist’.

Since you can’t define these 2 terms, I will do it for you. The terms “truth” and “proof” are IMPOSSIBLE to define objectively. They can only be defined subjectively.

Why?

Because they are both necessarily dependent on the “actions” of resolution (i.e. observation, bias, opinion) by a human observer.

TRUTH: a concept, a label, a word with meaning. Truth is resolved by a human observer for the purposes of assigning the meaning of “acceptance” (true) or “rejection” (false) to the validation of propositional statements which are predicated upon some system of pre-defined axiomatic rules....in this case: Classical Logic. Truth is not synonymous to logic. Truth is dependent on a system of logic to be in place BEFORE the meaning of ‘truth’ can be conceived. And logic is only possible after a sentient being exists who is capable of abstract thought. In a universe without sentient beings and intelligent interpretation, things just are; there is no true or false; there is only the existence of objects. All truth is dependent upon a system of proof for its resolution by a human observer. In logic, truth is said to be systemic because it must be proven to be true within the context of a pre-defined axiomatic system. Without proof there is no possible way to systemically resolve whether a proposition can be labelled ‘true’.

PROOF: the process of verification that is performed by a human observer for the purposes of validating a claim (or proposition) of alleged ‘truth’. Proof is systemic because it is part of a system that has to be conceived and documented BEFORE a proposition can be analyzed and resolved for the purposes of labelling it ‘true’ or ‘false’. The system’s components must minimally include: a human observer, a symbolic alphabet, a language, words and definitions, a grammar, the concept of truth, a set of pre-defined axiomatic rules, and some means of resolving the truth of the proposition in question (i.e. the human SENSORY system). The process of ‘proof’ is dependent upon a specific “sense” or “context” or “domain”. We can’t prove anything in a specific domain while using elements of procedural proof from another domain. i.e. we cannot prove geometric propositions by using the axioms of arithmetic, for example. Proof is limited to the contextual domain of the claim, along with its pre-defined axiomatic rules. Proof is has NOTHING to do with ‘evidence’, and evidence is not proof of any proposition. This means that proof is divorced from reality (existence). Outside the scope a pre-defined system of logic, proof is self-refuting and an impossibility!!!

There you have it!

Now, if you find these rational definitions too rigorous for your tastes, you are free to provide your own. Or you can look them up in our documented history of philosophy and post whichever ones you feel are the most rational. I am not a dictator and I ALWAYS give people the opportunity to DEFINE THEIR TERMS. But until you do that, then these definition stay. Make sense? I am being more than fair to you, right?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“I can't prove that I exist because I count as an observer”

Exactly! I mean, do you exist because some observer was able to see/touch you and “personally” verify it? What if you are the ONLY living thing left on this planet after a mass extinction.....do you not exist because nobody is there to confirm your existence and document it in a government database?

Clearly, you exist according the objective DEFINITION (meaning) of the word ‘exist’. You are an object that has location in the universe. Where you are located is completely irrelevant to the issue of existence. The point is, that there is a static distance between YOU and every single object in the universe. You have OBJECTIVE PRESENCE, whether you like it or not,.... or whether some human is there to confirm/document it or not. Existence is an objective criterion. It is independent of any opinion or belief or observation from anyone. Understand?

“and according to you ... it must be ****proven**** free from observer dependent data?”

No, you missed the point entirely. Proof is IMPOSSIBLE in reality. Reality is not dependent on a human’s ability to conceive and formulate a set of axiomatic rules. Reality was there even BEFORE humans came to be. Reality (existence) PRECEDES human thought and their stupid rules, truth, logic, proof, opinions, knowledge, wisdom, faith, belief, observations, etc. Understand?

“although technically speaking I guess you don't exist now either”

Huh? What could that statement possibly mean?

Am I not an object? Don’t I have a location? If so, I exist, irrespective of what anybody guesses or thinks. My existence is objective, and independent of anybody’s claims.

“presently speaking I can't prove that you are a sentient creature”

You don’t seem to understand what I’ve saying all along.

PROOF IS IMPOSSIBLE!!

Which part of “impossible” are you having difficulty understanding?

You cannot prove that you have a right arm. You cannot prove that you have coins in your pocket....etc....etc.

You can only prove a propositional statement which is based on a pre-defined context of some axiomatic rule-based system.....like Classical Logic, Intuitionist Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Mathematics, Computer Programs, Business Rules, etc....

If you still don’t understand this, please ask specific questions so I can explain further, ok?

“so if before you were born... you were oblivion...... after you die you become oblivion again..”

What does that gibberish even mean?

There is only matter (atoms) in the universe.

The universe is a concept which embodies SOMETHING (matter) or NOTHING (space), ....on or off, yes or no, white or black. There is no other option.

Matter is that which has shape. Space doesn’t. There is no other option between “shape” and “no shape”. Understand?

All objects (humans, cars, dogs, pens, etc.) are made up of atoms. Atoms are eternal, they cannot be created or destroyed. Please read my other articles on the eternal nature of matter in motion in order to understand.

After you die, your body breaks down to the atomic level and your atoms are reused.....insects eat them. Birds eat insects. Humans eat birds. That’s the cycle of life on this planet.....until this planet gets swallowed up by the Sun, and the Sun gets recycled into another star, gases, or planets.....forever and ever!

Which part are you having difficulty understanding?

“this whatever you want to call it between oblivions is a hiccup that I guess technically speaking doesn't exis.”

What exists is eternal atoms! It is impossible for existence to be created or destroyed. Only objects can be ASSEMBLED and DISASSEMBLED from eternal atoms. Do yourself a favour and read this article to get a crucial understanding of existence:

http://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIB...


me 5 years ago

"I'm being more than fair to you right?" You said after providing terms.

I'm not debating you... I'm trying to understand your position... Provide any definition you wish.

Ok... so if I'm following you correctly Truth and Proof are two things that are impossible in reality.

Now once again... I'm relying on your willingness to get your point across... and forgive me (not being sarcastic) for not being on your level when it comes to the understanding the nature of things... i.e. truth, logic, existence, proof etc.

So... I exist purely from an objective definition and that is not dependent upon proof because proof is impossible. Just trying to follow you.

About the "gibberish" oblivion question. What I was referring to is your own self awareness. Once again help me follow you. I'm not proposing a debate...I'm asking a question. Do I have to define self aware or can you answer this question with a basic understanding of what I mean?

Before you were self aware... I used the term oblivion meaning the lack of conciousness...(I really don't want to get bogged down in every little word) ... Before you were self aware... there was nothing... then now you are a sentient being... then in death you return to atoms. What happens to "YOU" meaning your individuality/conciousness/rational self?

Once again... just trying to follow along... and yes... you've clarified your position a great deal.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“so if I'm following you correctly Truth and Proof are two things that are impossible in reality.”

Of course. As humans, we communicate with each other via language, which deals exclusively with conceptual ‘terms’ which:

1) are syntactically valid, in accordance to grammatical rules.

2) are unambiguously defined via rigorous semantic analysis.

3) are contextually consistent in their application.

So if anybody wants to base their argument on their usage of the terms “truth” and “proof”, then they had better be able to define these terms so their intended audience will understand their dissertation without guessing at their meaning. I’m sure you can appreciate that this is only a fair expectation that is applicable to anyone making an argument.

“and forgive me (not being sarcastic) for not being on your level when it comes to the understanding the nature of things... i.e. truth, logic, existence, proof etc.”

No need for apologies, my friend ;-)

I am very happy to converse with people like yourself who don’t come here to troll and make bald assertions without being able to explain themselves. I welcome all disagreements. But I expect people to answer my questions and provide explanations when I ask for them.

I don’t care what your personal beliefs are, and that shouldn’t be a hindrance to our exchange, as long as we communicate objectively. We are all human. And we can only communicate with each other when we define our terms and explain our position. Otherwise, all we have is communication breakdown.

“So... I exist purely from an objective definition and that is not dependent upon proof because proof is impossible.”

Of course. Proof & truth are only applicable in axiomatic logic systems with pre-defined rules. Mother Nature (reality) will take no part in whatever logical systems humans invent in order to communicate their ideas in a formal discourse. Mother Nature only deals with objects which have “shape” and “location”. All of Mother Nature’s objects are wrapped in the nothingness of space, which is shapeless, borderless, boundless and limitless.

Mother Nature only deals with SOMETHING (with shape) or NOTHING (without shape)....that is, reality consists of objects which are separated by space.

So if people cannot objectively define this CRUCIAL term, which they call ‘exist’, then what could it possibly mean when they say “I exist”, or “my arm exists”, or “that car exists”, or “God exists”?

You exist by virtue of the MEANING of the term ‘exist’. Makes sense?

We objectively define it as follows:

Exist = objective presence (object + location).

The Sun, Moon, and Earth exist because they are objects with location, irrespective of any observer’s opinion. Objective means “observer-independent”. There is no provision for opinion, belief, faith, knowledge, etc. in the definition of ‘exist’. Make sense?

I hope you understand that I don’t mean to put you on the spot or ridicule you. I am just trying to get your brain to think from reality’s perspective, rather than what theists & atheists have forced down your throat all these years with this nonsense of “truths” and “proofs”, which they can’t even define, and which I explained WHY they don’t apply to reality.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“Do I have to define self aware or can you answer this question with a basic understanding of what I mean?”

I assume you mean consciousness.

“Before you were self aware... there was nothing”

No. There were objects made up of atoms, right? Every single atom in your body was floating around in the universe in the past.....whether it was in stars, planets, etc. is irrelevant. The point is, your atoms were always around. Atoms cannot be created (space cannot acquire shape and convert into an atom) or destroyed (an atom cannot lose shape and convert into space).

“then now you are a sentient being”

When the atoms assembled (by gravitational & electrostatic means) to form you into a being, you had consciousness. I am not going to debate whether you had consciousness during the fourth month of conception or at birth. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

But consciousness is a verb. This word resolves from the motion of atoms in your brain which send signals to each other. I mean, any verb MUST result from some object, right? Verbs are not objects in and of themselves. Consciousness is not a ‘thing’ or ‘object’. It is a concept. It is our conception of the inner workings of the brain, which is composed of atoms in MOTION.

Consider for example the word RAIN. Objectively speaking...is ‘rain’ an object or a concept?

Well, the term ‘rain’ applies to a DYNAMIC CONCEPT. Rain alludes to a movie (dynamic), not to a photograph (static). The term ‘rain’ alludes to motion. Therefore rain cannot be an object. The object is WATER. When water is in motion, specifically, falling from the sky....we call this concept: rain.

Rain does not exist. You cannot take a picture of rain....you cannot illustrate it. Rain has no shape. You can only take a picture of water. Rain is not an object and has no location. Only water can rationally be said to exist. Water (H2O molecules) have shape & location. They can come in contact with you and knock you to the ground, right?

This same analogy applies to the concept of ‘consciousness’, which is not a ‘thing’......but rather what a ‘thing’ (our brain) DOES!

“then in death you return to atoms. What happens to "YOU" meaning your individuality/conciousness/rational self?”

You will be disassembled into your respective atoms which will be recycled forever.

As per your individuality/conciousness/rational self......I hope that you can understand by now, that these terms do not resolve into objects. These terms do not resolve into any ‘thing’ which can be said to have shape. These terms are only concepts. They do not resolve to anything which can be said to ‘exist’. These terms necessarily depend on an already existing object in order for them to be realized. This object is your brain!

You need to understand, that objects precede all concepts. Concepts cannot be realized or exist in and of themselves. Concepts like individuality/conciousness/awareness, love, beauty, justice, government, law, running, rain, explosion, sound, voice, wave, radiation, happiness, hate, morality, evil, good, bad, etc. are necessarily predicated upon already existing objects. I am sure that now you are more than capable in identifying what these specific objects are for each of these terms I listed.

Hope that helps.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

Imagine a universe without any biologicial brains anywhere, pre-mankind. Where in that universe would truth be found? Would it be on a banner on Venus? Could we turn over a rock on Mars and find truth crawling away on 8 legs?

I have had highly educated men (one an attorney) trying to argue that an axiom was the truth. He said that the Law of Non-Contradiction was true. I suppose he meant on Planet X there was a creature called LNC that ate arguments and passed logical flatulence.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

“Imagine a universe without any biologicial brains anywhere, pre-mankind. Where in that universe would truth be found?”

This is the underlying problem with humanity for the past 5000 years. We have sent human monkeys to the moon, and we have communication capabilities which make the Star Trek flip-up Communicator look like a clown’s toupee. But today, not a single human being on this planet can tell you what the terms ‘truth’ and ‘proof’ even mean. Yet people will use these words in every single sentence they utter without so much as blinking! I have asked so many people to tell me what ‘truth’ & ‘proof’ means and NOT A SINGLE person has been able to offer a response. Has this world gone mad? Maybe it is me, fatfist, who has gone mad. Maybe I should PRETEND to “know” what it means, just like everybody else does.

2500 years ago, Aristotle decided to encapsulate this irrational concept of ‘truth’ which was floating around the grape vine. He encapsulated it with the 3 axioms of Classical Logic and made it axiomatically systemic.

The Ancient Greeks already understood and documented that TRUTH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION. It was the Sophists of Ancient Greece, like Protagoras , Prodikos , Hippias, Eleios, and Gorgias from Leontini, etc. who persistently advanced the principle that “truth is what suits the individual’s interests”. They had the rationality to understand that truth does not exist. But it is rather a human invention that is at best, self-serving.

And this is why Aristotle took it upon himself to formalize truth by encapsulating it within an axiomatic system. Anything that is asserted as ‘truth’ outside the realm of a conceptual axiomatic domain, is nothing but self-serving opinion. This means that ‘truth’ & ‘proof’ are subjective notions which are completely DIVORCED from reality.

“I have had highly educated men (one an attorney) trying to argue that an axiom was the truth. He said that the Law of Non-Contradiction was true.”

Indeed, I converse with such individuals on a regular basis. They are SHOCKED to hear me ask them to DEFINE ‘truth’. They take it for granted that truth means “slkjlsyrwxmbbxzsxkjfljsfljlgiortewkr”.....in other words....GIBBERSH!!!!

But this gibberish is what they use to authoritatively WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT! How convenient is that? They see me as a heretic who should be burned at the stake ;-)


me 5 years ago

Ok... I think I follow you on some points... once again I'm not as well versed in this as you.

If you grow tired of explaining this to me... say the word and I'll leave these postings alone.

So... if the Sun, moon, etc. exist observer independent... why does sentience screw this up? I had it... then I lost it. (The idea... not sentience)

Going back to the cycle of life scenario. Ok... so "YOU" are a concept... if I was reading you correctly the concept of "YOU" dissapates when you die... maybe you weren't meaning that exactly... just the concept of "YOU" cannot resolve into an object.

My original question restated then... before the concept of "YOU" formed (and I'm trying very hard to keep this in language that was set forth by you) the concept of "YOU" had not formed for you to become self aware. I used the term oblivion I guess to signify nothingness... I mean that in the terms of the concept not the physical atoms that would later assemble the biological body... Now there is the "YOU" in the present sense because your body is performing the action of "YOU" "YOU" are self aware. When the action of "YOU" ceases to be... self awareness ceases to be.

So in using all that verbiage I'm basically saying that if what I'm getting from you is to be assumed correct. (won't use the word true obviously) Self Awareness is only a temporary state? The concept of "YOU" as a unique identity on viable for the limited lifespan of how long the human brain will perform the action of "YOU"

What's the point? Meaning when the concept of "ME" in this cases... ceases to be self aware... then the sum of my life's actions serves no purpose or has no meaning because the action of "ME" is no more. Why should I not then take courses of action now to do anything and everything I please? Sure there will be consequences but at this point eventually "ME" will cease to be self aware...so I won't remember any pain or discomfort I have undergone or caused others because "ME" is not aware of it.

I guess that falls back to the great human question of "why?" or "what is the meaning of life?" or "What is the question to which 42 is the answer?"

Did I stick within the bounds of acceptable terms and concepts vs. objects?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“So... if the Sun, moon, etc. exist observer independent... why does sentience screw this up?”

I’m not sure I understand your Q here, but I will attempt a reply of what I think you are asking.

If someone claims that X exists because they saw it or touched it, then they are saying existence depends on an experiment that a human observer performs. But we cannot see or touch individual atoms. Does this mean they do not exist?

Clearly, X exists or not, irrespective of an observer’s opinion on the issue.

If that didn’t answer your Q, please elaborate.

“Ok... so "YOU" are a concept...”

The word “you” is a concept. But if you POINT at me and utter “YOU”, then the word YOU will now resolve to an object, namely, the being that I represent.

Remember, we point at all objects and name them (give them labels)......just like Adam did with the animals when God put them before him (I can’t remember the Bible verse).

“the concept of "YOU" dissapates when you die”

The concept “YOU” never even existed. Only the being that you point at exists. What you utter is just a word or label. It’s what this word resolves to in reality, namely an object (the physical manifestation of a human), which exists.

It is the human who dissipates (atoms break down and disperse) after he dies.

“just the concept of "YOU" cannot resolve into an object.”

It can resolve to whatever you POINT at. If you point to a car and utter “YOU”, then the ET from another planet will now understand that that object (car) is named “YOU”.

As you can see.....it is not practical to use generic labels for objects. When we label objects we usually give them unique names. You would point to me and utter “Fatfist” instead of “you”.

“When the action of "YOU" ceases to be... self awareness ceases to be.”

The action you are alluding to is actually the motion of all the atoms comprising the grey matter (neurons) in a person’s brain. This is the dynamic concept we call consciousness (verb). Just like when a group of people run, we call that conglomerate action “race”.....which is a verb – a concept.

“if what I'm getting from you is to be assumed correct.”

Let’s get our language straight. What I am saying is neither truth or false, correct or incorrect, right or wrong, fact or lie. What I am offering you is an explanation that is either RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL. This is the best that any human can ever hope to accomplish whenever he explains anything to do with reality. Actually, this is exactly what the Scientific Method entails....whether a theory is rational or irrational.

Truths, proofs, certainties, correctness, righteousness, facts, absolutes, etc....are not only irrational notions when applied to reality (existence), but they are also impossible. Such notions are only applicable in purely axiomatic systemic domains. In decimal arithmetic, it is true/correct/right/fact that 10+10=20. In binary arithmetic it is false/incorrect/wrong/lie.

Do you now understand the systemic contexts of such notions?

Do you also understand that you cannot apply these notions outside their intended context?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me,

“Self Awareness is only a temporary state?”

Of course. Can we explain otherwise?

Since awareness is a verb that is mediated by the action/motion of atoms comprising the physical brain, then when that brain dies this action of “awareness” can no longer be mediated. There is no awareness “action” happening because the atoms of the brain no longer work in unison to serve the activity of the brain.

Do you have any other explanation that is rational? I am willing to see it and respond to it if you like.

“What's the point?... ceases to be self aware... then the sum of my life's actions serves no purpose or has no meaning”

Sadly, there is no point and no purpose. We are just a collection of atoms which form this object we call “human”. We have an extremely limited lifespan. Our lifespan is not even akin to a drop in all the oceans. It is not even akin to a grain of sand in our galaxy. We are practically nothing compared to all the matter out there.

You should live each day to the fullest. You don’t know when your time will come to expire. We need to cooperate, love and support each other....not fight, argue, and kill each other. Humans think that they are nature’s smartest animal, or that a God created them. But as it turns out.....we are the dumbest animal this planet has ever seen. All we do is kill each other because somebody insulted our religion.

“Why should I not then take courses of action now to do anything and everything I please?”

Spend money.....go on vacations.....have fun. You only get one chance to do this.

“so I won't remember any pain or discomfort I have undergone or caused others”

You got it. Existence is static. There is no such thing as ‘time’. You cannot travel back in time or forward in time. There is only NOW. Only sentient beings have memory. Plants are an example of life without memory. Do you remember all the other civilizations which have evolved and gone extinct all over the universe for eternity? They are all forgotten. They were not even remembered to begin with. There is no eternal memory.

“I guess that falls back to the great human question of "why?" or "what is the meaning of life?"

There is no meaning to life. Life just is. Life has been eternally evolving and going extinct in the universe. We are not special. There was no beginning before us. There were uncountable civilizations all over the universe before us, and there will always be new ones for eternity. There is no end to this perpetual cycle of matter’s ability to attract and form objects like, stars, planets, beings, plants, etc.

When you attempt ask such questions of “meaning”, you are inadvertently presupposing a God who did it all for some grand purpose. This is primitive thinking at its worst. It is this thinking which causes humans to kill each other. Their shallowness and inability to read, think, and understand without predisposition, makes most humans a species which is surrounded by an aura of detestable and dangerous religious bigotry.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa

I see that my wish that this debate continues long has been fulfilled! What a great and important debate it is. The Hub is so excellent and the Bronowski vid on its own is worth watching over and over. "We have to touch people" - so important a message.

Love and peace

Tony


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist can you explain how black holes stop time. The article did not explain it using logic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110127/sc_space/fo...


Shalini Kagal profile image

Shalini Kagal 5 years ago from India

Just LOVE the logic. Absolutes that can't be proved seem to be the reason for so much strife the world over. I believe - but my belief is mine and my own truth - I feel it's criminal to impose it on others. By the same token, I wouldn't want anyone to tell me that what I believe is wrong - can they prove it to the contrary?

I'm so glad I followed Tony here - 'absolutely' brilliant piece of writing!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@tonymac04......thanks for the kind words and thanks for continuing to read my articles. Sadly, most humans don't want to talk about these issues of 'belief', 'truth', 'proof', and whether they have any relevance in reality. We have evolved to be content in our belief in that which we can use as a "security blanket".

@Shalini Kagal,

Yes, humans are quite the divine species when they have these "absolutes" in their mind, and can't explain them, but yet they are willing to KILL other humans for them.

" but my belief is mine and my own truth - I feel it's criminal to impose it on others."

It's a shame that you are in the minority of "believers". If somebody wants to assert that their beliefs are 100% applicable to reality, then they had better be able to answer questions and offer explanations. Otherwise, they should have the decency to keep their beliefs to themselves. That's what makes a "respectable" human being. And that would make a better world for everyone. Just look at the mess we have now...

"By the same token, I wouldn't want anyone to tell me that what I believe is wrong"

And I don't want to do that to anyone. Both sides should be respectable. I mean, we have no right to get in people's faces and belittle them because of their race or sexual orientation. People are born this way. And it's nobody's business.

But beliefs, otoh, can be used as a means of control and should be kept behind closed doors. But when these "beliefs" are out there in the public scene....in schools, governments, on currency, in advertisements, etc., then all bets are off. I have the right to offer my response.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@PrometheusKid

"Fatfist can you explain how black holes stop time."

You have 2 MAJOR hurdles to cross, Prometheus. You need to define:

1) black hole:_____________

2) time:_______________

Unless you can do that, then the audience won't be able to understand what you are talking about.

Do these 2 terms refer to objects (with shape), or concepts (lacking shape)?

"The article did not explain it using logic."

There ain't no logic in the universe that will help you answer this question. Logic is crippled when applied to such endeavors.

Logic is only a DESCRIPTIVE formal language construct used in propositional statements. Top-level logical declarations are used as a ROOT basis to derive other lower-level declarations, and hopefully reach some conclusion (true or false) which is only applicable in the context of your original "declarations".

Logic only DESCRIBES....it never EXPLAINS. Logical systems are divorced from reality. Reality has NO "declarations" or formalized rules of engagement. Reality can only be critically analyzed and explained rationally.

The rational EXPLANATION to your question is predicated solely on the DEFINITION of your key terms: black hole, time.

Without defining them, all you are doing is chasing your tail in circles, arguing with the mirror, and understanding nothing.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Without defining them, all you are doing is chasing your tail in circles, arguing with the mirror, and understanding nothing.

Amen

Here is the typical atheist answer if they even bother answering your question.

Black Holes Object

Time Concept

I defined them for you fatfist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Prometheus,

“Here is the typical atheist answer...”

That's unfortunate, because atheism is UNSCIENTIFIC! People should learn the arguments against atheism and abandon this stupid religion.

In a nutshell, I argue that atheism is an untenable position because it invokes the crucial terms 'belief', 'knowledge', ‘truth’, and ‘proof’. If God actually exists out there.....if there really is a Supreme Being out there..... will the fact that I don't believe in 'Him' make God disappear? And conversely, if there is no such being, will the fact that I believe that there is, make God appear? Think about it.

Conclusion (for atheists as well as theists): there is no provision for belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom in the definition of the word 'exist'.

Theists and atheists alike have a distorted notion of the Scientific Method.

Atheism is the opium of the mathematicians, the religion of Mathematical Physics. It is the belief & worship of ENERGY!!

An atheist is an individual who is still stuck to the 17th century version of the Scientific Method. An atheist still does not understand what science is about. A typical textbook atheist believes in nonsense like energy, gravitons, math, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, black holes, time, 0D particles, time travel, warped space, stretched time, love, morals, free will, etc. The reason why theists and atheists are still debating to this day is because atheists have not resolved their contradictions.

What is amusing is that atheists have replaced God with Big Bang, energy, time, 0D particles and black holes!

In reality, there are no atheists, theists or agnostics. There are only human beings. But what the hell do I know.....I’m a heretic who should be burned alive!

“Black Holes Object...Time Concept”

The idiots of mathematics have asserted that a BH is a 0D object without length, width, or height.....conceptually no different than NOTHING!

Furthermore, these clowns claim that a BH is comprised of two concepts: 'a' singularity and 'an' Even Horizon. So far we have nothing in front of us. Relativists have gone to absurdity with their runaway mass thing. They took a physical object known as a star, compressed this ball of gas so much that the pressure disintegrated the object's length, width, and height, and converted the thing into an abstract concept. Next, they claim that this concept swallows clocks, astronauts, and light. And not only that....now these idiots claim that this BH concept slows down time, which is yet another concept. Where is God when you need Him?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

In reality, there are no atheists, theists or agnostics. There are only human beings.

Amen

I'm so glad I followed Tony here - 'absolutely' brilliant piece of writing!

Kangal

Fatfist knows nothing even he calls himself a heretic. And heretics are bad and evil demons.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

If you would allow me to answer some of me's concerns as I believe I understand his difficulty - he understands rationality but is having a hard time accepting all that it entails.

Me,

(What's the point?)

There is none. You are free to determine your own.

(Meaning when the concept of "ME" in this cases... ceases to be self aware... then the sum of my life's actions serves no purpose or has no meaning because the action of "ME" is no more.)

Precisely right. There is nothing more liberating than total freedom. It is your birthright for being human.

(Why should I not then take courses of action now to do anything and everything I please?)

Nature has its own law of actions and consquences. As long as you are willing to accept the consquences, your actions are your choice.

(Sure there will be consequences but at this point eventually "ME" will cease to be self aware...so I won't remember any pain or discomfort I have undergone or caused others because "ME" is not aware of it.)

That is the basis of real morality - humankind has learned from its history that better and more rewarding lives come about by taking positive actions and receiving the positive consquences of those actions. Sure, you can get drunk and stay drunk and have sex every day with shady women, but there are unpleasant consquences for those actions. The thinking error most make is to equate the hangovers and syphilis to lack of faith, when the only problems is choice of actions. Many backsliding Christians run back to church at this point, not realizing it isn't god but themselves who hold the key to their bettered lives. The only point of life is to maximize each day. There is no eternal reward or punishment to long for or fear.

Choice of actions is based solely on the consquences of those actions.

(I guess that falls back to the great human question of "why?" or "what is the meaning of life?")

You are at the same point where Fred Allen abandonded reason and returned via the rationalization (excuse) process into theistic rapture - it was simply too important to him to have some carrot dangled at the end of his life that would give it purpose.

What is very hard to learn is that every bit of satisfation and much more can be had with no belief - belief itself creates an inner tension that can only be resolved with a kind of self-imposed stupdity that encloses beliefs within a cocoon of ignorace and rationalization.

If you do good things for people you get positive results and you have a good life. When you die, you return to the same state as pre-birth - nothing. No memories, no pain, nada. What else do you need from life - that's all a snail or salamander gets. Are you thinking somehow that your group of atoms is more important to nature than is theirs?

A salamander can regrow its own leg - what can you do with god that you can't do without god?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston.....thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading your posts on these topics.


me 5 years ago

I guess I'll take this up with Winston since he's sees kind of what I was getting at.

Life has no meaning... We have the now.

If I truly accept this. If I grasp that I (the concept of "ME") is only a hiccup of sentience between states of non self aware.

Then nothing matters period... morality, immorality...if I die at the age of 7 days, 17 years, 77 or 157... the time between states of non awareness is so completely momentary.

Winston you speak of consequences...but those are brief and fleeting and really cannot motivate a person who truly grasps an eternity of non self aware... Any choice for good or ill... simply doesn't matter because ultimately neither you nor the people whose choices affected you or were effected by your choices will have any recollection of the pleasure or pain caused by these choices. When you compare 50 years in prison to 1,000,000,000,000,000+ etc. (i.e. infinity) years of non existence...it is nothing. There is no motivation for me at this point to do anything except maximize my pleasure before I cease to be self aware... or no motivation to do anything period except waste away in a bean bag because of the utter pointlessness of ANY of my actions.

If I maximized my pleasure more than any human in history or suffered more pain than the rest of my species... If I was the most benign being...or the most malevolent ever. Ultimately it doesn't matter either way because all of humanity will cease to be sentient.

As fatfist said... entire civilizations could have come and gone... and aren't even remembered.

If I... as in me... truly truly accepted that reality to the core of my being... I'm not sure if I would be a raper/pillager or a bean bagger but I would get up from this chair and instantly do one or the other.

What can we do with God that we can't do without God? I don't know the answer to that question. I don't propose that I do.

Is there a God... Isn't there a God... Is there a turtle in the middle of the earth? I may find these answers out... I may not. I don't know. I guess all will or won't be revealed to me soon enough.

I believe what I beleive because it's part of my culture and upbringing. Do people use and abuse religion? Absolutely. Are there some very fundamental flaws... of course mankind is flawed... things get lost in the translation or writing written by man is put down as perfect when man is a flawed creature.

Of course I'm sure here we're going to get into defining perfect.

In any case... I believe what I believe because that's what I choose to beleive... especially after looking at other religions and/or having the choice to not believe.

I just can't accept the idea that all actions are inevitably pointless.

I reject your reality and substitute my own *grins*

I may very well be wrong fellas...but I can rest easy in the fact that... if I am then it won't matter. I won't even have a chance to regret not being a rape/pillager or bean bagging it. I just won't be.

Fatfist... I do want to thank you for taking the time to patiently explain a lot of this stuff to me. I originally posted because I wanted clarification on the absolute truth position and I was curious about the non aware-aware-non aware idea.

Winston...thanks for addressing my points.

please forgive any grammatical errors... it's either very early or very late when I get a chance to post and I'm usually distracted by tiny offspring.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@me

"As fatfist said... entire civilizations could have come and gone... and aren't even remembered."

There had to be. There is just no other way about it. Eternity has no beginning or end. Anything is possible with eternity.....even your atoms coming together again in the right configuration to form YOU in some future civilization in some far off galaxy. Think about it.

"Fatfist... I do want to thank you for taking the time to patiently explain a lot of this stuff to me."

You are very welcome. I am always happy to converse with people like yourself who are honest about what they believe or what they can explain. I enjoyed reading your viewpoint on life. Thank you for posting!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Any choice for good or ill... simply doesn't matter because ultimately neither you nor the people whose choices affected you or were effected by your choices will have any recollection of the pleasure or pain caused by these choices.)

Me,

You are worrying about the wrong time span concerning actions and consquences. It is your personal life we are talking about. Who cares what happens 500 years from now. Do you want your life right now to be better or worse?

What difference does it make that your actions won't resonate throughout eternity. What the hell difference does eternity have with the results of the positive or negative consequence of what you decide to do in the next five minutes, or about how those actions make you feel about yourself. This 1,000,000,000 year crap is simply attempted rationalizing - it won't matter in 500 years if you decided today to cut off each of your fingers, one by one. Why don't you do that? Because it hurts - it has a negative consequence that is felt now. Same goes for positive consquences - so don't give me that lame sophomoric crap how it won't matter what I do to eternity.

If you are that hopeless and helpless and morose, do us all a favor and blow off your own head now so we who like to live can share your part of the food, water, and air. After all, it won't matter to eternity that you aren't here.

Your life occurs one moment at a time - in the present - just like nature occurs. So why worry about what you cannot control. What you can do is decide to feed your children or decide to ignore them because they seem a bother - which action would make you feel better about yourself - right now?

Here's a secret - you are irrelevant, unimportant. In the grand scheme of things, you and I are a couple of gnats. To your two-year-old, though, you are god. But it is not god who makes you feel better about feeding your children rather than ignoring them in pursuit of pleasure - it is the connection of your humanity that creates the positive feeling - the learned morality of promoting the species by protecting your offspring.

(When you compare 50 years in prison to 1,000,000,000,000,000+ etc. (i.e. infinity) years of non existence...it is nothing.)

You should do some hard time, then. Reality and conceptualizations of time are not the same thing.

You could also spend your life as a slug - your life, your choice. It is a stupid choice. Still, your choice.

(There is no motivation for me at this point to do anything except maximize my pleasure before I cease to be self aware...)

Geez. Quit whining. The problem is you don't even know how to maximize your pleasure or what it is that truly brings you pleasure - you don't even know what pleasure is. You really don't know what you want. Is it physical pleasure you desire or is it a sense of accomplishment and worth?

You don't need some stupid rules written on stone tablets to give your life meaning - you give your own life meaning by how you chose to live it. I would suggest trying to make it the most positive experience you can because this is all you will get.

But here is the killer, the one thing I suspect you really don't want to hear about yourself: You are not special.

That's the real reason you fight so hard not to accept reality. You hate the idea that you, me, and Fatfist are all equals with the same ultimate fate over which we have no control. No control.

Boy, if there were ever two ideas that could set humankind free from their delusions, it would be these: you are not special, and you have no control over your destiny.


me 5 years ago

Winston...

Why the need to get all abrasive?

I simply disagree with you... no need to call me lame or sophomoric or tell me to quit "whining".

I think you are either understanding what I'm getting at and dismissing me (which of course is completely your perogative) or you not seeing it.

It's not a case of mattering 1,000 years from now or 500 or 5 seconds. Everything ceases to matter the instant your are self aware.

"What the hell difference does eternity have with the results of the positive or negative consequence of what you decide to do in the next five minutes,"

Exactly... the next five minutes, or five hours etc. NOTHING MATTERS.

Therefore the only thing that could motivate me in the short term is pain avoidance/maximizing pleasure.

Why don't I cut off my fingers... because it hurts... right. But once again pain ultimately is irrelevant because if I "blow off your own head now so we who like to live can share your part of the food, water, and air."

I won't remember it.

Believe me Winston when I tell you in earnest...if I truly subscribed to this notion I would have no hesitation in executing this action.

You keep bringing up morality and yet admit that everything is irrelevant.

What is the point of giving my life meaning? Why is this "whining"? I'm just pointing out what you already agreed to. Why give "meaning" to a "meaningless" state of being.

I never said that I was "special"... and I'm not quite sure what you mean by control over my destiny.

All that I am saying is... I could not live with accepting the reality that everything that I do ultimately has no point lest I resolve to commit to the actions I mentioned previously.

If I take a few or many people before I succeed in my quest to "blow my head off" or if I decide to free them to a state of non self aware... so be it.

If you wish to deride me or hurl insults at me because of my viewpoint... if you feel that to be necessary to argue your point. So be that as well... Just know that "sticks and stones" etc.

I'm not asking anybody here to change their view or to reject the reality to which they subscribe. I sought clarification. I received clarification. I disagree with certain points. I've even agreed that I could be very wrong.

I do not wish to turn this into an exercise in futility.

I have received the answers to my questions and I have thanked you both.

I wish all who view this well.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Me,

I'm sorry if the previous post seemed abrasive - it wasn't meant to attack you personally but the general ideas being presented. You are not the first to introduce this type of thinking. When something is a rehash of old ideas, I tend to gloss over the rebuttal as the rebuttal, too, is old and dated. For example, the ID issue is dead and buried, but idiots still try to claim controversy that does not exist. I assume the person to whom I am talking is smart enough to know that ID is religion and has been thoroughly debunked. In the same fashion, I would assume you know that your ideas of "needful meaning to life" is not new or unique.

The reason I say these ideas are lame and sophomoric is that they are asking for more than one's fair share. It's whining because it is simply stating an emotion felt from not getting what one thinks is necessary - and it is the belief that what one believes is the way things are that is arrogant and displays the need for control.

Accepting life as it is leads to contentment; attempting to alter (control) reality to fit what one thinks is necessary is impossible, and the attempted control leads to tensions and dissatisfaction.

(I could not live with accepting the reality that everything that I do ultimately has no point)

I call BS on this claim. I don't believe you. If I held your head under water, rest assured you would not go quietly into that good night - you would fight and claw and thrash to keep living your meaningless life. (And I say meaningless as that is your label for life without ultimate purpose, not because I think your personal life really is meaningless.)

(I never said that I was "special"... and I'm not quite sure what you mean by control over my destiny.)

I am pointing out the unspoken - you probably are not aware that your position must be one of a unique being, of being special, in that you are stating that you are so special you cannot live without meaning and somehow that make you deserving of that meaning, when millions of non-belivers worldwide live and die daily knowing there is no meaning other than the one they personally attach to their own lives.

Do you see now? You have to think your are special if you need an all-powerful entity to direct the meaning of your actions while you have life. Does the sea otter get the benefit of this meaning, as well? How about hippos? Does the cockroach crawling across you countertop need meaning, too?

It seems to me your problem is that you romanticize natural events - you sell yourself the Disney version of life when you would understand more with a documentary.

As to your destiny, this is a matter of control. Theism involves holding one's breath until one turns blue in an attempt to alter reality by belief. The only thing possible to control is the control each individual can exercise over his own actions and reactions. We cannot alter the fact that there is nothing after life simply because we want there to be something after life. Belief in Santa does not provide future presents under the tree; likewise, belief in a forgiving, all-powerful being does not provide any conscious self-awareness after the chemistry that runs the brain stops functioning.

My question is why are you asking these questions when it seems apparent you don't like the answers? You indicate I do not grasp your question and simply reiterate.

I understand your assertions - but I refuse to acknowledge your claims have validity. Put down the bong and face reality. Once you understand reality, then it is up to you to adjust to it, not vice-versa.

Only then can you know real freedom and real peace.


me 5 years ago

Winston

Put down the bong and face reality...

By that I'm assuming you mean the bong of ignorance...

To assume I do any kind of drug is kind of insulting.

Once again... just because you say these arguments are debunked... and your position is right... I'm to take your word?

Why is it then that those of you who are so enlightened have such a hard time convincing the rest of us. Why are there no major course curriculums in public schools "Life only has the meaning you make of it." Why not catch the kids early?

I still will disagree with you... because you yourself and fatfist have both agreed that life is meaningless or has no greater meaning.. or basically in the end of self aware no actions or memories things of that sort will carry on.

You are going to tell me that life has no meaning... but I should make a meaning for myself... when ultimately... why bother. We're just arguing in a circle.

Who said anything about a "fair share". I don't even know what that is or who would decide what one's fair share would be... or me pointing out that some people who would reason that in the end nothing matters because they go to the state of unaware that they would then decide they could do any action they want. You're going to tell me that people haven't come to this conclusion?

I'm not whining about some emotional response to not getting what is necessity. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything. In this life or any other. I was simply stating that I personally didn't see what would be the point of any action if ultimately my natural state was nonself aware. Your throwing in qualities to arguments that I'm not making. "Fair share" "Whining" etc.

You're going to tell me (whether you agree with it or not) that you can't possibly see how some people who come to the conclusion that since Life itself has no meaning (which you agreed to) that then their actions might have no meaning either.

You've said my arguments and the rebuttals are old and tired so apparently other people do wonder this... it's not that far of a stretch no matter how "old and tired" it is.

"I call BS on this claim. I don't believe you. If I held your head under water, rest assured you would not go quietly into that good night - you would fight and claw and thrash to keep living your meaningless life."

Winston... the drowning is probably a bad analogy in that the body natuarally responds in drowning situations... but I keep saying if I truly thought that life was meaningless... If you pulled a gun on me... I might flinch at the thought of the pain of the bullet... but would I stop you? No. You can call BS on that all you want... but if ultimately I thought that it didn't matter. How many people in history have faced their killers or executioners accepting their fate and not fighting it? That's not to say all of these people believed that life was meaningless...it's just to say if that is what they are resigned to... that is what they do.

Just because you call BS on something doesn't make it so. I love how you say that you definitely KNOW how I'll react when in fact you have no idea. I call BS on you!!! How's that? It's very "I'm right, you're wrong, argument resolved."

"Does the sea otter get the benefit of this meaning, as well? How about hippos? Does the cockroach crawling across you countertop need meaning, too?"

I don't know... I don't speak sea otter or hippo or cockroach in order to be able to ask them if they need meaning. Do they get the benefit of this meaning? Once again you're asking me to presume something of which I have no knowledge. Unlike you I refuse to do this. Since I'm not one to assign meaning or even to know meaning (which is why humans still ask and seek) how could I possibly say if the examples you mentioned get the benefit thereof?

See you tell me from a position of definite knowledge that you know exactly what's going to happen to my conciousness...my sentience when I die. When the sheer fact of the matter is you cannot state that with definite fact. You cannot state this with definite knowledge because you don't know. You can theorize, you can hypothosize but until you shuffle off this "mortal coil" yourself you cannot take a positon of telling exactly what's going to happen.

I have admitted and do admit very openly... that you could be completely 100% correct. It is very definitely a possibility. I don't and can't ultimately know this.

I was asking these questions to see your view points and to clarify certain ideas. I'm not interested (although I can't seem to help responding) in debating you on this... I simply stated that if I personally subscribed to the idea that ultimately life was meaningless...if I truly embraced that conclusion then I personally would take one of two roads. You argued with me on that reasoning... even though that is a point that I came to from a personal standing... that this is how I came to that conclusion.

You then offered that I should blow my head off...thanks for that by the way...Should I come to this conclusion I have no doubt would be the ultimate outcome and would probably do so for longterm pain avoidance...but also probably not before I fufilled any wish/desire I chose. You said earlier that I didn't even know what pleasure was... whether it physical... a sense of well being etc. Once again you presume to know me and what I know... sorry that I didn't define that earlier.

I don't wish to continue this exercise in futility... I'm not trying to convince you that life has a meaning or there is a God(s)...and I choose not accept your claims (since you choose not accept the validity of mine) but I am capable of admitting that I could be wrong since I'm not in possession of the knowledge necessary. What I have is a "belief" structure. I got what I was looking for here (and then some). If you wish to see my withdrawl as a "victory" for your view points by all means claim it with pride.

With that said I'll pick the "bong of ignorance" up and take another hit of bliss. In the meantime you can shake your head in pity at another unenlightened unwashed mass who can't face the truth of his existence.

We should both be happy with that outcome. Excepting of course... truth is impossible in reality.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

me,

I am sorry if you thought I was critical of you. At the same time, I am amazed that every single point I made you did not grasp. Actually, I am not suprised, as most people in this world have been taught to think in terms of proof and knowledge rather than inescapable conclusions based on reason and rationality.

My statements are simply the end result of the application of rational thinking - they are not my views, beliefs, truths, or knowledge.

These are the necessary conclusions of reality - it is the inability to accept this reality and be comfortable in that circumstance that drives you back to an empty promise of purpose. What you don't understand is that the entity fulfilling your needed purpose is simply an agent you created to fulfill that needfulness. As far as gods go, we define the nature of our gods by our own needs and our own beliefs.

I'm sorry I couldn't make these positions more clear for you.

See you around.


john frame 5 years ago

If there are no absolutes then uncertainty becomes an absolute if uncertainty becomes an absolute the statement is false. You cannot start with a false premise to prove truth.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi John,

“If there are no absolutes then uncertainty becomes an absolute”

You need to understand your statement.

An “absolute”, is a resolution of a statement which is the case for every possible circumstance (all people, all places, all time).

Uncertainty is a verb. It is an action (brain activity) which PEOPLE do. Uncertainty is not a ‘thing’.... it is not a noun of reality. It is people who are not certain about some scenario or another.

Therefore, uncertainty cannot possibly become absolute because there was a time when there were no people around to be uncertain. Before the Earth was around, no humans were around .That is a circumstance where ‘absoluteness’ fails for the 'uncertainty' verb. Got it?

“if uncertainty becomes an absolute the statement is false.”

But it is impossible for uncertainty to become absolute, as explained above.

So the statement is not false.

“You cannot start with a false premise to prove truth.”

We totally agree here! This is the only rational statement you made.


accenor 5 years ago

hi fatfist,

thats one intresting an provaocative discussion u got hanging in there since the last year or so...

one thing i do admire about you.. is your undying attention to details, and an unwavering passion to not let go of your point and keep trying to prov it with every energetic possibility of ur source..

the only issue is.. every other idiot out there knows his or her own ways to defend their "kingdom" of thoughts, perceptions and xyz...

some rareer forms of evolved thinkers like u.. blessed with intelligence and reasoning.. in ur terms of existence, mechanically n scarily machine-like metorshower of data n statistics...

its not a concern for me altogthr that ur persistant n passionate...

neidr the topic which u so think u know bout..(will get back to in the very end very brief.. cz wtvr i say or write wont b good nuf to push thru that thick skull out there ovr ur beautiful mind.. projecting crapola tho)

in fact its not a concern to me too that you think are right...

what is a real concern for me is deepdown your the same hypocritical person, like every1 else, another seemingly lesser mortal, whos found so much comfort in the closed atmosphere of logical resoning is no longer open to factsthare could be...

or is it so tht ur too much of a pussy to realize there are things out there still to be proven..

i have been up and about, in high classified govt funded research, since the last 5years, related to paranormal and pke and ect radiations... and dumb idiots like u who are so close minded couldnt evn begin to undrstand the amount of existing proportions of data available... and truths available..

i dmire ur intellect trying to PRVE everythng thru the methods and bases availble to u.. but you frget the base and tools u decide to use for evaluation as well as anysizing the words n thots of urs... are alll well preceding you, and hv been created by people who all were open to new possibilities, henceforth creaing sumthng unique diverse and diffrnt for people to gain wisdom from, not to be a machie like entity trying to data orient their way to self proclaimed glory of proof...

there was a tym wen sun considrbly revolved around earth, that was the considered the truth, but its by one man's openess to the sunject, that it was proven otherwise.. i hope i dnt need mentioning the name.

and within all your gibberish i also seemed to notice how you hink things like blackholes dont even exist..

clearly u just mite be on the brink my bro...

anyways... let me tell you somethng clearly and without the much epensive usage of words..

and hope for your mind to try to see it from a stand alone point of view.. undrstand dat.. ?? go do research then.. u need it.. to step out of the room frm ur pc n math + philosophy books on aristtle n plato n get a lifebeyond..

all the things that you see around are not necessarily part of the same understanding that you possess.. in fact u dnt even understand your own self you dronezombie in the face of human...

i mean personally i hate human beings n their dumbness(the 1 thng u n i hv in common maybe) b u, are somthng quite diffrnt...

n much amusingly heretcly stupid to thnk ur undrstanding is superior dan most..

its kinda so much a whoopla gaga ha ha in ur tonal of commnting that 1 cn die of laughter thinking hw closed n hw comfrtble u'v gottn in ur chair dat standing up fr u is lik jumping in an ocean wdout learning to swim..

anyways fair nuf... every1 hs the right of opinions..

n i believe... onto it in every way..

n fyi, m neidr a firm believr of the God concept or any other supposed psudos... i form my basis too on proofs...

bt incidently, and thnkfully, atleast m nt stupid nuf to think of myself in a position to think that science, the current version of it, stil in a position to prove many things that hv existed since the beginning of times cz it, like you, is closed to adapt entirely new tools to prove newer theories...

bt well...

dats about all i would say...

my commenting here, mr. fatfist(cudnt u get a more affirming username to denominate ur superiority complex, hilariously dsgusting n distrbing)was not fr arranging one on one wd u on Absolute... that all i can say is u dnt hv a bloody screw of wat it is... my commnting is to make u understand, is dere r sum svere holes in the cognitive reasoning of ur mindframe and conscious states of analyzing and interpreting... for all you hv interpreted is on thebasis of physics n math, two thhng highly proof based, but understandbly not based on forward looking aspects of science... which unfrtunatly is wat keeps it frm becoming subjects oriented towards finding, ut anaysing... in other words.. bloody boring..

lastly, youwho still is to understandbly stand up n take notice of thngs beyond, shudnt take up on dscussing absolute.. objectively or subjectively, cz such a thng cn be analyzed after every aspect to everythng round us n within us.. is clearly defined.. you who cnt evn define a Blackhole.. should go and rest...

tkcr sir...

"Imagination is much more important than Intelligence" Einstein... clearly u seem nt blessed with it.. or trying to force it in.. czof reasons m curious frm a psychological standpoint..

:) bye


Accenor profile image

Accenor 5 years ago from New Delhi, India

Why Do Unbelievers Always Want Proof?

by wandererh


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi accenor,

“some rareer forms of evolved thinkers like u.. blessed with intelligence and reasoning”

You got it all wrong. Every single human ape on this planet is blessed with the exact same intelligence and reasoning......the exact same. Whether they wish to exercise it or not, is another story. The primary issue is that we stupid apes are also blessed with extreme opinions, biases, bigotry, hatred, superiority complexes, vainness, favouritism and authority-compliance.

This is the reason why we have created Beauty Pageants......so we can have a High Priest pull a pubic hair out of his ass, throw it up in the air, and based on which direction the wind blows it, he gets to decide for ALL of us who is intelligent and who is stupid. We call this process: IQ score testing, Ph.D diplomas, Nobel Prizes, Templeton Prizes, etc.

“its not a concern for me altogthr that ur persistant n passionate”

Persistence, passion, love, sex and lust for the MILF next-door, has no bearing on reality. The issue before us is: can we rationally explain whatever it is that we are trying to convey to the audience? First and foremost......do WE, ourselves, fully UNDERSTAND what we are saying BEFORE we present it to others? If not, then we have no business to talk about it, let alone have an opinion about it.

Think about it!

“wtvr i say or write wont b good nuf to push thru that thick skull out there ovr ur beautiful mind”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and so are opinions. If you have something rational to say which doesn’t contradict itself, then you are very welcome to post it here. I hope you realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict something which has been critically reasoned to be consistent and non-contradictory within some context.

I am a very open-minded person,....despite all the rumours which my Priest’s wife is spreading around regarding my willingness to try new things in bed.

“its not a concern to me too that you think are right”

You need to understand that in reality, there is NO right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Such absurdities are the hallmark of Religion, where the Priest has 100% proven that God exists. What is RIGHT to you, is always WRONG to someone else. We don’t vote on the issue and declare who is right. In reality we only explain.....and we so rationally.

“is it so tht ur too much of a pussy to realize there are things out there still to be proven”

Proof belongs exclusively to Religion and to systems logic, where pre-determined rules have been invented by stupid human apes, so as to be used for the purposes of winning all arguments.

Let’s see if you know what you are talking about........Can you prove to me that you have a right arm? How do you propose you are going to do this formidable task?

In reality, proof is impossible.....it only belongs to Religion.

“the amount of existing proportions of data available... and truths available..”

What is INTERPRETED to be “data” and “truth” to a lesser-evolved ape like YOU.....is a LIE to another ape of your Religion. Got it?

“there was a tym wen sun considrbly revolved around earth, that was the considered the truth”

Exactly! Truth and proof is YOUR opinion only! These irrational notions belong exclusively to Religion.

“i also seemed to notice how you hink things like blackholes dont even exist”

This is not an issue of what somebody thinks. Mother Nature pisses on idiots like you who get down on their knees and drool over authority figures and practice Idolatry!

A black hole is an alleged 0D entity with no length, width or height. It is impossible for anything 0D to exist. But if you had some minor level of EDUCATION,.....like being able to write coherent sentences and learning to spell......, you would go read the material produced about black holes, and understand that they are only MATHEMATICAL abstractions....guesses......interpretations......delusions.....not real objects. Just look at the math where they plug dimensionless variables into the Ricci equations. This is simple calculus. Wake up!!

“just mite be on the brink”

We totally agree here. It’s about time you made an appointment with your shrink! But first, make an appointment with a pest control company....those mites must be causing you rashes.

“n fyi, m neidr a firm believr of the God concept or any other supposed psudos”

Do you BELIEVE that your arm exists? What if you lose your faith.....will your poor arm stop existing? What a dumb ape like you doesn’t even realize is that reality has nothing to do with what a stupid ape believes or opines. Maybe you’ll figure that out one day......but I bet you won’t!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

accenor,

“that science, the current version of it, stil in a position to prove”

If you took a basic course in science you’d understand that science doesn’t prove.....science only explains with “theories”. Only your Priest has proven to you (in the bathroom stall) that your past self was abducted by aliens, and that you can only cleanse your sins by first performing a sacred ritual while you’re on your knees,.... and later performing another sacred ritual while you’re bending over!

“my commnting is to make u understand, is dere r sum svere holes in the cognitive reasoning of ur mindframe”

All you have to do is explain one by your next post here. If you can’t, then we both know that you haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about.......you are just bellyaching because I destroyed your Religion.

“shudnt take up on dscussing absolute.. objectively or subjectively, cz such a thng cn be analyzed after every aspect”

Great! Here’s your chance to redeem yourself. Please analyze objectively the “absolute” and tell us what it is: __________

Fill in the blanks!

“you who cnt evn define a Blackhole..”

Again, be my guest.....define BH: __________________________

Fill in the blanks.

Let’s see if you can back up any of the garbage you spewed here today!


Accenor profile image

Accenor 5 years ago from New Delhi, India

" If you took a basic course in science you’d understand that science doesn’t prove.....science only explains with “theories”. Only your Priest has proven to you (in the bathroom stall) that your past self was abducted by aliens, and that you can only cleanse your sins by first performing a sacred ritual while you’re on your knees,.... and later performing another sacred ritual while you’re bending over! "

???????

wat was dat...

i seriously dnt remembr stating nethng bout my religion bro.. again.. lik the rest of the posts above... goin into a complete berzerking step away in a pointless pattrn..

nvrmind, i am understanding hw pointless u are Absolutely... btw i like the Tshirt on ur forum here.. ;D

“my commnting is to make u understand, is dere r sum svere holes in the cognitive reasoning of ur mindframe”

??????

wats it u dint get in this again.. ??

and btw... excuse me.. bt u hv entrapped far many a readers costly tym upon making them react n reply n then start gibbeing again..

thnx bt no thnx.. cz m nt evn one of those intresed in wat u say..

i was fascinated by the way u perceive.. n the ay ur mind works.. in a psychoaalytic way of the word... srry bt u dnt fascinate me by ur physics...

cz ther r many odrs btr verserd in u.. n certanly me.. in physics..

plainly speaking.. m nt intersted in gettin into arguemnts regarding this.. it is urs n ours reality itslf wich is termed absolutness in an objective sense of the view... n realities.. this.. current.. not alternate... dnt require.. theories nor proving..

maybe u dnt realize.. but for you to stand on and say things that are presented by you with a tone knowing u shud realize.. for a person lik you who hasnt even xperienced 0.01% of the world's entire experiences around... and understanding sum formulaes n theories u think u evn remotely understand Absolute...

no u dnt.. bt u hv the rite to fool urself..

n dnt irritatingly copy paste n ask me to explain.. cz it just terms nodr intersting facet of u.. so persistantly boring... lacking imagination as i said...

n bout blackholes.. excuse me.. bt i hvnt startd a physics class here man..

tkcr.. :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Accenor,

“i seriously dnt remembr stating nethng bout my religion bro”

No need to. Some things are said better without actually saying them.....like your Religious ideology. Your Religious crap is spewing out of every orifice.....that’s why you are speaking in tongues and don’t understand anything you post!!!

“plainly speaking.. m nt intersted in gettin into arguemnts regarding this..”

Obviously.....because your Religion has been destroyed. Now you are just whining like a little girl.

“i hvnt startd a physics class”

No need to tell that to the audience, we already know!

“n bout blackholes.. excuse me”

No, excuse your Priest....he is the one who is an expert about black holes which come in all shapes and sizes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Accenor......if you don't have an argument or something of value to post, then go talk to your Priest.

Your gibberish will get deleted. You are a waste of space on this planet.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

lol

This hub is epic.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

You ain't seen nothing yet, prometheus.

Accenor promised to show us a black hole.

You might wanna get your kids out of the room....or perhaps shield their faces. This ain't gonna be pretty!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Questions of modern mathematical physics:

If you stick your mass into a black hole, can you get it out again?

How many energies does it take to change a lightbulb?

Does dark energy turn off the light?

Is dark matter protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Related question: is dark matter really bigger?

Do galaxies have to bus?

Bless you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

"If you stick your mass into a black hole, can you get it out again?"

Well one thing's for sure.....Accenor stuck his head waaaaaaay up there.....and no, he can't get it out.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Accenor,

On behalf of myself, and all the members here, we'd like to thank you for not following thru with your threats of indecent exposure, by actually posting an amateur point-and-shoot picture of a real black hole.

There is also extra-special thanks stemming from PrometheusKid, as he has children who regularly read my hubs.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

There is also extra-special thanks stemming from PrometheusKid, as he has children who regularly read my hubs.

Fatfist you lost me I have no kids.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Then you'd better get busy with your wife, Prometheus, before I decide to move into your neighborhood!


help 5 years ago

is reality absolute?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@help,

"is reality absolute?"

Now these are the questions I like people to ask. Your question is very easy to answer. But before anybody can attempt to answer it, we need to understand what YOU mean by these 2 words:

1) reality

2) absolute

Please define them in no ambiguous terms. Then we will both understand whether "reality" is absolute or not....ok?

Thanks for asking a great question!


help 5 years ago

I would have to define reality as everything that actually does or could exist or happen in real life

Absolute to me is that which is unconditioned, unrestricted,pure, perfect, or complete

I came across the statement "Is reality absolute?" and it caught me by suprise in a debate.

Thanks in advance for any help


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@help,

“I would have to define reality as everything that actually does or could exist”

“Absolute to me is that which is unconditioned, unrestricted,pure, perfect, or complete”

Well, what you've done is given only a synonym: reality = existence

And pure, perfect, and complete are subjective notions requiring a human to decide. Reality is in no way dependent on human decisions. So we are left with another synonym: absolute = unconditioned.

That’s ok, let’s work with what you’ve got.

The natural question to ask is: “Is the Sun unconditioned?”

No, the Sun is an object which depends on its fuel. When its fuel is exhausted, there is no Sun. That is the condition for the Sun to exist.

So clearly, reality is not absolute. There is not a single object in existence which can be "verified" to be absolute or unconditional. So how can reality possibly be absolute?

You see, people who assert “reality is absolute”, really haven’t a clue of what they are talking about because they haven't sat down to really think what the terms ‘reality’ and ‘absolute’ really mean. They are just asserting gibberish and pretending to understand.


Helped 5 years ago

Thanks fatfist

the explanation with sun helped clarify things

and it is also good evidence for next time i am in a similar challenge


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@helped

I'm glad this helped you understand, and you're welcome.

Remember, we can only rationally say that "reality is eternal", since existence has no beginning or end.

To claim that "reality is absolute", you are getting yourself in trouble whenever someone proposes a single condition which violates "absoluteness".

But, it is IMPOSSIBLE to propose any condition or scenario that violates the "eternalness" of reality.

People throw around this term "absolute" without even understanding it.

The correct term is 'eternal'.


poignant 5 years ago

Isn't saying "absolutely true" the same thing as just saying "true" though?!

"No statement can be true" is a logical contradiction.

"There's no such thing as truth" is a different kettle of fish. Thing signifies an object. Objects are simply in motion, they are not absolute or non-absolute. A tree is not true or false, it's just a tree.

I think there can be "absolutes" (true or false) within conceptual constructs (logic, math). That doesn't mean it's absolutely true in the sense that matter/objects conform to it absolutely. Nature doesn't care for our ultimate laws and logical perfections!

I do think we can be 'certain' that some statements are "absolutely" true or false, because it's just a binary distinction; a tautology. But when "absolute" invokes matter/existence (reification) or infinity (irrational notion) or something, then we're entering religionsville.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

poignant,

"Isn't saying "absolutely true" the same thing as just saying "true" though?!"

Well, not according to Philosophers who have been arguing about this issue for over 1300 years.

They go out of their way to make the distinction that an "absolute truth", is true for every possible circumstance (all people, all places, all time).

Most people who argue for absolutes don't even know this definition.

Unless we can define the word 'absolute', like user 'help' attempted to do on the previous comments....then claiming 'absolutes' is meaningless.


poigant 5 years ago

Right. I gotcha, thanks.


Roger 5 years ago

"There is no absolute distinction between what is true and what is false"

After reading the useful information, I know that agreeing to this statement is easy, but could you counter this statement to an extent?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

"There is no absolute distinction between what is true and what is false"

“I know that agreeing to this statement is easy”

Yeah, agreeing with any statement is easy. People do it every day. My ex-girlfriend wanted me to “agree” that I was responsible for her pregnancy. When push came to shove and I cornered her on the issue.....she retracted her assertions.

So, we need to corner these people and ask: what does the phrase “absolute distinction” mean?

A “distinction” refers to some distinguishing quality which can be used as a basis for a comparison.

And again, “absolute” refers to “unconditional” or “for every possible circumstance”.

As it turns out, the phrase “absolute distinction” is rhetoric or redundant.

Why? Because a “distinction”, by DEFINITION, is already inherently unconditional.

For example, if I distinguish Granny Smith apples from Red apples using the “distinguishing quality” of color alone, then claiming that to be “absolute” is purely redundant. If we use color, then we can only distinguish them by color alone.

Notice that if I spray paint both apples BLACK, then I cannot use that distinguishing quality of color to make a distinction.

So really, “absolutes” cannot be achieved or rationally demonstrated to be applicable in reality.

Remember: ABSOLUTES are only possible or applicable in Religion. Rationality will always expose absolutes for what they are: Religious Nonsense!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

.....and if we talk about a distinction between true and false, we still have redundancy/rhetoric.

Why?

Because true and false are opposites, by definition.

true = not(false)

false = not(true)

It's just a dichotomy.

Now if we used some tri-valent system of Truth, or Fuzzy Logic, then obviously we need some distinguishing quality to compare each logic value.

But for true/false there is no comparison....and no distinction. Either some statement is said to be "true" or not. And if not, then it HAS to be “false”, as dictated by the Axioms of the Classical true/false system of logic.


Roger 5 years ago

Then what about Godels incompleteness theorem?

It is neither true nor fals


Roger 5 years ago

What about death fatfist? Isn't death a part of every living organism bound to happen? humans animals viruses or anything else?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

We have to remember that Gödel’s theorem deals with formal systems only, and states that:

“The truth of a sentence G within a formal language T cannot be proved within this formal language of T; and therefore no logically consistent formal language can be complete.”

Godel’s Theorem is neither true nor false. It is only applicable within the limited context of formal systems/languages. Outside of that.....in reality.....it is completely worthless!

Godel was a whackjob. He believed that humans were “divine” and not machines like Turing was trying to prove. This divine creativity is what he thought humans used to create new mathematical concepts. In fact, Gödel went mad and ended up in the insane asylum because he wanted to prove logically that there are certain "absolute" or "god-given" truths that lie outside the realm of logic. But even he couldn’t come to terms with his own theorem when he applied it to god, because his theorem demonstrated that certain things, especially reality, cannot be proved within any logical system. Since god was not bound by any formally defined logical and rational system, his theorem is inapplicable in such situations.

The way Gödel got around this limitation was to believe (like his friend Einstein did) that humans know many things based on intuition; that we know things outside of logic because we can intuit them. He believed that formal systems are limited and that human minds transcend them because they are outside of formal rules. And this is where god came into play because he believed that god gave us this intuition which prevented us from being encapsulated by any system.

Many people interpreted Gödel’s Theorem as showing that there are unprovable truths that are beyond the mind. But this is not what the theorem demonstrates. What it really shows is that for any formal system that we adopt, the mind is independent from it because the mind was only used to lay down the axioms of the system. But from then on, the formal system takes over independent of the mind. So then we ask: what is the scope of this formal system? Gödel’s Theorem shows that the formal system is always limited in what it can prove according to its axioms, but the mind can go beyond this limitation because it is intuitive and is outside the boundaries of any formal system.

Faced with this, Gödel was relentless in proving that we actually have intuition. But he couldn’t prove any theorem about creativity or intuition; it was just a gut-feeling that he had. He was caught in a logical paradox from which his mind could not escape. He could not detach himself from the need of logical proof for this stumbling block called intuition; so he went mad and starved himself to death. Suddenly, the almost religious belief that there was a perfect logic which governed the world of certainties, had unravelled itself. Logic had revealed the limitations of logic and the search for certainty had revealed uncertainty. There is no certainty in human life because our possible knowledge/understanding of this world can only be rationally explained....and NEVER discovered. Humans quickly come to realize that when their certainties are challenged, their certainties suddenly start to slip away. But still, people want to desperately cling to a “belief” in certainty because it makes us feel safe. This is why people cling onto the religiosity of the “absolute”.

Critical thinking, analysis, and rationality are the ultimate achievements for any intelligent species in the universe. There is no other. People need to face it.....this is nirvana.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

Yes, death is part of the lifecycle of every living thing. What does that have to do with "absolutes"?

Remember, an absolute deals with all possibilities....every possible circumstance. If death was "absolute", then how can life possibly arise?

We need to stick to the DEFINITION of 'absolute', otherwise, like Religionists, we are losing track of what we are talking about....AND...we will be retroactively amending the definition of this term in order to suit our every argument...and hence make anything we want as "absolute". Understand?

The idea of "absolute" stems from Christian Philosophers who claim that God is absolute because He always was and always will be. And His word, the Bible, is Absolute Truth because there is no possible circumstance where it is not true.

The atheists of today are the Modern Religionists. They are NO different than the Christian Fundamentalists. They believe in Absolute Truth, 0D objects, Energy, Black Holes, Big Bang self-creation, etc.

Atheists have religious leaders like Hawking, Penrose, Feymann, Einstein, etc. who dogmatically force this crap down their throats. Isn't it about time people started to wake up?


Roger 5 years ago

Well, then here is something that is absolute- change.

Change is inevitable and is absolute...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

Change is a concept which ultimately alludes to 'motion'. It cannot be reduced further. Motion can be unambiguously defined as: two or more locations of an object.

In order to understand ‘motion’, please read the first section of my hub:

http://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIB...

So, what sense does it make to say that: motion is absolute?

What could that even mean?

Does it mean that there is NO circumstance where an object cannot be in motion?

If so, then let’s analyze it and see.....

Assume, for argument’s sake, that there was only ONE lonely atom in existence.

Q: Can this atom have motion?

A: No. It is impossible for this atom to change locations.

If there were only 2 atoms in existence, A and B, and suddenly, B began to move away from A....then A and B are said to be in “motion” whether they like it or not.....even though B initiated the motion away from A.

If A suddenly disappeared and only B was left in existence......will atom B be in motion??

A: No! It cannot establish any further locations.

So, we may be deceived by this notion of the “absolute”, but when we sit down and rationally analyze these situations, it is not possible to claim anything as absolute.

The only thing we can do is reason. And by reason alone, we can rationally explain why the claims of creation are impossible, and hence conclude that space, matter, motion are all eternal.....but not absolute. These are 2 different concepts. Remember, the proper term which makes sense is ‘eternal’.

Only a human can make such a statement as "change is inevitable". And he only does this by his "view" of reality. But, in the circumstance of only 1 atom in existence, there is no change.


Roger 5 years ago

Regardless of change alluding to motion which is a concept referring to science, I'm trying to convey to you the meaning of change in any factor. There is a change in the thought process, there is a change in age, a change in the way you look, a change in clothes withering away, a change in climate, even a change in the timing that the sun rises in each location of the world. change in your thought process isn't motion or is it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Roger,

The terms 'change' or 'motion' have nothing to do with science or any other discipline. They have to do with the MEANING we attach to them....AND...whether they pertain to reality.

Again...

motion: More than one location of an object (synonyms: change, movement, displacement, or ANY VERB)

Any verb you utter has to do with 'motion'. Any further relations you attach to it are purely conceptual and are used for human purposes only.

Out there....in reality....there is matter (a bunch of atoms) which is in motion i.e. every atom changes location. You can call that 'thought', 'withering', or whatever you wish. This is irrelevant. All these processes inevitably boil down to atomic motion, right?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

The concept "truth" is nonsensical. The entire domain of "true-false" applies only to relations, not to an "in-itself"- There is no "essence-in-itself" (it is only relations that constitute an essence-), just as there can be no "knowledge-in-itself."

"The Gospel Of Kid"


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

Through the stubbornness of the gobbledygook, it can be concluded, that no one can absolutely prove anything; otherwise, one would have to believe they absolutely know everything.

Does it not take faith to believe both, either or neither?

The splendor of this omniscient hub expresses a paradox of certainty and uncertainty. To bathe oneself in this text of quandary is like realizing that you went to a party in the 80's and that you are most likely still there.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Planks,

“it can be concluded, that no one can absolutely prove anything”

Not quite. Proof itself, is nothing more than a system of validation that is circumscribed by a context of axiomatic rules. For example, math, logic, business, finance, law, computer software, etc. are all based on axioms which are invented and adhered to by humans. Whatever you “prove” is only valid WITHIN that contextual SCOPE of that system in question.

There is no proof outside axioms. There is no proof, out there.....in reality. Got it?

“otherwise, one would have to believe they absolutely know everything.”

So you are equating “belief” with “knowledge”? How does that even make sense?

“Does it not take faith to believe both, either or neither?”

You are stepping on your toes here because you do not understand the words you are posting. Here, let me educate you......

Faith and belief are two irreconcilable notions.

A statement of BELIEF is a proposition where the proponent asserted it without showing it to be true within a system of logic. The proponent has accepted it by “hoping for the best”. It is a subjective opinion. If shown to be true within a system of logic, then it ceases to be a belief and automatically becomes a logical truth that is contingent on a set of axioms which logically follow from the premises to a resolution of axiomatic validity.

A statement of FAITH is a proposition which is contradictory. It is impossible to be upgraded to a truth or a belief. It is a contradictory opinion that is blindly accepted by the proponent.

“ this omniscient hub”

Hubs are concepts, not living entities. Only living entities can ever CLAIM to be omniscient. And even if that was the case, “omniscience” is a contradictory notion, and hence an impossibility.

This is very basic stuff, Planks......are you sure you made it past grade school??

“ expresses a paradox of certainty and uncertainty”

There is no such paradox. The notion of “certainty” is an impossibility within the realm of any living entity in reality. Absolutes are impossible. Which part of “impossible” are you having difficulty with?

“To bathe oneself in this text of quandary is like realizing that you went to a party in the 80's and that you are most likely still there.”

Finally, plank......this is the FIRST rational statement you made. We are in 100% agreement here!!!

Thank you!

Now please, take off those 80’s clothes, get a nice haircut......and for Heaven’s sake......please stop doing lines of cocaine!


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

What if one could co-mingle knowledge, belief and faith together outside the invented axioms? You say "there is no proof outside of axioms", but isn't that limited to what man can fathom through his own logic and reason?

If these limitations are exceeded, then the notion could seem a possibility that, although we cannot absolutely prove everything, maybe something else could absolutely prove itself to us.

This hub is a party! I find myself doing the jig to the music of rhetoric confluence. Oops! I think I just split my polyester pants.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Planks,

“What if one could co-mingle knowledge, belief and faith together outside the invented axioms?”

Yeah, sure, no problem......let me start.......there exists an invisible pink horse with red stripes in my garage, which will grant you 3 wishes if you truly believe in it. If your wishes are not granted, then you are not a true believer. This horse is omniscient and truly knows if you believe or not.

Ok.....now your turn........

Wow, that was great, Planks.......I liked your BS nonsense too!

See.....now we both have absolute knowledge of something. Isn’t this game fun?? And the best part is.....our knowledge is a secret just between you and me, the real BELIEVERS :-)

“You say "there is no proof outside of axioms", but isn't that limited to what man can fathom through his own logic and reason?”

Helooooooooo...........anybody home??

Prove is a VERB!!!

Prove is something that a human DOES!!

If a stupid human ape claims he can PROVE ‘this’ or ‘that’,.....but when fatfist grabs him by the neck and corner’s him on the issue he parrots the “limited intelligence” argument, which is an Argument from Ignorance......then we take this stupid ape and throw him off a 20 storey building without asking any further questions!

“we cannot absolutely prove everything”

We can only PROVE that which WE have pre-defined using axiomatic rules.....NOTHING ELSE!

Can you prove to me that you have a foot? Just how do you propose that you will perform such a formidable task? I am all ears.....really, I need some good laughs today!

“This hub is a party!”

You ain’t seen nothing yet, Planks. Just stick around and see what others attempt to get away with...


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

I've had a great time fishing these last few days. I put some bait on my line and just threw it in. In no time the hungry fish couldn't resist the juicy bait. It was a game of catch and release with the same fish. No matter what type of bait was used, the fish couldn't resist and was hooked right back in. It was a fish that puffed up in response to taking the bait on the hook. Yes! it was a puffer fish, because one can often tell from their aposematic characteristics. I eventually had to let the fish go back to its own environment. It was sure feisty though.

Fishing is a sport of pleasure and competition. There is often an art and technique involved...oops!

This was meant for my fishing themed hub, but maybe it does apply here.

By the way, do you have names for your three horses?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Planks,

If you came to fish here, then you will catch a doozy....I guarantee you. And you won't want to throw this one back in the water.

My neighbor's wife tells me the same thing.....although in a completely different context. She says that I'm a good catch because I know how to hit all her "sweet spots".

Anyway, if you read my previous comment about my absolute belief of knowledge, I said that I have one invisible horse....not three.

It's always good when people can read and comprehend before posting their arguments here.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

This is my point.

In science class we had a guinea pig (Gary). For entertainment we gave him abstract items to see what he would do with them. For example, one day we dropped a piece of chewing gum in Gary's cage. He took the gum and started chewing on it frantically. The funny thing was, and sadistic as it may sound, he could not swallow it nor expel the gum so he kept on chewing and making quirky noises to the point of mirth. Gary then resorted to sucking all the water out of his water bottle to get rid of the gum. The teacher had to stop the lecture as he was not pleased with the Gary's distractiveness. Gary lived to see another day. He was a trooper.

My point is, depending on what we add or throw into the melting pot of life, we cannot always know the lens or perspective someone else is coming from or through the lens of their mind's eye. Throwing something out of place (as in Gary the guinea pig world)provoked an entertainment factor for myself, but to the teacher it was a distraction. For others who might read this comment, they might see this as a story outright animal cruelty.

The bait: "By the way, do you have names for your three horses?"

Response: "I said that I have one invisible horse...not three."

Reply: Sorry, my bad. Ummm..then what is the name of your one invisible horse?

Everyone sees through the lens of their own minds eye. In this case, it was pure entertainment for myself.

Like I said before, this hub is a party, an 80's party. I danced to the sweet music of gobbledygook and rhetoric confluence, did the jig and split my polyester pants.

It's all good my friend and I appreciate your candor in your hubs and comments. Keep up the hubs as they are an anomaly to behold.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

I'm glad you're having fun, Planks.

BTW...do you like the song: Living on Video by Trans-X?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Boring


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

Trans-X, yup that's what I'm talking about. The 80's was all about being a geek and a rock star at the same time.

That's the essence of this hub.

@ PrometheusKid, here's a memorable quote for you from Tombstone (1993),

"Oh. Johnny, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hey Planks....here's another I like:

Freestyle - Don't Stop The Rock


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist Planks is being mean to me. God will punish you for your cruelty Planks.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Actually, prometheus....God will punish Planks because he still lives in the 80's, has a perm, wears leg warmers and a bandana....and uses colorful glow-in-the-dark condoms to seduce his neighbor's wife!!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

lol epic


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Planks....Freestyle...I'm the one in the black outfit...check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omEwK8nolyA&feature...


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the Ekklesia

Fatfist,

I think you mean you are the one in this black outfit.

Turn it up! Prometheuskid is playing the bass on this video track.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcuwBW3t-ow


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

LOL!


Peter 5 years ago

Hi confused...again. I hope you can help me out with this question.

You said:

"It is a FACT that at any given moment, an object can only have ONE ‘static’ location with respect to all other objects in the universe."

What about what quantum physicists say about some particles being in two (or more?) places at the same time?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

What is a particle???

As it turns out, in QM, this alleged particle is only a mathematical abstraction. It is an alleged 0D (dimensionless) entity. These abstract concepts are only believed by religionists. In reality, all objects are 3D.

And it is impossible for any entity to occupy more than one location at any instant (cross-section of time). That is, if we take a snap-shot (picture) of an object, it only has one location.

Mother Nature has no ontological contradictions. Only stupid human ape religionists (like mathematicians) do!!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

I have been having a bewildering discussion with a hubber who goes by "jesus was a hippie" who seems intent that proof and truth are integral parts of nature.

The guy seemed bright enough, but when I pointed out that truth is not an object and thus could not exist in the same realm as an object, he simply stated he was in "disagreement" with me.

That one puzzled me. How can you disagree with that? If you disagree, then you are claiming and apple and love are equally objects.

My final tact is this - truth requires a definition and is therefore dependent upon a subjective determination of its definition.

Frustrating.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

Don't get caught in the trap of definition-less terms. This is the hallmark of Christian apologetics....nudge-nudge....wink-wink....ya' know what I mean...

The bottom line is that all words have meanings. Without meanings, the word is merely an empty LABEL...an empty sticker....an empty tag....an empty flag....and nothing else.

If a word is dependent on an observer as part of its definition (i.e. to see/touch/hear/smell/taste something)....then it is not objective and only based on opinion alone.

If a definition is observer-less....then it corresponds to reality.

shape (spatial separation) is observer-less....and is within the realm of reality, and not the subjective opinion of an observer.

This is simply what KILLS all their arguments.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Boring


Chris 5 years ago

Thank you, I guess I have one more objection to your first rebuttals.

"Truth requires a system of proof preceding its conclusion of truth. There cannot possibly be absolute truth because there is no system of proof that could deduce from all the possible circumstances arising from eternity, in order to prove any claim of absolute."

This is not an argument but a view. You should read Frederic Fitch - Logical analysis of some value concepts.

Take one of your statements for example.

"Truth requires a system of proof preceding its conclusion of truth"

(This implies that if some proposition is true, then that proposition must have a proof of its truth.) Do you see that implication? That every true proposition has a proof of its truth implies that all true propositions are known to be true under ideal circumstances.. where circumstances involve a proof of the relevant true proposition.

So now you are committed to a epistemic (verificationist) theory of truth.. one that says: for any true proposition P, P is true if and only if p is knowable under ideal circumstances (circumstances involving a proof that p)

Assume that it can be known that both p and it is not known that p.

Assume then, that it is in fact known that, both p and it is not known that p

It follow from the assumption that "Known" is conjunction-distributive that it is both known that p and it is known that it is not known that p.

Given that knowledge is factive, we can derive it is known that p and it is not known that p.

Contradiction.

Thus, it must be false that it is known that, both p and it is not known p.

but by the rule of necessitation, it will be necesarily flase that it is known that, both p and it is not known that p.

However, necessity and possibility are duals on very weak propositional modal logics.

Thus it is not possible that is known that both p and it is not known that p.

This contradicts the firsts assumption of our informal proof that it can be known that, both p and it is not known that p.

Since P is a sentential variable of sorts, we can generalize so as to secure the result that for any proposition p, it is not the case

that both p and it is not known that p.


Chris 5 years ago

Other than Christianity there are a lot of other reasons not to believe relativism over absolutism. One could say that he can be relative according to his conceptual framework, but lets take a look at this problem.

23): Assume the T-schema premise]

(24): it is true that x is F if it is true that x is F according to C [where C is a conceptual scheme] [premise]

(25): It is true that x is F according to C iff it is a fact that x is F according to C. [premise]

But by transitivity of the bi-conditional it follows that:

(25): it is true that x is F iff it is a fact that x is F according to C.

(26) x is F [premise]

(27) Therefore, it is a fact that x is F according to C.

(28) Therefore there are relative facts [facts which obtain only in accordance to Cs].


Chris 5 years ago

And of course verificationist theories of truth are self-refuting, they have not empirical verifiable or tautologous.


Darren 5 years ago

The truth is actually there is an absolute truth. I really don’t come here to argue, just came across these truths just over a year ago, and I’m still trying to digest them. Actually our personal truth is emotional and so has entered us throughout our life and furthermore our personal truths define our very existence.

I can give you many examples!

Actually absolute truth is infinite, so really I could be here for a far while giving you examples!

I'll give you just a few right now.

1. There is an afterlife (spirit world)

2. There are many different dimensional existences in the spirit world

3. These dimensional existences are divided by interstellar boundaries of love

4. Celestial spirits call these dimensions "Spheres"

5. There are 22 spheres known to us ATM

6. The 6th sphere is where you become perfected in natural love, the 7th sphere is where you learn to no longer use your mind and the 8th sphere is where you become at one with God. This is achievable on earth but only one man in earths history has managed to do this!

7. ALL religious formats on earth (including Buddhism) came from spirits in the 6th sphere and they all try to define God and so therefore they ALL contain error but they ALL will help the human soul grow in love.

8. We have a soul, actually our soul is the real us and our material body and spirit body is just a tool for our soul to experience life

9. Our soul is like a container for our emotions, intentions, desires, aspirations, memories and so on.

10. God is soul too, God is an entity, a being, God is our Mother and Father, we are ALL God’s children, we are ALL created in the image of God, God is loving and so is not a punishing God at all, like many religious formats would have us believe.

If you have any questions about what I’ve said I would be happy to explain if I feel your intentions are pure!

Quote: To live a life of absolute truth, one MUST live a life of emotion nakedness, the notion that we are vulnerable in this state is faulse, it is actually the opposite.

Divine truth

I could go on and on, I guarantee you that there will be a time in your existence you WILL come to realize this is ALL absolute truth!

Would you like to hear more?


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Chris,

What was the first cause of logic? What is logic without a definition of logic? Logic could not have preceded the brains capable of its definition. Hence, logic cannot be eternal.

The same applies to truth. Truth is an abstract concept - it means nothing until it is defined.


Darren 5 years ago

Some more very basic truths!

1. %99.999999999 of man historically have passed into a 1st sphere condition, their Soul contains no love or very little love, (not hard to see really)

2. There are many layers just in the 1st sphere (1000s) the bottom of the 1st sphere spirits call the Hells (very dark place and is nothing like the Bible depicts it to be, and any soul can progress out of the hells)and as you progress in love one will reach the top of the 1st sphere, spirits call this place Summerland.

3. Summerland is more beautiful than anywhere on earth ATM,

4. God created this universe basically as our playground.

5. Before God created the universe, she had to create laws that would govern the way it would operate.

6. Just a few of Gods laws! Law of gravity, Law of aerodynamics (2 very basic ones). Law of compensation (karma), Law of attraction, Law of love, Law of Grace (law of repentance)

7. All of Gods laws have a hierarchy, for example, Law of love is the greatest (highest) law in the universe! Law of grace will override the law of Karma, for example, if one is truly sorry for what he has done and repentant than the penalty for what he did will be removed from the soul and so then onwards the law of attraction will no longer attract that mans penalty.

8. The human Soul is the greatest of Gods creations and the most wonderful of her handiworks, also we as humans has a beautiful gift called free will.

9. Free will is a law too, we can do whatever we want whenever we want, But if we CHOOSE to do things out of harmony with love there is an automatic penalty, God created his universe to be self-correcting.

10. All of Gods Laws and all of Gods creations for that matter are based on mathematics. God is the greatest math mortician :) God has many qualities and attributes!


Chris 5 years ago

Winston, First we should ask what is logic. logic is a discpline... a research paradigm.. it studies the nature of logical consequence. So what is the cause of it? Whoever first started systematically studying logical

consequence.. aristotle maybe.. It think the question the you are raising pertains actually to the entities which figure into logical consequence. that is to say propositions, I thingk poster is saying

proposiitions are not eternal, well okay. Some people are nominalists about propositions they don't think they are abstract .Alvin Plantinga thinks they are abstract obejects, he has some arguments. That go like this

(1) Assume that propositions are concepts which logically supervene on brain stree (or assume some other strong reduction.)

(2) If there ahd been no human beings, then it would have been true that there are no human beings. (Meaning that the object of the that-specifying clause, "that there are no humans" would have been true

(3) Necessarily, there are no human beigns if it is true that there are no human beings

(4) necessarily, if there are no human beings, then it is true that there are no human beings.

(5) Therefore, it is not the case that propositions are concepts which supervene on brain states.


Chris 5 years ago

Like I said, the verificationist theory of truth is very problematic. A joke among philosophy.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

The problem Alvin has, as do all theists, is that their beliefs require an assumption of dualism, that an abstaction is possible to separate from the subjective brain which defines it.

Again, without a definition, abstract concepts are nothing but empty labels, sound and fury signifying nothing. On the other hand, an object retains its characteristics of shape and location prior to and after it is labeled, or even if it is never labeled and never known.


Darren 5 years ago

There is a fundamental problem among humans today and that is that we are trying to understand our universe intellectually, but we can NEVER come to understand it this way, we can ONLY come to understand it emotionally. Even this fact took me a while to understand, but it is a fact.

There is an experiment you can undertake to find out whether what I’m saying is true or not!

If not then there is something to keep in mind for latter! When you pass and you will, you will enter the spirit world! When you enter this place you will still have the same beliefs, emotions, intentions (the notion that we become an all knowing being is false) and actually you will FEEL more real than you do now. The only thing that will really change is that you will realise that there is spirit world, although this is not always the case as some people that pass don't even realise they have passed! Most people after passing go to a place near Summerland; in this place you will be nursed to help deal with what has happened by very beautiful and loving spirits, you may notice some other spirits coming and going that appear to you to be very grotesque in appearance. That may prompt you to want to look at yourself; once you take a look at your spirit body what will follow is an unexplainable feeling, shocking to say the least! You will immediately realize you do not belong in this place and so then you will be drawn to your new home! In this moment I hope you remember what I’ve told you, as now I wish to tell you to trust those spirits that are brighter than you and or seek out the Divine love path! Do not fear these bright spirits and know they will not judge you, they wish to help you progress from your place in the spirit world.

With Love as my only motivation to tell you this now!

I will now copy and paste a copy of a channelling I obtained that I also hope you will remember for keep sake.

With Love your Brother and Friend

Mediumship & Discussions with AJ Miller

Persons Talking

AJ Miller (AJ) in Physical, talking with a group of spirits who classify themselves as atheists.

Medium NLD

Date/Time 19th September 2007

Location Dallas, Texas, USA

Talking To Atheist Spirits

Subject

Helping a group of spirits who classify themselves as atheists to investigate the possibility of there being a God.

Mediumship/Discussion Text

Atheists: Yes we, we have an awareness of all you have been discussing. We are quite a large

group of what we would, yes, we would describe ourselves as atheists, for we have not

believed in God when we were in physical or now. However the reason for drawing

closer to you in this way is because we decided to progress. We are dissatisfied with,

…with where we are and we would like to know if there is a way to progress, without

believing in God.

Or can we, …can we call, um, the universe, God? Can, …how, ….we have, …we have

done, …we have had many, many discussions on this subject, (AJ: ah ha) in many, many

different ways and we have not really reached any found conclusions that, …that feel

right. But, yes, our main, …my main reason for talking to you now is because we do

desire to progress and we have heard a little about the Divine Love but can we do this as

atheists?

AJ: Well yes, firstly if you want to progress without God, then certainly you can do so! My

question, though, …for you, …would be; why would you want to do so if progressing

with God is going to be faster and also infinite in the way in which it occurs? So that’s

the question that you’ll need to look within yourself emotionally, …what, what emotions

do you have against the belief in God?

Atheists: Because we have not really felt there was proof that such a thing existed! (AJ: ah ha) It

has never been proven to us, so therefore why would we believe in something that

cannot be proven?

AJ: Well it can be proven but for it to be proven you would need to try some experiments

that you have up until now been unwilling to try. So I suppose what I would suggest to

you is, …that all of you are aware of the scientific techniques, and in particular the

scientific techniques available in the spirit world to investigate phenomena, would that

be right? You were aware of the different scientific techniques that you’ve been taught?

Atheists: Some of us have more awareness than others, yes.

AJ: Okay, and now if you look at some of the scientific techniques, then obviously one of

the scientific techniques is to experiment with something to see whether it’s true or not,

and the process of experimentation will often determine whether it is true or not! As you

know, there are experiments that can be suggested to you by spirits who are aware that

there is a God and that God does exist and there are experiments that you can try, if you,

MEDIUMSHIP/DISCUSSIONS AJ MILLER

Page 2 of 6

if you desire to try them, which will actually help you come to form a conclusion about

whether God does exist or not!

My suggestion is this. In terms of your progression you have two options available to

you at the moment. One option is for you to continue to investigate the creation. Now to

do that is going to require that you continually go through a process of experimentation,

one experiment after another, to determine truth. The alternative is for you to actually,

…if there is a Creator, for you to connect with the Creator of the creation, and if you do

that you can actually enter into some kind of dialogue with God, if there is a method of

communicating with that Creator, then obviously there is then a method of being able to

determine the truth of creation by talking to the Creator. Does that make sense?

So if there is a Creator, …I am saying, …then the fastest possible method of learning

truth would be to ask the Creator what the truth is. If there is no Creator then you’re

going to have to go through this method of experimentation that you’ve already been

doing. My suggestion is to try the experiments as to whether there is a Creator or not

and try and process that experiment, which is going to involve you to determine truth in

some different ways that you currently have been. You may finish up wanting to

connect to the Creator and have a personal relationship with the Creator, rather than

keeping on this consistent path of experimentation. Do you follow what I mean there?

Atheists: We do follow you, we do follow, yes!

AJ: So my suggestion would be, …there are some bright spirits who have, …who are around

you, and they can just appear before you now! These spirits have been waiting for you to

move on to, you know, to this path of progression. Some of these spirits are on the

Natural Love path and other ones of these spirits are on the Divine Love path. Now

when I say these two paths, the Natural Love path is the path of investigating creation.

Atheists: Does that require a belief in God also!

AJ: Not really but what will happen in that path is eventually there will be so many

phenomena that you investigate that in the end your conclusion will probably be that

there must be a God, all right. And for many of the spirits who are more developed than

yourselves on that path, they have come to the conclusion that there is certainly a God.

They don’t see God as a God that they can have a personal relationship with but they do

still feel there is one.

On the other path, what they’re doing is they’re learning to connect with the Creator and

learn all truths from the Creator, in other words, they don’t need to go through this huge

process of experimentation that if you don’t believe in the Creator you will need to go

through. My suggestion first though, is to try the experiments surrounding whether there

is a Creator or not! That’s number one. Secondly look very closely at the emotions

within you as to why you so strongly want to do things as if there is no Creator.

Atheists: I have, I have researched this within myself and I have the answer to this question for

you now.

AJ: Well, what’s the answer then?

Atheists: It is a question of trusting, (AJ: Okay), I am not able to trust. I am not able to trust that

which I cannot see and know.

MEDIU


Darren 5 years ago

1. The Greatest Experiment

Some time ago, I began writing some material that I believe may be used in the future as a basis for the presentation of simple information about the material universe demonstrating proof of the existence of our Father. This information is quite simple and readily available and I have already presented some of it, but this information is not often taught, especially to children, so many persons grow up believing the evolutionary theories are facts, and as a result, believe that God does not exist.

Of course, true proof of God’s existence can be easily obtained. All we need do is have a soul longing for his Love, and, if that longing is sincere and we have a desire to experience emotions, then our Father’s Love will flow into us, and we shall feel it. Once we feel it, we then realize that God must exist, since we are feeling a sensation that comes to us from outside of ourselves, and that we did not have until we developed a longing for God’s Love within our soul.

But due to the emotional injuries most people have developed from childhood that now reside within themselves, many people hesitate to try this experiment because of a concern about being misled or duped into believing something that they feel has the potential of being false, and so they prefer to remain in ignorance rather than accept a belief that can be demonstrated as falsehood. They would rather say; “I don’t know”, and be right, than to say; “I know”, and be wrong. Such is man’s lack of humility; his preference to be right overshadows his desire for investigation, and he often wishes to remain in ignorance rather than make an investigation that may turn out fruitless.

Because of this problem, many persons require at least some evidence of intelligence within the Universe before they will even demonstrate a little portion of faith that is required to begin sincerely seeking truth and asking God for His Love.

Approaches to Learning

Within the methodology of computer programming, there are two basic approaches to developing software, and these approaches can be also used to determine the Truth’s of the Universe, or what we call the Divine Truth.

Bottom Up

The first approach to learning can be called the “Bottom Up” approach. This approach has many exponents because it is very modular, generally object oriented, and effective in its implementation especially when very large projects are undertaken. But it also requires much thought and care taken in the design of components or objects at the bottom level, because, if they ever need to be changed, then all of the components upon which their operation depends often also need to be changed.

You could liken this approach to a student who studies Biology having first to study the micro-organisms of life, then the macro-organisms, then the self-reliant organisms, then life dependencies, then the eco-system, then the biosphere. Using this approach, such a student, while studying at the level of the micro-organisms, does not really understand the relationships and the cause and effects within the eco-system for example. They are ‘aware’ of only that information they have studied, but generally remain completely unaware of the inter-relationships and the overall ‘big picture’.

In a similar way, a computer programmer using the bottom up approach may never know what the final software product being produced by the programming team actually does, since he or she may only program a small component which fits into the entire structure.

Therefore individuals using the bottom up approach to learning often have incomplete knowledge and a flawed view of the project or area of study, because in their own mind there is no understanding of the interaction between each of the simple components making up the whole. Often those who employee these programmers enjoy this state of ignorance, because from their point of view it assists secrecy; the programmers can complete the project, but very few of the programmers used may actually understand the purpose of the project.

Of course, God is not like this even though man assumes He is, and God wants man to know everything He has done. God has no desire for secrecy, and truth is the opposite of secrecy. Truth is openness, and transparency.

Top Down

The second approach, logically, is the “Top Down” approach. This approach may use a set of “Bottom Up” components within its structure, but its focus is to define the tasks of the whole first, and then make the individual components fit that the whole. The programmer designing programs using a top down approach has a complete knowledge of the entire task to be accomplished by the software.

The student studying Biology, by presenting the study of the biosphere as a whole, from the top down, would perceive the biosphere as containing interlinked environments and organisms, and then, as they study further down the chain of the levels of information within, they understand how each organism fits into the whole.

Learning Approach To Infinite Truth

How do we go about applying this to the Truths of the universe? Well, you could say there are the same two methods of studying the truths of the universe.

Bottom Up Approach to Truth

A person using this approach to study of the truths of the universe will usually study things in the following order.

Step 1 - Truths about the universe

Step 2 - Truths about others

Step 3 - Truths about myself

Step 4 - Truths about God

Now a person who seeks the truth by following this approach often becomes focused on Step 1, because, since the universe is infinite there will always be an unlimited amount of things to study. A lifetime can be spent on each area of study, and still only a small portion of truth is available to the student. There is an infinite number of subjects that can be studied, and so, when a person has completed one area of study to his or her satisfaction, which may take a lifetime in itself, they can choose another, and thus repeat this process at infinitum.

From the point of view of man, such a person who becomes an expert in his or her area of study is looked upon as a learned and educated person, someone to be looked up to and admired. They are “leaders in their field,” fountains of knowledge in their particular area of interest. And in fact, they are very wise and full of knowledge in that field, and can be admired for being so.

But the result for them often is there is very little time left over available for them to study the other areas of truth, and although the person may gain snippets of truth from these other areas throughout their life, often because they are forced to by events and situations, and although they may think they are very knowledgeable and resourceful, since the universe is infinite, at any one time in their progression of knowledge they actually know a very insignificant portion of the truth.

This is the method of study that most use, and, because of this, they miss out on the real truth and knowledge of the universe. They study the creation, rather than the Creator, and since they do not go to the Source of all things for information, they are limited by their own conception of truth.

Top Down Approach to Truth

A person using this approach to study makes what others may call a wild assumption, that there is a God, and then attempts to contact that Source of knowledge for the knowledge of the universe. He or she then generally studies knowledge in the following order.

Step 1 - Truth about God

Step 2 - Truth about myself

Step 3 - Truth about others

Step 4 - Truth about the universe

Now unfortunately many using this method of study never come to a true knowledge at Step 1 (because they generally believe God to be a God of wrath), and generally attempt to skip Step 2 altogether (because it is a very emotional process, which is often times painful and criticized by others).

But it is true, and it has been my personal experience that, if a person faithfully follows these steps in their approach to seeking the truth, their growth in knowledge of the secrets of the infinite universe is very fast, and al


Darren 5 years ago

and also, accompanied with that tremendous growth, is the overwhelming happiness knowledge of certain aspects of Divine Truth brings to the heart of man.

So, my suggestion to you is, if you are attempting to enjoy the secrets of truth using the “Bottom Up” approach, abandon that approach for a while, and experiment with the “Top Down” approach. Start from the point of view that there is a God, or that you expect there to be a God, and then work from that perspective. Those who have done this have found that the secrets of the universe have flooded into their consciousness, without the need for investigation, because, when God and His Love is first sought, all other things are added to you.

Mans Character

Like all truth, the truth of God’s existence is something to be felt if it is to be believed, and if by nature you are not feeling a person, you will naturally have difficulty believing. Divine Truth can only be understood by the soul, and the soul contains the emotional part of man.

Man is sometimes such a complex character, especially when he only involves his mind in a discussion, and not his feelings and heart also. When he does this, the mind will often dismiss things that are believed to be impossible, even before it has a chance to ponder upon the knowledge, and to experiment with the possibilities.

Those persons through the centuries who believed in things that others thought impossible also are the persons who were the leaders in science, technology and advancement. They did not accept the general knowledge of the day as the truth about a certain matter, but rather, had the attitude of seeking for more truth, and the derision and mockery of others did not prevent their investigation.

If a man in his heart does not want to believe, it does not matter how long one talks or demonstrates truth to such a person, they will remain firm in the inability to accept. It is only when they open their heart they begin to desire the examination of new information. For many men and women, while they are on earth, it will not be possible to convince them of the Divine Truth of God’s existence, even through the presentation of mountains of evidence. This untrusting state within them exists either from the emotions they feel within them, or from the programming they have received via their culture or environment.

Often such ones need to be left to their own devices, and when they pass from the material existence into the other dimensions of existence, they will die in this great knowledge of theirs that there is no God, and within a very short space of time, they will be forced to recognize that they themselves still exist, which is against all the precepts and philosophies of men who do not believe in God. At that time, because of their continued existence, often they feel they must accept the existence of God, and sometimes such a person is then very willing to demonstrate a further desire to come to know and understand God.

Scientific Experiment

As I have said many times before, developing emotions of longing for Truth, and emotions of longing for God’s Love will result in such Love coming into the individual, and as a result, it will be proven personally to such a person that God in fact does exist. This is the greatest scientific experiment man can undertake, and, of all experiments, it is the one that has the most certainty in its outcome.

However, since many of those who pride themselves in their own knowledge do not allow themselves to make such an experiment for emotional reasons they refuse to examine, often we must focus our efforts on attempting to help such ones come to the emotional state where they feel they are able to at least try the greatest experiment. To do this, often we need to discuss the things we can see and touch in the material Universe, and when the truth about these things touches their heart, then they may begin the greatest experiment.

The Bible

In addition, a discussion regarding the potentiality of God’s existence often includes examining many of the sayings contained within the Bible and the other Holy books, since many persons who do not believe in God quote things from these books as proof that God does not exist (since such books contain many illogical and unbelievable sayings).

Although there are many truths contained within the ‘Holy’ or religious writings of man, many of the things contained within the Bible and within the other books described to be of a Holy nature are not the Word of God as claimed by the exponents of these writings, and as such cannot be relied upon either as proof for or against the existence of God. One must often look elsewhere for the supply of such evidence.

Evidence Presented

Just as the universe is infinite, so there is also infinite evidence of God’s existence. Man in his material or mortal frame cannot see this evidence in almost all cases, and so he says he cannot believe.

But the same man believes the wind exists, something that cannot be seen, and he says that he believes because he can see its effect and can feel it (or touch it), and feels he understands the causes of such an effect. In the wind, simple and yet unseen, he believes because he sees its force, and, in believing, conceives its cause, and the knowledge of its cause always requires intelligence.

Other forces more complex but visible to the naked eye (such as the human body) he actually sees and touches, and does not completely understand and he does not conceive the cause, so, instead of believing that even more intelligence than he has is required to understand, he says it (the human body and other visible evidence of intelligence) arrived without an intelligent cause, a product of chance.

So much for the saying; “If I see, I will believe,” because there is much a man does not see, but believes in a cause that requires intelligence to deduce, and much the same man sees, but believes its cause to be without intelligence occurring only by chance.

So we will discuss a few things only regarding the existence of God, and, if these things, added to all the evidence surrounding a man, cannot convince the man to try the experiment and see if God does exist, then at some time in his future he will be convinced, and hopefully then he will remember to examine the spiritual truths.

Cause and Effect

Any discussion regarding cause and effect as it is observed by man in this material world is an over-simplification of the operations of the universe, since there is much that happens in the universe which cannot be seen by man, but which causes a result that can be seen and observed by man.

Since man can see by his previous experience that many things he now knows he did not know in the past, it can be assumed (and accurately so) that he currently does not know many things that he will come to know in the future. So, in fact, the worst thing a man can have is a mind closed to the fact that growth is always occurring, even in his own knowledge and experience. A scientist or mathematician that does not have this viewpoint has really ceased to become a scientist or mathematician, and instead has become the same as any religious person who refuses to accept that more truth exists, they have become engrossed in the 'religion' of science.

For most events, man can only assume the truth of their cause, and does not actually know the truth, or may feel unable to believe anything else until some other cause which becomes known is shown to demonstrate the cause.

So at best, any analysis of cause and effect from mans perspective is spurious, as man would acknowledge if he was completely honest with himself, since there is so much that a man cannot see, either with the naked eye, or with measuring instruments currently known to man, and this can be demonstrated by his own history of advancement.

Now it naturally follows that, since the material world appears infinite to man, and that there are things that exist that are presently completely invisible to man within this material world but which he assumes to exist by their effect, there is a high probability of universes or worlds that are


Darren 5 years ago

probability of universes or worlds that are completely invisible to man. In fact, such universes have been demonstrated to exist by prominent mathematicians. Since these worlds are probably infinite, as far as it is known to man, then it must also be assumed that the list of what man currently does not know is also infinite, both of things visible and invisible.

If within these worlds, either the material that man can see, or the invisible which man cannot see, the cause for every happening was a random chaotic event as proclaimed by those who believe that everything came about by chance and not an intelligent cause, then man should see as a result, a universe that is completely chaotic, from the smallest of the particles he can measure, to the largest of the galaxies he can see.

In such a world, when he applies heat to a container full of water, sometimes it would boil, other times it would remain cold, and in others, it would freeze. Sometimes that water would taste like water, sometimes like wine, sometimes like fruit, and sometimes like acid and so forth. Since the world he proclaims to exist should be chaotic, then in every event, and in every substance, chaos would exist.

But the truth is, man keeps looking into the unseen, either down in size to the things he thinks are the smallest things of the universe, or up in size to the largest, and as it becomes seen, he sees order and design, the opposite to chaos.

And since there is a truth that can be determined, and that is, an effect must have a cause (or, of course, a combination of causes), whether that cause is (or combination of causes are) visible or invisible to man, the only result or answer to the question of how this design came about can be that there is a Designer, and this Designer maintains harmony within His universe.

Unregulated growth could never achieve anything but randomness and chaos, which is not what we observe in 'nature'.

Some Simple Mathematics

Most of the following information has been obtained from a web site created by Ron Knott, and you may find the information on his web site; . Mr Knott has done a lot of work compiling the mathematical and natural appearances of what is known as the Fibonacci series of numbers. Most of the text, and the images presented below come from his web site.

The "greatest European mathematician of the middle ages", as claimed by some, was Leonardo of Pisa, or Leonardo Pisano in Italian since he was born in Pisa (Italy), the city with the famous Leaning Tower, about 1175 AD. He called himself Fibonacci [pronounced fib-on-arch-ee or fee-bur-nutch-ee] short for filius Bonacci. Some think he did this because Fibonacci is a shortening of the Latin "filius Bonacci", which means "the son of Bonaccio", since his father's name was Guglielmo Bonaccio. If you search the Internet you will find much more information regarding the man.

It is claimed by some that he was one of the first people to introduce the Hindu-Arabic number system into Europe - the positional system we use today - based on ten digits with its decimal point and a symbol for zero: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ,8 ,9 ,0. His book on how to do arithmetic in the decimal system, called Liber abbaci (meaning Book of the Abacus or Book of Calculating) persuaded many European mathematicians of his day to use this "new" system.

The book describes (in Latin) the rules mankind now learns in basic schooling for adding numbers, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, together with many problems to illustrate the methods. But, it also describes in one chapter a series of numbers, which he took from Indian scholars, who had long been interested in rhythmic patterns, and it was the French mathematician Edouard Lucas (1842-1891) who gave the name Fibonacci numbers to this series and found many other important applications of them.

The series is:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987 etc.

As you may be able to see, the next number in the series is constructed from the addition of the two previous numbers.

Also, related to these series of numbers is the Golden ratio, Phi. To calculate an approximation of Phi, you choose a higher number in the series, and divide it by the number preceding it.

Phi = 987 / 610, or approximately 1.618.

And the inverse of Phi is phi, which is:

phi = 610 / 987, or approximately 0.618

Both Phi and the inverse of Phi (phi) are often called the Golden Section numbers. They are mathematically unique numbers, in that 1 + phi = Phi, and 1/phi = Phi. But they are also unique and highly present numbers in the material universe.

Mathematical Progressions in Creation

So what does all this have to do with belief in God? Well, these numbers, as well as many other numeric sequences, continually appear in what man calls nature, but what I call Creation.

The Pinecone

The spirals of a pinecone have a clockwise rotation, and an anti-clockwise rotation, and in both cases if the number of spirals is counted in each rotation, each count will be a number contained within the Fibonacci series of numbers (8 and 13). The same principle applies to a pineapple as well, but the numbers of spirals are 13 and 23, still numbers appearing in the Fibonacci series.

The Cauliflower and Romanesque Broccoli/Cauliflower

For the cauliflower, the spirals are 5 and 8. For the Romanesque Broccoli, the spirals are 13 and 21.

The Coneflower

Petal spirals are 34 and 55. The sunflower seed arrangement is similar, but with the numbers 55 and 89.

Seed and Flower Heads

Each new seed is just phi (0•618) of a turn from the last one (or, equivalently, there are Phi (1•618) seeds per turn).

What God has used is the same pattern to place seeds on a seed head as He used to arrange petals around the edge of a flower AND to place leaves round a stem. What is more, ALL of these maintain their efficiency as the plant continues to grow and that's a lot to ask of a single process, and all of these relate to the Phi, or the Golden Rule.

The amazing thing is that a single fixed angle can produce the optimal design no matter how big the plant grows. So, once an angle is fixed for a leaf, say, that leaf will least obscure the leaves below and be least obscured by any future leaves above it. Similarly, once a seed is positioned on a seed head, the seed continues out in a straight line pushed out by other new seeds, but retaining the original angle on the seed head. No matter how large the seed head, the seeds will always be packed uniformly on the seed head.

The arrangement of leaves is the same as for seeds and petals. All are placed at 0•618034.. leaves, (seeds, petals) per turn, and this single fixed angle is Phi.

If there are Phi (1•618...) leaves per turn (or, equivalently, phi=0•618... turns per leaf ), then we have the best packing so that each leaf gets the maximum exposure to light, casting the least shadow on the others. This also gives the best possible area exposed to falling rain so the rain is directed back along the leaf and down the stem to the roots. For flowers or petals, it gives the best possible exposure to insects to attract them for pollination

Plant Growth

Many plants show the Fibonacci numbers in the arrangements of the leaves around their stems. If we look down on a plant, the leaves are often arranged so that leaves above do not hide leaves below, and the angle of rotation is based upon phi.

Petals on Flowers

3 petals: lily, iris (Often lilies have 6 petals formed from two sets of 3)

5 petals: buttercup, wild rose, larkspur, columbine (aquilegia), pinks

8 petals: delphiniums

13 petals: ragwort, corn marigold, cineraria, some daisies

21 petals: aster, black-eyed susan, chicory

34 petals: plantain, pyrethrum

55, 89 petals: michaelmas daisies, the asteraceae family.

Some species are very precise about the number of petals they have - eg buttercups, but others have petals that are very near those above, with the average being a Fibonacci number.

Appearance of Spirals

Spirals of a similar nature appear within flower petals, plant leaves, plant branch growth, animal reproduction, the unbor


Darren 5 years ago

, the unborn child, human body growth, seashells, hair curls, hurricanes and galaxies. The above information just scratches the surface.

Summary

This leads to larger final issues, which Einstein expressed as the question, "How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?" If you think that everything around you is chaos, then you need to reconsider, because everything from the microscopic to universal aggregate is striving toward simple and beautiful geometric patterns, striving towards complete order.

Man has discovered, and is continuing to discover, mathematical beauty in the world around him. He can drill down into the smallest thing that he can see, or look upwards to the largest thing he can conceive, and in it all there is order and design.

The presence of these mathematical series in creation, because of the order and design, can only suggest an intelligent Designer. A Creator does exist, and this Creator is intelligent, infinitely more intelligent than man, since man understands an infinitesimal portion of the universe this Creator has made.

The Greatest Experiment

If the physical universe is striving towards order, could not it also be the case that the other parts of the universe, not seen by man, the spiritual and soul parts, the other dimensions proven by mathematics to exist, are also striving towards complete order and harmony, not just in a physical context, but also in a moral and spiritual context?

Would it not make sense that if we desire to know the truths about these things as yet unseen by the eyes of most people in the material world, our highest priority should be to find out how to go about contacting the Source of such things, the Creator of this universe?

To contact Him, all we need do is have a soul longing for His Love, and, if that longing is sincere and we have a desire to experience emotions, then our Father’s Love will flow into us, and we shall feel it. Finding God is simplicity itself, so simple in fact that the majority of mankind, mortals and spirits, overlook the only method we have of ever finding Divine Truth, which is made possible by two things; the sincere desire of a man to seek for and feel God and His Love (which we call Prayer), and the overwhelming Passion of God to give all His Children His Love, and have all of His Children come to know Him and experience the joy and happiness of Living in His Love.

This is the Greatest Experiment, and when any person tries it, the experiment often begins tentatively, but ends in complete certainty. God is Reality, and the Love and Truth that comes from Him is Real. When we try the Greatest Experiment, we at that time also begin to live in Reality.

So my brothers and sisters, live in Reality, in our Father’s Love, seek for it, and desire it above all else. Seek first His Love, and all the other things will be added to you.

Although the contents of this message may be well known to you, I hope that you have enjoyed a reconsideration of this information.

With love from your brother


Chris 5 years ago

Winston, It is all based on subjective feelings than, so technically they don't need a definition to retain its characteristics. Have you ever read any philosophy contrary to Verificationism?

Darren- Where are you getting at?


Chris 5 years ago

Or you can go on the thesis that there are two realities. The eternal one and the one that is breaking down. Our reality which is breaking down (entropy). But we have eternal truths which help us recognize this eternal reality.


Chris 5 years ago

Here is a good modal argument of a necessary being:

(1) Normally, for any intrinsic property p that (a) can begin to be exemplified, and (b) can be exemplified by something that has a cause, there can be a cause of p’s beginning to be exemplified. (Premise)

(2) The property of c being a contingent concrete particular is an intrinsic property. (Premise)

(3) Property c can begin to be exemplified. (Premise)

(4) Property c can be exemplified by something that has a cause. (Premise)

(5) Therefore, there can be a cause of c’s beginning to be exemplified (by UI and such from 1—4).

(6) Therefore, if (5), then there is a necessary being.

(7) Therefore, there is a necessary being. (Modus Ponens)


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Chris,

Why do you offer tautologies rather than native reasoning ability to answer the simple question: how did logic precede the brain needed to accomodate its understanding?

It's nice that axiomatically driven logics can show a logical necessity - that is a boon to clear thinking. It has nothing to do with reality.

The entire debate revolves around this: is there anything else in the universe other than objects and the void (space) that gives those objects spacial separation?

To show that something else exists, it is imperative to define the word exist so that its meaning is clear, precise and unambiguous. Philosophy, mathematics, and religion have all been unwilling to create that definition.

Without that definition, nothing is said.

So, here is a chance to shine: provide an unambiguous definition of exist and then rationally explain how the abstract concept of "truth" exists within that definition.

I will offer you a hint. The physics definition for exist is that which has a physical presence, that which has shape and location. This is clear and unambiguous.

How do the abstract ideas of truth, love, morals, energy, and mass exist by that definition?

In fact, how can anything that requires a definition be established prior to its definition?


Chris.A.Powell 5 years ago

Winston, All you are doing is re-stating your view of truth which is very absurd. "The view that truth is unknowable without definition" This theory has already been thrashed.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Winston, All you are doing is re-stating your view of truth which is very absurd. "The view that truth is unknowable without definition")

Chris,

This is not what I said.

For want of a better phrase, you are using the fallacy of reification by treating a concept as if it were an object. You are treating the word truth as if it were an object, like a piece of pie. Truth is not an object. Truth is an abstract concept.

Reality is that there simply is no such thing as truth until some type of being defines the concept. Without a being and thus a definition, truth means nothing. There can be no truth until the meaning of truth is created.

Any abstract concept - morality, for example - is nothing but a meaningless arrangement of letters, jibberish until a being gives it a definition. This is true of all abstract concepts.

An object does not have this restriction. A banana does not require a definition - it only needs a language label to separate it from other objects. We can point to a banana and another sentient being will know what we are alluding to. We cannot point to a piece of truth or a gallon of morality - we have to explain what these word mean.

Objects exist regardless of beings. On the other hand, it is the definition, which is created by a being, that then creates an abstract concept like truth.

If it requires a definition, then it requires a being to apply that definition. Therefore, truth can never precede the being who gives it definition.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Darren,

Thank you for showcasing your prowess in essay-writing skills about irrelevant topics. I will make sure to submit your works for publication in next month’s Penthouse Letters.

Anyway, let’s get back to the issue which makes or breaks your argument.....and this has to do with the issue of ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’.

Please unambiguously define these crucial terms ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’ so we can understand what YOU mean by them....and whether they have anything to do with reality which is objective and observer-independent. I mean, if they have nothing to do with reality, then they are subjective to you. Are you with me so far?

@Chris......same for you as well.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

our subjective compulsion to believe in logic only reveals that, long before logic itself entered our consciousness, we did nothing but introduce its postulates into events: now we discover then in events-we can no longer do otherwise-and imagine that this compulsion guarantees something connected with "truth." It is we who created the "thing," the "identical thing," subject, attribute, activity, object, substance, form, after we had long pursued the process of making identical, coarse and simple. The world seems logical to us because we had made it logical.

Luke 69


Chris 5 years ago

Fatfist and winston, Go back and study modal logic and doxastic logic and get back to me. I am not taking anything from some anon internet user.


Chris 5 years ago

Forgive me for my impoliteness, but you were not answering the first objection I raised. Since you did not, I will assume you have not learned Modal or doxastic logic.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

"Go back and study modal logic and doxastic logic "

Before you perform the action of STUDY, you must perform the action of CONCEIVE. That is, a human must necessarily conceive of any system of logic, whether Classical, Modal, Quantum, or Church Logic. These are pre-defined and established rules of the human conceptual realm only.

Now if you use these rules to authoritatively dictate that there must be a God (as per your asserted axioms), then be my guest. Your assertions and belief have nothing to do with reality which is a binary realm of objects surrounded by space. There is no other option!

Your invented systems of logic are subjectively conceived and have no bearing on reality, which is objective and observer-independent.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

Don't worry about impoliteness. Let's just get to the heart of the issue which revolves around the words which make or break your argument.

Can you objectively define 'truth' and 'absolute' without injecting observer-dependent opinions in your definition? If you cannot, then truth has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with human opinion, decree and dogma.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

Chris wants to debate the logic of his positions, which is fine for debate class and philosophy courses but mother nature really doesn't care about logical necessities.

Some mathematicians are honest enough to admit that logic has no bearing on reality. Philsophers do not share that degree of honesty, it seems.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

The world seems logical to us because we had made it logical.

but mother nature really doesn't care about logical necessities.

proves my point i dont know why im so smart. I learn from jesus, but I ridicule the vatican.


Chris 5 years ago

Okay. As long as that is the case you will stay in your absurd verificationist theory of truth which has already been thrashed. I already gave you the formulation above, read it.


Chris 5 years ago

I never though you would bring back the old theory from A.J. Ayer and W.V.O. Quine. Of course most of their logical positivism has been thrashed too with the advancements in philosophy.


Chris 5 years ago

Now, to get you to understand I will provide a website with a logical refutation of your theory of truth.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“absurd verificationist theory of truth”

Now you are finally starting to make sense, my friend. Any alleged "theory" about truth is absurd!!

“Truth” is NOT a theory.....truth is an abstract concept which requires precise DEFINITION.....otherwise, what the hell could anybody be talking about whenever they invoke this God-like magical word they call “truth”???

Remember: a theory is a rational explanation of a consummated event!!!!

There are NO theories of abstract concepts like truth, sex, lies, and video....there are only DEFINITIONS!

Please learn the basics before chasing your tail in circles.

“I already gave you the formulation”

You need to DEFINE truth before you formulate any assertions about it. You haven’t done that.

“logical positivism has been thrashed”

We are in 100% agreement here....ALL religious ideologies are dead in the water when we begin to define our terms so that we understand exactly what we are talking about.

“your theory of truth.”

Again Chris.....you are struggling with the Junior Kindergarten basics. There is NO theory of truth. A theory is a rational explanation of a consummated event. Truth and lies play no role in theories.....only explanations do...and RATIONAL ones at that!

Truth can ONLY be DEFINED....NEVER theorized!

Please learn the basics so that you are not arguing with yourself every time you post here.

So are you gonna define this magical word (truth) which is causing you so much grief? Yes or No?

Just what is it that you "mean" whenever you utter this word "truth"? Please tell the audience so they can understand.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Objects exist regardless of beings. On the other hand, it is the definition, which is created by a being, that then creates an abstract concept like truth)

Fatfist,

I really didn't think this was that difficult to grasp. Nothing can precede its cause. A being is the cause of truth.

The only one way to propose eternal truth is by proposing a being that preceded eternity.

This is called the peyote presence, I think. :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

"A being is the cause of truth."

In layman's terms, yeah. But the term "cause" is a verb that necessitates 2 objects; one being the 'mediator' and the other being the 'target'. So when we are using precise language, we cannot use the term 'cause' when referencing truth. We can only use the term 'conceive', which really clears up the issue so that there is no ambiguity.

This is what has been confusing Religionist Philosophers for the past 1500 years. They used Aristotle's term 'cause', which only applies to objects, to unwittingly apply it to concepts. Is it any wonder that not a single idiot Philosopher today can even tell you what this elusive term 'truth' even means??

Since objects precede all concepts, truth cannot possibly be an object because truth is only conceived....never caused.

Furthermore....since objects precede all concepts, "absolute truth" is completely IMPOSSIBLE....no exception! Now, if there is an exception, I'm sure that our good friends Chris and Darren will step in here and showcase my stupidity right away!

So what's it gonna be, Chris & Darren?


Darren 5 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

I understand if you can't concevie the fact that the absolute thuth is that an intellingent being created this universe based of math most call GOD, some hate the term GOD so some call her/him the Creator!

I also understand if you can't really conceive the fact that God is infinite, or what that really means!

I also don't think you really understand how perfect God is yet let alone understand your true Father at all!

Here is a snipit: God is the only being in our universe that holds the ABSOLUTE truth and ferthermore since God is infinite, than that means absolute truth is infinite too,right! So we are never going to know all of it, really just a poition of it! Did you know your infinite too!?

True reality is to live, think and above all FEEL like God intended for us in the first place! I also understand if you can't concieve what that would be like but i'm sure you know some of the warped story's about Jesus! Love is true reality, I also understand if you feel uneasy talking about love fatfist!

I posted what I have already wanted to say, look at it as a gift!

If I could suggest to you go back to the very first comment on this topic! I really like it and I think you should really consider what he said " I believe we have to treat this subject with kid gloves" Really REALLY wise comment!!!!

You don't seem to understand what I said before! ABSOLUTE truth can only be found in the heart, our emotions, they are the key to truth. Everybody is looking over this basic truth! Seems too simple for many! We all block our emotions, resort to being the tough guy and so on Fatfist! Also you don't understand yet that our brain is just a tool and not the real us, it's our emotions that make us the real us! Do you understand this?

The human emotions are the most complex creation of all in our universe! So there is no way i'm going to get started what is verbs and what isn't. I would however be interested in talking about what love is!

Until you come to some of these understandings how are we really going to get any head way!

All the best brother Fatfist,

Darrem


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Darren,

"Until you come to some of these understandings...."

Exactly!

Until you come to understand what the term 'truth' means, all you are doing is chasing your tail in circles. You've typed thousands of words and yet you've said totally nothing.

Do you know why??

Because you haven't defined 'truth' in precise and unambiguous terms.

This is ultra-basic stuff....I don't know why you are struggling so much with it. All you have is some letters...t..r..u..t..h....but NO meaning attached to them at all.

Did anything I said register??


Darren 5 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

You really do seem to be missing my point, TRUTH can't be explained intellectually, actually the truth is that it is impossible for our mind to understand absolute truth! THE MIND IS JUST A TOOL! Our soul is the real us! Our emotions, intensions, desire feelings, memories and so on and then when these come into harmony with Gods laws of love than the soul grows infinitely more powerful! Actually when you become at one with God (living GODS TRUTH constantly) his love is connected to us constantly! "The truth will set us free" "wink" The truth always loves!!!

Our truth is in our soul, it's emotional! How can one understand an emotion intellectually?

E.g. (hypothetically) Sit down with the "best" math mortician in the world and explain to him what love feels like! NOW if he had NEVER experienced love, would he truly understand? What it felt like to be loved? How long could that take? Do you think it's possible this man could REALLY understand?

Absolute Truth comes as packets, downloads if you like, directly into our soul. Soul to Soul communication is the highest form of communication! Actually these packets travel so fast they reach anywhere in an instant and also outside of the universe. Our Creator created our universe, so if so wouldn't it make sense that God is outside the universe too!? So from us to the outside of the universe these packet are instant. (the soul is so powerful, well potentially, depending on the amount of love in it)

Furthermore these packets could take days to explain to others, and yet still they truly wouldn't understand!

So Fatfist as you can see we have really totally different concepts! Wish I could feel you welcome them. Sorry if my writting are a bit randomits just when I get going I can't stop, I feel I have so much to share, actully I'm thinking to write a book! :)

I’m not religious person ever but have a deep passion for truth (always have) and have an inner knowing that love is the answer!! Alway have!! And so actually as it turned, it is true :)

You want an intellectual understanding to truth, and an intellectual explanation but I’m saying it's impossible!

And so this debate could last for a while, much longer than it's already been going for!


Darren 5 years ago

Let me say it again for you Fatfist, just incase you didn't get again!!!!!

Absolute Truth is emotional! And so it can never be explained or understood intelectually!!

Absolute Truth is emotional! And so it can never be explained or understood intelectually!!

Absolute Truth is emotional! And so it can never be explained or understood intelectually!!

Absolute Truth is emotional! And so it can never be explained or understood intelectually!!

Atleast tell me if you understand this simple truth?


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

Some schizophrenics think they are Napolean; some think absolute truth comes packets.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Darren,

"Absolute Truth is emotional"

Since there were no emotions when humans did not exist, then there was nothing emotional at that time. So this ALLEGED "absolute truth" of yours is only RELATIVE POPPYCOCK which you have just blindly asserted without understanding the basics.

If there were no emotions before humans, then any such EMOTIONAL TRUTH is IMPOSSIBLE to be absolute. Which part of "impossible" don't you understand??

Darren: "And so it can never be explained or understood "

Darren: "Atleast tell me if you understand this "

So let me get this STRAIGHT......

1) Your alleged absolute truth CANNOT BE EXPLAINED ACCORDING TO YOU!!!!

2) BUT YOU EXPECT ME AND OTHERS TO UNDERSTAND YOUR ALLEGED UN-UNDERSTANDABLE ABSOLUTE TRUTH....AGAIN, ACCORDING TO YOU???

Darren, I really don't know if there is an Insane Asylum which can help someone with your condition.


Darren 5 years ago

LOL :) Fatfist, one day brother, you WILL understand what I mean, and actually I have NO expectations because I know you’re a LOOOOOOOONG way off understanding, your material body will be completely decomposed before you understand! Actually at the rate you’re going it will be hundreds possibly thousands of years depending on your ignorance!

Still your missing my point, absolute truth comes from God via our Soul emotionally. Now since God is the only being that has the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and GOD is infinite and we are infinite and the universe is infinite then absolute always has been and always will be, and we will always be learning more! And so we will ALWAYS only know a portion of it. DO YOU GET IT! I don't think you can conceive infinite yet! Noor a Creator! And obviously you can't conceive ABSOLUTE TRUTH.........YET......lol The day will come Fatfist and you will HAVE to swallow all these words your blurting off ATM and really you don't know it yet, but your just making it harder for yourself latter!

The head space you live in, is the size of a mustard seed!

It can be explained, but it won't be understood!!!!!!!!! Like any emotion!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST DON"T GET IT!!!

If you don't believe me, I already posted for you and others "The greatest experiment EVER"! Try it and find out for yourself, I did! And so that’s how I know what I know! The greatest experiment ever, is the ONLY way you will EVER understand! That’s why I posted it on here, as a gift, to you brother Fatfist, and others! Actually you don’t know it YET but the gift I gave you is the greatest gift you can receive, AT THIS POINT! It is more valuable than ANY material object you can conceive!

All the best brother Fat, I have no more time for you! ATM!

BTW I can understand why you think i'm insane, and it's ok! I really do understand because you haven't even warn out your baby gloves yet! What i'm presenting is quite new knowledge on this earth as well!

Some insane comments for you!

Elvis just made it into the condition of at-onement with God. The 8th sphere

John Lenneon is now on the Divine love path (he did the experiment)

3-5 billion people are soon to perish due to earth changes, based on there soul condition.

Japan will sink completly

USA is completly Fucked too.

Eastern Australia will be 100m underwater!

The world econnomy is fucked also and will collapse completly by the end of the year if not by March next!

~~~~~~~~~~Crazy shit hey brother fat you will see~~~~~~~~


Darren 5 years ago

Opps I posted twice

I forgot to tell you somthing else thats ~I~N~S~A~N~E~!!

Not many people know it yet, but I'm sure you know about the seconed coming of Jesus (Christ) well he did, him and 13 others returned! lol bet that's a hard one to swollow too lol for you Fat.

You will see, soon lol


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Darren,

"absolute truth comes from God"

Oh, here's your chance to showcase your ignorance yet again!

Before you tell me that X comes from God, you had better be able to tell the audience what this word "GOD" alludes to.

So here you go...showcase your genius:

What does the word God resolve to ....an object or a concept???

Do you even know?


Chris 5 years ago

Fatfist- A definition? I sure hope your not saying that truth is a predicate.


Chris 5 years ago

I mean think about it. Does truth really need a definition? Is it really a predicate? Or is it just an affirmation of WHAT IS!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

A predicate modifies a subject , or can at best specify the attributes of an object.

What does this have to do with the definition of a word in language? You are going off in irrelevant tangents.

Every single word in language has a definition. So please.....what is the definition of this magical word you happen to call ‘truth’?


Chris 5 years ago

I want to touch upon also the statement that no logic has anything ot do with reality. Of course there is a big difference from reality and actuality.


Chris  5 years ago

Truth - actuality or actual existence, or an obvious fact. And I was only talking about the term "predicate" in terms of philosophy not grammar.


Chris 5 years ago

I mean you should of learned the definition of truth in remedial philosophy class. Now if you are asking me what truth is, then I would say that philosophers have been arguing that point since the pre-socratics. If you want to see all of the opinions on it I would suggest going to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. That is a brilliantly designed website.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

"if you are asking me what truth is, then I would say that philosophers have been arguing that point since the pre-socratics. If you want to see all of the opinions"

Exactly!

TRUTH IS NAUGHT BUT OPINION!!!

It took you over 6 months, but you finally admitted it.


Darren 5 years ago

@WINSTON I missed your uneducated and spiteful comment! Do you know what is actually happening when someone is to be seen to have a "mental condition" called "Schizophrenia"?

Just so you know the truth about "schizophrenics"! Schizophrenics are people that are highly mediumistic, experiencing the effects of malevolent spirit attachment or complete over cloaking. People attract these spirits only because of a their emotional Soul condition! Actually there are more spirits doing this on earth than there are people! But "Schizophrenics" can also hear, maybe see and in all cases feel them, more than most people! So actually those voices are real! In a lot of cases this is onset by drugs, alcohol, because under these influences one becomes more susceptible to spirit attachment, Actually all alcos and all drugies are being highly influenced by spirits to do so and ferthermore, everybody is being influenced by spirits on a moment to moment basis!

Actually if you read the autobiography of Stephen William Hawking you can clearly see that he has been over cloaked since he was three! But in his case to spirit is in a very loving condition, but not at one with God yet! Actually you will also see that these feeling and the energy coming from this spirit is so great he become addicted to it and so submitted to what he calls the “presence” The energy (love) coming from this spirit is too much and so over time it destroyed his central nervous system! By the way he clearly calls this Spirit God! But it's not, it's a spirit wanting people on earth to know his truth and Stephen is highly mediumistic, but he doesn't know lol

This spirit thinks what he is doing is for the greater good!

Actually just so you know anything on earth with a central nervous system, also has a spirit body! Our soul connects to us by what is called the Golden cord, this cord runs from the tip of the tail bone to your crown, and basically this cord computes all the info it is receiving into our soul!

So Winston if you want to know the TRUTH, I am quite mediumistic! But I’ve never experienced what you call “Schizophrenia” but I do completly understand what Stephen is explaining in his Bio! Recommended reading!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Just so you know the truth about "schizophrenics"! Schizophrenics are people that are highly mediumistic, experiencing the effects of malevolent spirit attachment or complete over cloaking.)

Darren,

Wait a second. You said truth comes in packets, but these are just pixels you typed. How can I know what you wrote was the truth without a truth packet in my pocket?

It is, after all, the best part of waking up.


Darren 5 years ago

Hi Fat,

I really have no time to engage with you in your intellectual, pointless "mumbo jumbo"


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

I thought so, Darren.....you are free to run away from the argument. No hard feelings. If you do have more time in the future, maybe you can define for us this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument: TRUTH.


Darren 5 years ago

Actually I don't think you will realize what I’m saying is true until long after you pass! I do hope sooner but I don’t think so! Your Ego is too great!

Take care brother Winnie!

I will leave you all with this, I said it before and I'll say it again because it's rather importent to know, well if you want to experiance bliss sooner that latter! And also it relates to you truth packet in your pocket comment! Even i'm sure you want get it YET lol!

"To live a life of absolute truth, one must live a life of emotional nakedness! The notion that you are vulnerable in this state it is false, it is actually the opposite!"

Divine Truth


Darren 5 years ago

Brother Fat, why did you have to be like this?!!

I think I said in my 2nd or 3rd line in my 1st comment that I don't want to argu!

You are never going to progress in this wild world if you stay so closed,ignorent and take off your kiddy gloves like you have!

Take care brother fat!


Darren 5 years ago

PS You all gonna see these natrual disarters around the world worsnen Exponentialy!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

WTF.


Darren 5 years ago

Hi Fat,

("absolute truth comes from God"

Oh, here's your chance to showcase your ignorance yet again!

Before you tell me that X comes from God, you had better be able to tell the audience what this word "GOD" alludes to.

So here you go...showcase your genius:

What does the word God resolve to ....an object or a concept???

Do you even know?)

Despite the somewhat aggressive emotion tied in with this comment, I still feel a desire to give you some building blocks to work with to help give you some sort of concept!

It is a question which I'm sure is in the heart of many!

There is an issue I face though, and that is if I'm going to explain there is a lot of other things you need to understand to get the big picture!

In short though the word God alludes to, the source of our being! It doesn’t really matter what the word is, it's just what most spirits call her/him, so we follow suit! There are many names and symbols used to represent God but in the end, over all, it alludes to the source of our being! You could call her Mother or Father too, God has masculine and feminine qualities! Or you could call God Bob or Jill it doesn’t really matter!

Between that and where you’re at there is a lot of explaining to do! lol

The first issue I’m faced with is the emotional response you have when you hear the word "GOD"! And I totally understand!

The core of all our beliefs entre us a child, generally up to the age of 7, and they are all emotional! Our emotional beliefs are at the core of every choice we make!

For example do you have any emotional responses to talk about emotion on your tread? Do you feel open to talk about emotions?

To understand the truth about your being, God and absolute truth, one must first have some understanding about our emotions!

Everybody over looks our emotions.

Do you have anything to say about what emotion may allude to? What is your understanding about emotions?

What emotion do you feel when you read this stuff about emotion?

The other dilemma is that if 2 people are going discuss absolute truth then they must be willing to be truthful!

So what are the thoughts and emotions you feel when you think about God?

What does Fat feel when he is questioned like this on his thread?


Darren 5 years ago

Oh yeah,

Object or concept? Seems like such a narrow minded Q, But anyway, Alla is a being, an entity, and exists if you think she does or not! Cosept NO, Object?? Would you call your wife an object? (if you have one) or your child? or boyfriend? If so than yes an object lol! But as I said God is a being! The creator of YOU!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Darren, welcome back again.

“Despite the somewhat aggressive emotion tied in with this comment”

Darren, you are just as good at reading minds as Sylvia Brown is.....and Sylvia is just as good at reading minds as me.....which is nil or zip. So please don’t tell us what you feel my emotions to be, because I will tell you right now that you are waaaaaay off target.....you simply don’t know. Anyway, such issues are irrelevant to the objective conversation we are having about your claims.

“the word God alludes to, the source of our being!”

Then God is a concept. This word simply resolves to the opinionated conception of a human being who thinks that humans must have an ultimate “source”, other than the building blocks of matter (atoms).

Since God resolves to a concept, as per YOUR claims, then God necessarily requires a human being in order to be conceived. You have just showcased that man invented God...and all gods!

“So what are the thoughts and emotions you feel when you think about God?”

It is irrelevant what I or you or our good Pastor or Mullah feels when we all think about this word “God”. This is all subjective and opinionated, which has absolutely nothing to do with reality. You are struggling with the basics because you are not using your brain to think for yourself. You are too hung up on irrelevancies. This is why you think that a human conceptive invention of God is a real thing. You have already demonstrated to the audience that the human brain INVENTED God via an idea (according to your words above)....via an abstract conception.....and all for the purposes of assigning an emotional need to an alleged and irrational SOURCE for human beings.

Do you even realize what you are doing? I mean, I can’t spell it out for you any more simpler than that.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Darren,

“Object or concept? Seems like such a narrow minded Q,”

It is irrelevant what it “SEEMS”. It is what it is. Either a word in our language or in ANY language, resolves to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. There is NO other option....NEVER EVER EVER!!!

If you disagree and think there actually is another option.....please explain it.

“Alla is a being”

Being is a synonym for OBJECT! Did you know that??

A Muslim should be able to draw an image of Allah, especially since Mohammad allegedly saw this being.

“...and exists”

What do you MEAN by ‘exist’??? You cannot use this word unless you are able to explain exactly what you mean by it.

Exist: object having a location

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

Allah only exists if, in addition to being an object with shape, ALSO has location. Is there a static distance between Allah and your nose??

Since Allah is an alleged CREATOR of space and matter....then it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah to have location...and hence IMPOSSIBLE for Allah to exist.

Why? Because space & matter cannot be created. That is IMPOSSIBLE. I have numerous of hubs explain why in detail. Do yourself a big favor and read them.

“Would you call your wife an object?”

Let’s use my neighbor’s wife, because this is a more realistic analogy.

Since my neighbor’s wife has shape (which I really like).....then she obviously is an object.

Since there is a static distance between my neighbor’s wife and your nose, then she obviously has location.

Therefore, my neighbor’s wife exists.

Your alleged God (Allah, Jesus, or whatever) fails both of those tests for the basic definition of ‘exist’. Any and all gods are IMPOSSIBLE to exist.

“God is a being”

Yes. An OBJECT!!!!

But.....since the creation of space & matter is IMPOSSIBLE.....then God necessarily resolves to an ABSTRACT OBJECT....more succinctly, a CONCEPT!!

Therefore, God initially SEEMED to be an object....but under close scrutiny and rational analysis, God is nothing more than a mere abstract conceptual irrational idea invented by man!

You already agreed to this in your previous post: ““the word God alludes to, the source of our being!”

By your OWN ADMISSION....God is nothing but a concept invented by man. You have rationally explained that man INVENTED ALL GODS!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Darren,

Enough of your Dog & Pony Show! Before you post more of your irrational beliefs about "truth"; be it 'absolute' or otherwise....then in your next post you had better define your terms: truth, absolute. Otherwise your comments will not be read, but deleted instantly.

1) You have ALREADY CONCEDED that God is a concept, hence is impossible to exist!

2) Hence you have ALREADY CONCEDED that creation is impossible!

3) And you have ALREADY CONCEDED that 'truth' is naught but OPINION.

4) Hence your so-called 'absolute truth' is naught but one's PERSONAL OPINION.

You clearly haven't the slightest clue of what you are talking about. No wonder you have dodged all the questions posed to you, and refuse to acknowledge that your arguments and reasoning are self-refuting.

The comments section is not a place for you to post the nonsense your Pastor brainwashed you with all your life. Talking without understanding anything is only for the brain-dead congregation of your church....go it?

So here you go...if you disagree that 'absolute truth' is one's opinion, then start defining these terms without injecting OPINION into the definitions:

truth:______________

absolute:________________


Darren 5 years ago

Would you like to answer this question or should I?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Darren,

All you have to do is answer the above question by providing these definitions and you'll be on your way to deliverance and redemption.

truth:______________

absolute:________________

Any other nonsense you post is completely irrelevant to your argument.


Robotix 5 years ago

Quick summary?

"There are no true statements" = Contradiction (false)

"There are no absolute(ly true) statements" = True

The problematic word: 'absolute'. All places/times/instances definition is irrational. Thus it just becomes:

"I feel certain/confident/convinced it's true."

Belief or conviction plays no role in science. A statement is true or false, according to the rules of logic (i.e. optional, but objective). Logic always resolves to its base axioms.

Logic (inc. Modal, Quantum, Formal, Math, etc) is tautological. E.g. A=A is an axiom (fact established by definition only); not a truth.

All truths are proven. Proof is the logical/numerical process by which we discover tautological truths.

Science is NOT tautological, but rather invokes objects which (might) exist in order to explain rationally. Science doesn't prove or predict. It uses assumptions (facts, statements of facts) as part of a hypothesis.

Logic/math/philosophy = concepts

Science = objects (that exist)

Absolutes are meaningless outside of religion or philosophy.

How's that as a brief synopsis for n00blings?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

You got it Robotix. Now you see why through millenia, humans have "proven" that the Earth was flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, the flu is caused by cold temperatures, black people are not human and should be enslaved, etc, etc....

So when idiots like Hawking have already proven to us 30 years ago that the Universe must have been created by a God....and now publish a book resulting from their new calculations which prove there was never a God.....well, what should we do with these idiots? Should we decorate them with Nobel prizes and call them 'scientists'? These clowns don't even have a clue that science only explains reality - never proves it.


Chris 5 years ago

"systems of logic have no bearing on reality"

I would disagree with this

systems of logic can relate to natural language and natural language inherently reflect reality.


Chris 5 years ago

Fatfist- If truth is based on opinion than can my opinion on the truths of mathematics differ from another's?


Chris 5 years ago

Fatfist- I don't understand the term "absolute" it is saying the conformity between a proposition and reality (correspondence theory of truth) is absolute what does that mean,

perhaps the relationship is necessary, but absolute is still strange.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

"natural language inherently reflect reality"

Language has nothing to do with reality. Language is only a communication tool which can be used to EXPLAIN reality.

Reality is a binary system. There is either 'something' (object) or 'nothing' (space). Objects have shape and space lacks shape. There is no other option.

There.....I have rationally explained reality. If you disagree, then please showcase a contradiction, or offer YOUR version of reality and I will instantly showcase your contradictions....ok?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

"If truth is based on opinion than can my opinion on the truths of mathematics differ from another's?"

Mathematics is a system of logic which is defined by humans via a CONSENSUS OF OPINION of what the rules should be. This is why there are various ways of counting....various geometries....various calculus....etc.

So yes....your opinion does differ from other mathematician's opinions. Some idiots of math treat infinity as a number....while other idiots treat infinity as a metaphor. Whose truth is the right one??

Math is based on what somebody FEELS like DEFINING some rule. Then based on what they have defined, they use their system of logic to reach some conclusion. BUT...their conclusion is always dependent on their original definitions (ie. axiomatic rules).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

"I don't understand the term "absolute"

It's simple. The term 'absolute' is used as a qualifier to qualify something to be the case for "every possible circumstance".

So, to say that the Earth is a sphere is 'absolute truth', is utter nonsense. There was a circumstance when the Earth did not exist....and there will be a time when Earth will no longer exist. So the qualifier of 'absolute' is purely nonsensical....under any context.


Robotix 5 years ago

I think many people, especially those coming out of the empiricist or atheist tradition, struggle with more subtle differences in terms like: fact, statement of fact, proof, axiom, true/false, absolute, etc. I'd like perhaps to try to come up with a better lexicon of terms like these; but what do you think Maestro Fatfist? Worth another hubpage?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Yeah, robotix, sure it's worth another hubpage. Unfortunately I don't have much time to compose one right now. But I'm sure you can handle this task just fine...if you have the time that is.


Chris 5 years ago

Though I agree with you on absolutes I don't agree on your idea on truth.

(So I must repeat what I said earlier)

Take one of your statements for example.

"Truth requires a system of proof preceding its conclusion of truth"

(This implies that if some proposition is true, then that proposition must have a proof of its truth.) Do you see that implication? That every true proposition has a proof of its truth implies that all true propositions are known to be true under ideal circumstances.. where circumstances involve a proof of the relevant true proposition.

So now you are committed to a epistemic (verificationist) theory of truth.. one that says: for any true proposition P, P is true if and only if p is knowable under ideal circumstances (circumstances involving a proof that p)

Assume that it can be known that both p and it is not known that p.

Assume then, that it is in fact known that, both p and it is not known that p

It follow from the assumption that "Known" is conjunction-distributive that it is both known that p and it is known that it is not known that p.

Given that knowledge is factive, we can derive it is known that p and it is not known that p.

Contradiction.

Thus, it must be false that it is known that, both p and it is not known p.

but by the rule of necessitation, it will be necesarily false that it is known that, both p and it is not known that p.

However, necessity and possibility are duals on very weak propositional modal logics.

Thus it is not possible that is known that both p and it is not known that p.

This contradicts the firsts assumption of our informal proof that it can be known that, both p and it is not known that p.

Since P is a sentential variable of sorts, we can generalize so as to secure the result that for any proposition p, it is not the case

that both p and it is not known that p.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Chris,

“if some proposition is true, then that proposition must have a proof of its truth”

Of course! Always! Truth is a concept which is defined with a context of SOME system of logic; be it classical, intuitionist, fuzzy, tracticus, mathematics, quantum, etc. This means that its axiomatic foundation is ASSUMED to be true because it is DEFINED to be so within that system of logic. So in order to PROVE a statement to be ‘true’, we must use the axioms to DERIVE a set of steps leading to that conclusion. This derivation is called: proof. Without this implicit context of ASSUMED axioms, there is no proof, much less truth.

“That every true proposition has a proof of its truth implies that all true propositions are known to be true under ideal circumstances”

No, they are not KNOWN to be true......they are DERIVED to be true from their pre-defined axioms. All truth statements branch down from the “tree” of axioms....and this is called “the” PROOF....understand? A lot of people struggle with this basic understanding of what constitutes truth & logic & proof....I cannot fathom why it’s so difficult for everyone to grasp this. Even many university professors of philosophy & logic do not understand these basic fundamentals.

“for any true proposition P, P is true if and only if p is knowable under [provable] circumstances”

The Verificationist Theory of Truth is utter nonsense because it is contradictory!

Why?

Because truth is NEVER “knowable”. Truth has nothing to do with knowledge, authority or wisdom. Truth is ALREADY PRE-DEFINED TO BE THE CASE within its system of logic. All we ever do is DERIVE truth statements from their axiomatic trees step-by-step. This has nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE.....it has to do with reasoning out the steps of the derivation which are implicit to the axioms.

Remember....without a system of logic and its axioms in place, there is NO context for ‘truth’. And this is the reason why philosophers have been arguing for 1000 years as to what constitutes truth. They had unwittingly assumed from the get-go that the concept of ‘truth’ REVEALS reality or that it makes reality KNOWN to us. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a simplistic concept such as truth to accomplish such a formidable feat. And that’s why these idiot philosophers have invented hundreds of so-called “theories” of truth for the past 1000 years.....so they can patch-up the inadequacies of the previous theories from their peers. What a circus show....truly a dog & pony show!!


Robotix 5 years ago

["This means that its axiomatic foundation is ASSUMED to be true because it is DEFINED to be so within that system of logic. So in order to PROVE a statement to be ‘true’, we must use the axioms to DERIVE a set of steps leading to that conclusion. This derivation is called: proof. Without this implicit context of ASSUMED axioms, there is no proof, much less truth."]

Fascinating. Would you say then, that in this context "proof" is synonymous to "derivation", and that "(pre-)defined" is like saying "tautologous"? That's how I see it (e.g. A=A; tautologous, self-defined, and works as an axiom). But there might be subtle differences I'm not grasping yet.

["No, they are not KNOWN to be true... they are DERIVED to be true from their pre-defined axioms. All truth statements branch down from the “tree” of axioms....and this is called “the” PROOF"]

["Because truth is NEVER “knowable”. Truth has nothing to do with knowledge, authority or wisdom. Truth is ALREADY PRE-DEFINED TO BE THE CASE within its system of logic. All we ever do is DERIVE truth statements from their axiomatic trees step-by-step."]

So, the way I categorize it we have the following phases involved in logic:

* AXIOM; Definition, Tautology, Assumption

* TRUTH; Knowledge, "Axiom Tree"

* PROOF; Derivation, "Axiom Building"

Thanks again! :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Robotix,

Yes all truth is tautologous and its proof is derived. Without some context of axioms or rules or definitions which lay a foundation for truth, there can never be any proven truth.

Now those who claim to prove this or that outside a system of logic or outside tautologies, are nothing more than priests who are practicing Religion....just as the ones who claim to have proven God.

For example, you cannot prove that the Earth is spherical. The Earth is spherical or not irrespective of what anybody proves to be their opinion on the matter. That the earth is spherical is only a hypothesis, which can be used to provide a rational explanation of natural phenomena. Using the flat-earth hypothesis leads to contradictions in any attempt for a rational explanation.


Robotix 5 years ago

Wonderful, thank you.

Did you agree overall with my basic categorizations (some terms are almost logically synonymous) I posted above?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Robotix,

Yes, but I would say that the axiom derivation tree is synonymous with proof. It leads from one point in our assumptions, to another point (hopefully the conclusion) in our logical analysis. And each step in this analysis is reducible to the axioms which are used within context. So as we can see, proof without pre-defined axioms is nonsensical.

So now....who would like to prove to the audience that they have a left arm? It's funny to watch people squirm thru this :-)

Funnier still....is watching the idiots of Relativity attempt to prove using math that space and time bends and stretches like bubblegum. Hilarious!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Hey fatfist when are you going to write an article about evolution being based on pseudoscience. I was having fun with some Atheist with believing in the Big Bang and Evolution. He mentioned the bacteria story, in which bacteria has adopted to their enviroment blah blah but they remain bacteria and then I ask, when are they going to turn to Pigs with wings. And everyone got mad at me. They called me a Creationist and I said to them that I really dont know where we came from or how we got here but if there is an intelligent designer His Name is DNA. AKA GOD


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

The funny thing is that most atheists are no different than religionists. They accuse the Christians of being creationists, but at least Christians believe in a real physical God who is a man with big balls and huge weenie. The atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE in creatio ex nihilo, where a 0D nothingness started to vibrate and give birth to matter. And the only reason they believe this nonsense is because their favorite priest (Stephen Hawking) outright declared it so.

The Christians are far more rational when we take both of these positions at face value. But upon further examination, we find that creation under any context is completely impossible.....and only matter can be eternal. Hence both positions get thrown in the trash.

So evolution is a natural consequence of eternal matter going through various phases of motion, assembly and disassembly. Anybody who wishes to debate against this will instantly make himself look like a fool. So the evolution debate is really just a circus show which showcases the ignorance of BOTH sides of the debate. The root of the issue is predicated on whether matter can be created or not; including self-creation, as our feeble-minded atheists propose.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."

Richard Dawkins

"Fatfist and Winston had been observed benching 4,000 It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening".

The Kid

Scientific Method at it's best.


Robotix 5 years ago

What's the beef with Evolution? (Genuinely curious. I read On the Origin of Species and thought it was pretty darn good.)


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

It lacks scientific Method buddy. Is just speculation just like the Holy Big Bang theory.

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."

Richard Dawkins

I love this quote lol.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Robotix, the problem is not with evolution. The problem is with idiot atheists using evolution to show that there is no God. One has no relevance to the other, as we can see by the Catholic church who has decreed that God decided to evolve the species.....but the Protestants say that God created man from His image, as per the Bible. So even Christians are arguing with each other about evolution.

And to make matters worse, we have idiots like Richard Dawkins who wants to make money from the popularity of atheism by writing books on Evolution for the purposes of showcasing that there is no God. Dawkins does not understand what the word Universe even means.....for if he did, he would be able to explain why evolution has nothing to do with the God Argument and the lack of a God, but instead, it has to do with the natural processes of eternal matter.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

The problem to me seems to be that the atheist relies on proof, and thus unwittingly steps into the province of philosophy and religion with induction and opinions.

As soon as you require non-ambiguous definitions for key terms, all controversy ends, both with the atheist and the religionist. The atheist cannot explain energy or 0D particles, while the religionist has no position without a 0D spirt god who can affect the material world.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Well said, Winston.


Chris 5 years ago

I see you have a trouble with the concept of truth. The correspondence theory is the best and most sensical description of truth. Propositions conform with reality. I can point you to a good dissertation which defends this description.

http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/research.html

And check out the first one which is called:

"What propositions correspond to and how they do it"


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

fatfist chris called you a liar and you dont know what you talking about just like AKA Winston.

I agreed with chris.

Prometheuskid = Devil's Advocate


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(fatfist chris called you a liar and you dont know what you talking about just like AKA Winston. I agreed with chris. Prometheuskid = Devil's Advocate)

The score now stands at Chris and Prometheuskid +2, AKA Winston and Fatfist +2.

Dang. We need a tiebreaker or none of us will ever know the real truth.

AKA Winston = Smart Ass


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist AKA Winston is being mean. Banned him from the hub.


Socrates 5 years ago

Would scienctific rules (or "laws) such as:

'Matter cannot convert to space and vice versa' (B.Gaede)

... be an example of an "absolute" statement about reality, though (all times, places, instances)? Or simply something which is EXPLAINED via assumptions, and definitions?

Thank you in advance!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

We must remember that a "truth" necessarily requires an observer to use their sensory system to make an observation and then declare as a statement of "truth" what they perceived. Then along comes another person who cannot perceive the same, and thus declares that truth statement to be a total lie. So who is right?

Reality is not concerned with people who dogmatically declare themselves to be right or wrong. All truths (except tautologies) are restricted to the declarations of an observer who makes a sensory observation. Hence truth has nothing to do with reality. Whether the moon exists or not, or whether it moves or not, has nothing to do with truth or what someone senses. It has to do with the rational definitions of ‘exist’ and ‘motion’.

That matter cannot convert to space has nothing to do with truth. The Religion of Quantum dogmatically decrees that matter can indeed convert to space and vice versa. So do we take this statement to be TRUE on faith alone? Don’t we ask the Priests of Quantum any further questions? Shouldn’t we ask them to explain in detail exactly HOW matter can be converted into space??

Sadly, our brain-dead educational system is no different than a Religious Seminary. We are told to never question authority, just like our grandmothers told us to never question the Pastor during Sunday Service while he was speaking in tongues.

That matter CAN convert to space is a statement of rational explanation....not of truth. This means that the claimant has to first define “matter” and “space”....and then explain to the audience exactly how matter loses its shape...how it loses length, width, and height and gets converted to nothing.

Hence, that matter CANNOT be converted to space is a rational statement which showcases the ontological contradiction of the initial CLAIM. This is a statement of NEGATION of the positive claim. This is NOT a claim by any stretch of the imagination. Consequently, this is NOT a statement of “truth”, absolute, relative, or otherwise.


Socrates 5 years ago

Right, that makes a lot of sense to me, thanks man.

So, when people talk about "truths" in terms of objects (reality), then at BEST what they actually mean (or should say) is "rational conclusion" or "reasonable supposition".

And it also makes sense to me now re: Gaede's First Rule. Because what he's saying is rational based upon the constructed hypothesis and theory.

So... then a "rule" is a "principle" (generalization), which is invoked (assumed?) in order to add credence to an explanation. It's like a rational blueprint or framework to build upon, rather than an unchallengeable dogma.

Excellent! (Although please do correct/confirm anything you see fit).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

“So, when people talk about "truths" in terms of objects (reality), then at BEST what they actually mean (or should say) is "rational conclusion" or "reasonable supposition".

As you know, most of what exists out there is invisible to the EM spectrum bandwidth response of our vision. So how can we possibly make any statement about atom interactions, light, magnetism, gravity, etc., when we can’t even SEE how these phenomena occur?

Well, we certainly cannot make statements of “truth”. One man’s truth is another man’s lie.

The best we can do is to use the Scientific Method to hypothesize an object or a set of objects which mediate these phenomena in nature. Our Hypothesis will tell the audience what objects we propose to be the ACTORS for these phenomena. We can certainly illustrate these objects on the blackboard. And of course, our Hypothesis will outline all the definitions of our dissertation (ie. space, exist, object, etc) so that there is no confusion of exactly what we are talking about. Then in our Theory, we will rationally explain how these objects perform the phenomena we know as light, gravity, etc.

We should be able to make a MOVIE showing how these objects mediate natural phenomena. If we cannot make a movie showing exactly how the Earth is attracted to the Sun when it is pelted by alleged Gravitons, then all we have is an irrational and meaningless claim.

So the objects form a rational hypothesis of what we can reasonably expect to exist out there in nature. The Theory rationally explains exactly HOW these objects mediate the phenomena. It is impossible to know EXACTLY with CERTAINTY what the object of our Hypothesis looks like which mediates these phenomena. The best we can ever hope to do is hypothesize and theorize.....and we do this rationally.

“So... then a "rule" is a "principle" (generalization), which is invoked (assumed?) in order to add credence to an explanation.”

By “rule”, Gaede means a rational statement which is not contradictory. Once we establish and fully understand exactly WHY matter (something) cannot lose its shape and convert into space (nothing), then we can build rational hypotheses and theories. Again we must understand that is not a CLAIM made by Gaede. The claim is posited by the individual who positively asserts that matter can indeed convert to space. And the onus is on them to rationally explain this process....otherwise it is meaningless and not even worth discussing.....and it’s certainly not science.


Socrates 5 years ago

Right. So, if I understand correctly:

* A rule, principle or "law" is a rational general statement about reality

* An ambiguous or baseless statement about reality is a claim (syn: assertion?)

A valid rule then (like Gaede's), is NOT like a rule in formal logic, but rather a reasoned (i.e. rational) statement based upon consistent (objective) definitions.

So with logic it's strictly tautological, but the only thing like a "tautology" in science comes with the definitions and only then — as I understand it — because we attach words to objects (a "tree" is a "tree (shape)"). But the objects *themselves* do not behave according to rules.

Hmmm, interesting. So within Reason, there are two distinct "modes" of thought: Rationality (e.g. explanations), and Logic (e.g. If/Then). Both use cause and effect but very differently.

Very interesting stuff.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Hmmm, interesting. So within Reason, there are two distinct "modes" of thought: Rationality (e.g. explanations), and Logic (e.g. If/Then). Both use cause and effect but very differently.

Plato

But logic and rationality are the same.


Socrates 5 years ago

Not sure what you meant, there PtK?


Chris 5 years ago

And for the people who say that proposition are spatial things, i.e., brain states, sentence tokens, etc. There is a good reductio for that:

(1) Assume SPATIAL is true.

(2) If SPATIAL is true, then it is necessary that SPATIAL is true.

(3) Therefore, it is necessary that SPATIAL is true.

(4) Necessarily, whatever is true exists.

(5) Therefore, it is necessary that SPATIAL exists [By the distribution axiom: ?(A?B) ? (?A??B), where A = “SPATIAL is true”, B = “SPATIAL exists”].

(6) No sentence token or brain state (or sum of them) necessarily exists.

(7) Therefore, SPATIAL is not a sentence token or a brain state (or sum of them).

(8) More generally, the sorts of spatial things that might be conceived to be necessary are not themselves propositions (as no such thing exhibits any proposition-like properties).

(9) Therefore, SPATIAL is not spatial, which is a contradiction.


Chris 5 years ago

Truth does not require an observer,either some proposition is true or no, regardless of whther or not there are any observers.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Chris,

"either some proposition is true or no, regardless of whther or not there are any observers"

Ummmmmmm.....Chris....you do realize that propositions stem ONLY from observers, don't you?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Prometheus,

Logic and rationality are not the same.

Logic is necessarily predicated/dependent upon some pre-defined system of axioms which set the base rules for an if/then type of tautological analysis.

Rational thought is predicated upon reality, Mother Nature’s realm, which is objective and can only be critically reasoned by humans. It is not based on artificial axiomatic rules which apply only to a specific domain of thought. It is based on the realization that the universe consists of either SOMETHING (that which has shape), or NOTHING (that which doesn’t). There is NO conceivable middle ground between shape and no-shape, or any other option.....ever! This is reality, and this is what the word RATIONAL is predicated upon. What is rational is not subject to someone’s opinion.


Socrates 5 years ago

What on EARTH is Chris blabbering on about?!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

Actually, Chris doesn't have the slightest clue of what he is talking about. He just comes here to parrot 1200 year old arguments which have been debunked during their inception. And if he throws in some logical gibberish into his posts...well, I guess it looks authoritative enough for most people to swallow.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist you dont scare me anymore I have a new hero and his name is Carl Sagan he has crenditials you have none.

Carl Sagen crenditials

Cornell University

Harvard University

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

University of California, Berkeley

Fatfist crenditials

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDb3WHRt3Q&feature...

I am a Cretionist/Christian/BigBangBeliever/Hindu.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Chris in one of his posts seemed so very close to grasping what Fatfist is saying but he still seems to not understand that truth is not a thing (an object).

It is probably not his fault but that of all those philosophy courses he took in school. I don't dispute his knowledge of logic - but he doesn't grasp that logic by its nature is subjective - without sentient beings, logic is stillborn.

Objects....they don't need us.


Socrates 5 years ago

Thanks again fellas for the input.

Winston, curious: I would have thought logic was OBJECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE, but still tied to the domain of logic (concepts)?

Maybe I misunderstand the term objective/subjective and some of Fatfist's excellent articles. But to me logic is objective because it can be, by its nature, used consistently or rigorously (strictly). Which doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality of course.

I'm not totally convinced, it's just I thought "subjective" would be like someone stating a preference ("I liek ice cream") or talking about something unverifiable, like "That dream last night was about a sexy lady" and so on.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Socrates,

Once again definition is at a premium. When I use the word "objective" it means "observer independent", and thus "subjective" equates to "observer dependent". By these definitions, logic must be subjective as there is no logic without a sentient being to think up the rules - logic itself is dependent upon an observer.

Objects, however, don't care or need my rules or axioms. Objects are truly objective - observer independent.


Winston 5 years ago

Right, thanks for that excellent clarification.

Another query then, just so I can get my hrad around it:

If logic is indeed tautologous, i.e. pre-defined rulesets or "binary" syllogisms, etc; isn't a logical syllogism true or false RELATIVE to an observer (human mind), rather than subjective?

I'm thinking there are various layers here, i.e. something roughly like:

* Objective & rational (scientific): dealing with reality & explanations (of objects, existence)

* Objective & logical (philosophical): dealing with concepts

* Subjective (informal or colloquial): preferences, opinions, beliefs, conclusions, poetry, etc

(Maybe I could break it down further into sub-categories.) Help me correct my thinking here?!

:)


Socrates 5 years ago

Apologies, that was me, Socrates replying to you (@Winston). I accidentally put your name thinking I was writing a Tweet! :D


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Socrates,

It depends on the audience and your intentions. As Fatfist has pointed out repeatedly in all his writing, if we are trying to make a scientific presentation then the key terms must be defined so that they are unambiguous.

You can use the terms subjective and objective as relatives, but that does not make those words unambiguous, as the decision of whether or not to accept the axiomatic underpinnings of is still based on choice.

Object: that which has shape

Space: that which has no shape

Exist: having shape and location

These definitions are unambiguous - they require no decisions.

Same with objective, subjective.

Your proposition of relative to an observer requires an observer - by my definition it must be subjective.

It is subjective because it requires the observer - take the observer away from your question and the syllogism does not exist (the syllogism is a concept, i.e., it does not have shape + location) So the whole question is moot.

The key issue is to realize that the syllogism does not exist without the sentient brain. The only way it could exist would be to posit an eternal brain - i.e., the brain of an eternal god who would then have to have shape + location(an object) or else he would be nothing (space.).


Socrates 5 years ago

So would you say it is SUBJECTIVE, therefore, that "two plus two equals four"? Or would we not say that it equals four OBJECTIVELY because it is defined as such (factual; tautologous)?

Having read much of Gaede's work, I'd (perhaps mistakenly) been accustomed to thinking that "objectively" meant simply that we DEFINED (i.e. restricted the usage of) words rigorously enough that they can be used consistently in communication (i.e. so that others MAY understand). To me, this surely includes logical systems as — even if they don't deal with reality/existence.

However, when I think about your definitions it makes sense too, because the entire etymology of object(ive) alludes to objects *themselves* (observer independent) rather than subject(ive), i.e. dependent upon a subject (human).

Sorry to be a pain in the balls... I just find asking such questions helps me to understand things better each time. Thanks again.


Socrates 5 years ago

*** TYPO *** "logical systems as well — even ..."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

That 2+2=4 is not something that we can classify as either objective or subjective. We classify this as being DEFINED as such. Nature cannot count. Nature knows no numbers. Nature could care less if the universe was comprised of 1 atom or gazillions of atoms. The only thing that nature does is ensure that all atoms have shape and location and they cannot magically lose shape and be converted to nothing; and vice versa.

Mathematics is a logical system of conceptual relations that is founded upon its axiomatic rules. It can be used as a TOOL to establish RELATIONS between objects or between concepts (like infinites for example). Math is a tool to REPRESENT our ideas and DESCRIBE them.

Neither maths nor any type of logical system can ever have the power to magically conclude to us anything about reality. Reality can never be asserted or dogmatically concluded via any syllogisms or derivation steps. Reality can only be explained rationally.

Proofs about how reality was CREATED are a dime a dozen. Half of them PROVE that reality was created by God....the other half PROVE that reality created itself. One man's proof is another person's lie. How long do we continue to play these childish games of proof??

It's about time we wake up and hold people accountable for their CLAIMS. If an idiot cannot explain to you exactly how the void (nothing) can magically acquire shape and turn into an object (something)...then this idiot's brain is on crack. And if this idiot continues to tell you that space (nothing) was CREATED from the void (nothing), then this clown needs to be institutionalized in an insane asylum.

The first thing we ask a claimant is to DEFINE their terms so we can understand what they are talking about. If their definitions turn out to be synonyms or they are contradictory, then we know that this idiot is on the crack pipe!


Socrates 5 years ago

So, would you say that there's no "perfectly" objective criterion overall? In other words; that shape is the best we have relative to other discernable, subjective, or other *perceived* properties (e.g. size, colour)?

All other properties seemingly reduce to shape (architecture) eventually — so shape must be the way to go. Yet it remains imperfect in terms of our communication just because we have to communicate WHICH shape it is we're talking about (e.g. my crappy cuboid drawing — it's wobbly or whatever).

BUT... then shape ITSELF (NOT the specific TYPE of shape) is still what's objective, no?

And we only DEDUCE that this must be the case rationally, because our perception of shapes (sight) renders an unfortunate layer of subjectivity.

E.g.:

|| COLOUR -> Wavelength -> Objects ("waves") measured *relative* to other objects

|| SIZE -> Object measured *relative* to other objects

Whereas:

|| OBJECT = SHAPE

So we skip through any subjective intermediary layers and hypothesize objects directly using their one true property of shape?

I think I'm getting it!


Socrates 5 years ago

Lastly, would you say that there are therefore three categories into which we can place any statement? E.g.:

* Objective (externally consistent, i.e. science)

* Subjective (relative to)

* Tautologous (internally consistent)

If so, perhaps we could finally give the naughty word "absolute" its rightful place in the scheme of things (syn: universal; or bound by artificial human concepts). Basically so that there's a new category to put statements beyond mere whim or arbitrary opinion (like a fool arguing that 2+2=7 just because he likes it, or whatever), but recognises the validity of logical systems due to their internal, if artificial, frames of reference (tautologies).

"Relative to" artificial constructs, perhaps — but not subjective; as subjective would mean relative to anything outside of one's own reference frame ("ice cream is really tasty", "that object looks red", etc).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

“shape is the best we have relative to other discernable, subjective, or other *perceived* properties (e.g. size, colour)?”

Shape is the only intrinsic property that an object has. If the universe consisted of a single object, that object would still have ‘shape’, but it wouldn’t have any other property, like mass, color, weight, etc.

In order to 'have' size and color, you need to experience the object....you need a sentient observer to perform an activity, to measure, quantify, and define a system of abstract concepts which support this system of quantification which based on RELATING one concept with another.

Shape differs from such attributes in that it is stealthily independent of observers. Shape is not what the observer visualizes, but an intrinsic property of an object. Shape is a very particular attribute that refers to the inability of matter to interface with space. Another name for it is SPATIAL SEPARATION. Space does not really ‘contain’ or ‘restrict’ an object. Space does not ‘mold’ shape because space is nothing. There is no struggle for encroachment between matter and space because space doesn’t offer battle. They are of two radically different natures. An object has no possibility of interacting with space because space does not possess a surface. From the observer’s perspective, space gives form to and contours the Moon like the ocean seemingly gives shape to a fish.

“we have to communicate WHICH shape it is we're talking about (e.g. my crappy cuboid drawing — it's wobbly or whatever).”

No. We are not asking “What is the shape of the object”. We are only asking “Does the object have shape”. Does this alleged object (ie. quantum particle, photon, electron, proton, black hole, dark matter, energy, time, space, singularity, God, angel, Devil, Jesus, etc.) have spatial separation? This is all that we are asking. It is the most simple & powerful question one can ask.

All objects have spatial separation regardless of any observers being present to give their opinion about it.

We can objectively say; and without contradiction; that the universe consists of ‘something’ separated by ‘nothing’.....there is no other option. Existence is spatially separated.....that which exists must have shape, form, boundary....

“And we only DEDUCE”

We NEVER deduce nor induce......only people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about will deduce that space is warped and the Earth rolls round the Sun. We call these mathematical clowns: Relativists. They are patients in the Math Asylum.

A real scientist will only DEFINE the key words of his dissertation and rationally EXPLAIN his position without contradicting himself in the process. That ‘space’ is something that can expand, bend, warp, etc. as idiot Relativists would have you believe, is beyond lunacy.....waaaaaay beyond!

It is impossible for space be ‘something’....space is not an object. Space lacks shape. Space has no boundary.....for if it did...then WHAT is outside this alleged boundary??


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

That MILF is not bad at all. And she appears to have nice breasts. A little makeup would make her look a lot nicer. Thanks Prometheus!!!!!


Socrates 5 years ago

By deduce, I was using this definition:

"Verb: Arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion."

E.g. shape is the only objective property we can attribute to objects, logically speaking (as opposed to guesswork).


Socrates 5 years ago

>

Gotcha. That's very helpful, thank you!


Socrates 5 years ago

Crikey, apparently if you use "


Socrates 5 years ago

Sorry, there are certain symbols which are breaking my text. Grrr. I meant to say that the following was very helpful:

[quote]

We are not asking “What is the shape of the object”. We are only asking “Does the object have shape”. Does this alleged object have spatial separation?

All objects have spatial separation regardless of any observers being present to give their opinion about it.

[/quote]

Thank you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Socrates,

"shape is the only objective property we can attribute to objects, logically speaking (as opposed to guesswork)."

Again, you need to jump into a rational way of thinking. You need to let go of all this lingo having to do with systems of logic (deduce, logical, truth, proof, etc.). All systems of logic are based on deducing from conceptual relations which are based on rules (axioms).

It is impossible for systems of logic to draw any conclusions about reality because they only deal with conceptual relations....and not with real objects.

Logic is only useful in DESCRIBING after the fact....that is, after the EXPLANATION. The scientific method is based on explanations. Logic is only descriptive....and has no ability help us make any conclusions about reality, like what is light, gravity, magnetism, etc.....or whether or not creation of space and matter is possible or not.

That objects have shape has nothing to do with logic.....it has to do with critical thinking. Shape is realized when we reason that the universe is composed of 'something' wrapped by 'nothing'.....which we call spatial separation. And there is no in-between shape and no-shape, nor any other option.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Truth is that which has been found from a sound argument to be a logical necessity of a particular system of logic.

Aka Winston


Jeshurun 4 years ago

Fatfish

you are digging to deep there.

How can you list a set of FACTS and in the same discussion truthfully declare there are no absolute truths? Who would not trust the facts from someone who thinks truth changes over time and is relative to different situations?

If the 'truth' you are talking about is truly fact that cannot be altered, then it is absolute, or unchanging, fixed.

I find it hard to believe that you laugh at those who rightfully say that "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement and therefore contrary.

By pulling out your examples about 'truth' in context of the English language you are limiting this natural phenomenon which is true to all people of all times.

By declaring that you need a mind to comprehend truth, i agree, however you say that as a fact, hence a truth again.

You cannot expect your 'Facts' to be taken seriously if you yourself are doubtful about absolute Facts.

FACT is that there are FACTS.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jeshurun,

"I find it hard to believe that you laugh at those who rightfully say that "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement and therefore contrary."

Well, let's see if your statement has any merit....

Please define the word "truth" in an objective manner. If you cannot do this, then I hope you understand that the word truth is naught but opinion.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

It's been slow in the hubs fatfist what to do?


El Dude 4 years ago

What does it mean to be objective?

Like I was arguing with a philosopher that values were subjective not absolute. He was saying that they were objective because even saying all values are subjective is an objective value statement.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

"What does it mean to be objective?"

Without opinion. This means that your definition should be OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT. If it depends on an observer, then his biases are implicit in the definition. Objective definitions can be used consistently and unambiguously across all contexts.

"philosopher...was saying that [values] were objective"

Ask him to define the term which makes or breaks his argument..i.e. "values". Then both you and him will know whether it is objective (as he alleges) or not.

"He was saying that they were objective because even saying all values are subjective is an objective value statement."

Total idiocy!!!!!

He is not a philosopher...he is a PRIEST!!!

That "all values are objective" is a grammatically correct statement, and NOT on objective statement. Objectivity has nothing to do with propositional statements....it has to do with DEFINITIONS. A proposition is nothing but an ASSERTION. And assertions are neither objective nor subjective....they are either rational or irrational.

That so-called philosopher is nothing but a Sunday School Priest who is looking for gullible boys to fondle their brains.


El Dude 4 years ago

Thank you.

So, there are two issues? That he (1) didn't define "values" and (2) there is no implicit contradiction until he does.

And so, was I correct in saying that values are subjective? BY values I meant, you know, like preferences and desires and such. Also, the rules which we choose to live by (for example, for me it's 'do no harm to people', to others it might be 'go to church' or whatever).

Thanks again. This hub's fun.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

"And so, was I correct in saying that values are subjective? BY values I meant, you know, like preferences and desires and such. Also, the rules which we choose to live by"

Of course they are subjective. They are all based on our personal tastes...ie. opinion! Values are beliefs and/or actions which depend on a human to use his cognitive ability to decide what caters to him and his family, friends, etc. Rules are made by humans, again, by using the subjective opinions/tastes of their psyche.


Matt Slick 4 years ago

I would assert that the following is absolute truth.

"It is always morally wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.” (TBMP: Torture Babies Merely for personal Pleasure)

The statement is either true or it is not true – which itself implies an absolute truth.

If it is not true that ‘the statement is either true or not true’, then how would you demonstrate that the statement is or is not true?

If you say that it is not true that ‘the statement is either true or not true’, then you are asserting an absolute truth about the statement.

If you assert that the statement is not absolutely true, then you would need to demonstrate that it is not true.

To do this, you would need to provide an absolute truth to the contrary where it would be morally right for you to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. But to do this is to assert an absolute truth.

If you do try and prove the statement false, you are advocating the torture of babies merely you’re your personal pleasure. Are you absolutely sure this what you want to do in order to deny absolute truth?

If, however, you provide a statement that proves the TBMP is false, then you are establishing an absolute truth; namely, that it is absolutely true that there is a condition in which it is morally right for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.

However, if you cannot provide a falsification for the statement, then the statement stands as being an absolute truth.

If you say that there are no moral truths by which the assertion can be validated or falsified, then you are offering an absolute truth that there are no moral truths by which the assertion can be validated or falsified and this refutes your position.

If you say that the statement is ridiculous, illogical, stupid, or isn’t a proper subject of examination, then you are admitting you cannot refute it…because if you could, you would.

http://www.carm.org


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Matt,

"It is always morally wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure”

Morals are opinions. They are subject to one’s personal taste...i.e. YOU are judging the behavior of another..hence subjective..i.e. opinion. What is morally RIGHT for you,..is morally WRONG for your neighbor. Morality is resolved through consensus of opinion.

“The statement is either true or it is not true”

So you are qualifying opinions/morals as either ‘true’ or ‘not true’??

In that case your definition of the word “truth” (which you have yet to provide) would be subjective, as it resolves to nothing but OPINION. Your use of the concept of “truth” requires an observer to make a decision based upon their personal taste on the issue at hand.

But Matt, you are welcome to provide an OBJECTIVE definition for the word “truth” so the audience understands what YOU are talking about whenever you invoke this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument.

“which itself implies an absolute truth.”

No. It implies an ABSOLUTE OPINION, as per your statements above. All you’ve said so far is that “truth” and “morals” are synonyms for “opinion”.

But please feel free to enlighten the audience by providing an objective definition for “truth”. This would allow you to instantly resolve this issue.

“If you say that the statement is ridiculous, illogical, stupid, or isn’t a proper subject of examination, then you are admitting you cannot refute it…”

Nahhh....haven’t said any of that, and they are irrelevant to the instant issue. Your argument for “absolute truth” is self-refuting because it is predicated on truth = opinion.

But you are welcome to show otherwise.....just define the term which makes or breaks your argument, ok?

Truth: ___________________


Matt Slick 4 years ago

If you say that morals are just opinions, then you are only giving your opinion that morals are just opinions which is the fallacy of begging the questions and does not refute TBMP. In addition, to say that morals are just opinions, is an absolute statement since it must mean that all morals are just opinions and this would imply a universal truth (which against refutes the idea that there are not absolute truths). If it were not true that morals were opinions, then TBMP is true (unless you can prove it false) and refutes the idea that there are not truth absolutes. Furthermore, to state that morals are just opinions is to say that the morality of TBMP is only up to someone’s opinion and you’d be supporting the idea that due to a person’s subjective moral code, it would be morally good for him to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. Is this what you want to advocate?

As far as what truth is, there are different appeals: coherence theory, correspondence theory, concensus theory, liguistic theory. So, instead of debating what truth really is (Red Herring), tells us all what YOU believe truth is and I will work with that.

www.carm.org/atheism


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Matt,

“If you say that morals are just opinions....”

No! It is YOU and YOUR argument which is saying that morals are opinions. What is morally “right” to you, is morally “wrong” to somebody else. Which part don’t you understand?

All I have to do is find one person who disagrees with your TBMP statement; one whose tastes are different than yours; one whose morals are different than yours. And since his morals are DIFFERENT than yours, then who is right and who is wrong?

Q: What objective means do you use to resolve this?

A: There are no objective means....everyone’s morals are different. This means that your TBMP statement can only possibly be resolved to that of one’s OPINION, and nothing else.

If you disagree, then please DEFINE this crucial term (morals) which makes or breaks your argument. Then we’ll BOTH know whether your definition resolves to opinion or not, ok? Here you go.....

Morals:_________________

“then you are only giving your opinion that morals are just opinions which is the fallacy of begging the questions”

No. This is your fallacy. You are using “circular reasoning” and surreptitiously making an “argument from ignorance” in the hopes that the audience won’t notice. But you fool no one. Whether the concept of MORALS resolves to OPINION or not, is objectively settled when the proponent of the argument (i.e. YOU) DEFINES this crucial term to show that morals are resolved without injecting the opinion/subjectivity of a human observer....got it? I already explained to you that your TBMP statement may be morally right for you, but completely rejected as wrong by another person. This means that YOUR use (i.e. operational definition) of the term “morals” in YOUR argument is predicated upon OPINION, and OPINION alone! Which part are you having trouble with? Tell me and I’ll explain it to you with the luxury of detail.

“to say that morals are just opinions, is an absolute statement”

No. This is your strawman. Circular reasoning and fancy logical sophistry ain’t gonna help you here. This has nothing to do with what I say. This issue is resolved objectively. This is an issue of DEFINITIONS, and DEFINITIONS only!! The term “morals” is a concept. All concepts are defined. This is the only objective criterion by which you can resolve this issue right here and right now.

READ MY LIPS: Whether morals = opinions or not, is an issue that is objectively settled by DEFINING the key term which makes or breaks YOUR argument. This term which YOU must define is “morals”.....and the onus is on YOU to show the audience that YOUR definition of morals does NOT resolve to one’s personal taste/subjectivity/opinion/etc. So here you go.....

Morals:_________________

“since it must mean that all morals are just opinions and this would imply a universal truth”

No. You are missing the boat. This is NOT an issue of truth, lies, beliefs, etc. This is an issue that falls squarely on the DEFINITION of the key term which makes or breaks your argument: morals.

And btw....your operational definition of the term TRUTH also resolves to OPINION, as I explained to you in my last post. And you have yet to objectively define “truth”.

“Furthermore, to state that morals are just opinions is to say that the morality of TBMP is only up to someone’s opinion”

Exactly! This is exactly what YOUR argument resolves to. If you would like YOUR argument to state otherwise, all you have to do is DEFINE “morals” objectively, where this term does NOT resolve to someone’s personal taste/subjectivity/opinion/etc. So here you go.....

Morals:_________________

“and you’d be supporting the idea that due to a person’s subjective moral code, it would be morally good for him to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. Is this what you want to advocate?”

What I support and what I advocate is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this argument. Subjectivity plays no role here. Arguments should be objective and not invoke the opinions of observers. Arguments from opinion, authority, popularity, red herrings, you toos or me toos, etc....shall not divert the proponent’s responsibility from demonstrating to the audience that their DEFINITION of their key term (morals) does not resolve to one’s opinion.....especially since their operational use of this term thus far has demonstrated the opposite.

Matt: “As far as what truth is, there are different appeals: coherence theory, correspondence theory, concensus theory, liguistic theory.”

Matt: “tells us all what YOU believe truth is and I will work with that.”

So you don’t know what “truth” is, huh? How can somebody make an argument which is predicated on this crucial term (truth, absolute truth, etc.) and not be able to objectively define it?

And asking me what I BELIEVE truth is....is irrelevant to this argument. This is not an issue of belief or opinion. This is an objective issue....an issue of objective DEFINITIONS. Otherwise, how is the audience supposed to understand what you are talking about whenever you invoke this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument?

I will stick with your original use of this term “truth”, which resolves to opinion. What is “true” for you, is a “lie” to someone else. Truth is observer-dependent. You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

TRUTH = OPINION.

But you are free to show the audience otherwise....here you go...objectively define the crucial terms which make or break your argument:

Truth: ______________

Morals: _____________


El Dude 4 years ago

I'm betting he'll avoid definitions again!


Matt Slick 4 years ago

It is obvious that you don't have the money to pony up. Therefore, you're going to continue to ignore the facts, ignore absolute truth, and say whatever you have to say in order to bolster your opinion.

It is YOUR argument that says morals are opinions. Not mine. I don't believe that all morals are opinions. Now, if you want to call me on my radio show sometime so we can have a live discussion on this, I would be quite happy to engage you, www.carm.org/radio

Finding someone who disagrees with TBMP isn't the issue. It'd be like someone disagreeing with the concept that 2+2=4 and saying "See, I proved you wrong!

Someone disagrees with you." Finding a hypothetical individual doesn't refute the argument. But, if you think it does, then produce such an individual. Back it up.

Of course, you assume absolute truths in your arguments at various points in order to try and make logical statements. You assume the validity of logical inference, the axiomatic truth of the law of identity, and you presuppose the validity of to the law of non-contradiction, etc..Of course, the law of excluded middle is something you probably don't realize you are validating over and over again.

NOW...In order for you to argue rationally, logically, you have to assume the validity of the absolute truths of logic by which proper discourse can occur: 1) The Law of Identity, 2) The Law of Non-Contradiction, 3) The Law of Excluded Middle, and 4) The Law of Proper Inference. If you want to argue that these laws are not absolute truths, then I have two things for you. First, if you deny the absolute truth of the logical axioms upon which proper discourse is based, then upon what non-absolute/relative principles do you base your attempt at logical discourse? Second, if you were to deny the absolute truths of the logical absolutes upon which proper logical discourse is made, then I offer following sentence for your viewing pleasure, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."

Of course absolute truth exists. You have presupposed the absolutes of logical truths upon which logical discourse is built when you've tried to argue against absolute truth! You are self refuting! If you want to deny the logical absolutes exist, then...well.... again, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."

Where's my money?

Matt Slick

www.carm.org


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Matt Slick,

“ignore absolute truth.... you assume absolute truths.....absolute truth........absolute truth........absolute truth.....blah blah “

Ummmm.....what do you mean by “truth”. Unless you define this crucial term which makes or breaks YOUR argument, you’ve said nothing! All you’ve said so far is...”absolute X”....totally meaningless without a definition, agree?

“It is YOUR argument that says morals are opinions.”

No! It is YOUR argument on your INITIAL POST....you are on the record....go and re-read it....I have explained it to you many times. You gloss over the fine points and then end up chasing strawmen....and round and round in circles you go!

But YES, I concede that I AGREE with YOUR operational use of morals as opinions. You have not shown otherwise in any of your posts. You CANNOT even define this simple term. No wonder you haven’t the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

Morals is a concept that was conceived by religionists – i.e. human observers.

Whenever a human observer, like a theist (and a stupid atheist too) renders a decision regarding their PERSONAL standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is, and is not acceptable for THEM to do in their lives....they will attribute this to their “morals”. What is personal to each person is SUBJECTIVE. What is morally right for you, is morally wrong for your neighbour. Ergo.....MORALS = OPINION!!!

Please cut and paste here ANY definition of “morals” from any source, your BIBLES, even from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy....you will instantly see that morals resolves to an individual’s OPINION. Please....be my guest....

READ MY LIPS: It is impossible to objectively decide who is right and who is wrong in one’s personal choice for a standard of behavior/beliefs (i.e. morals)....got it?

Which part are you having trouble understanding??

Morality was invented by religion. Morality is an OPINION! Raping a baby and killing it is NOT immoral. It simply IS! It's an event that happened. It's an objective fact. Mother Nature cleans her ass with our opinions about the event. All she sees is some atoms that are no longer struggling against gravity (i.e. dead body). You put too much emphasis on the 'opinion' side and assign little weight to the 'fact' side.

“I don't believe that all morals are opinions”

Who gives a rat’s behind what you or anyone else BELIEVES or doesn’t believe? This is an OBJECTIVE issue...not an OPINION (i.e. belief) as you constantly gravitate towards.

This is not an issue of belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, opinions or proof, testimony or evidence, like or dislike. This is an issue of rational definitions. I have already defined “morals” for you. If you don’t like my rational definition, then you are free to offer YOUR rational definition, ok?

I have already explained to you what morals are......you haven’t offered anything to support your counter-argument. All you’ve said so far is:

“Duh...well....I don’t like it when you say that morals are subjective to an individual.....I don’t want them to be the same as opinions.....and therefore what I say stands....so says I”.

“if you want to call me on my radio show sometime so we can have a live discussion on this”

Why? Are you too ashamed to put your responses on the record here on HP, where they are instantly accessible by Google and its affiliates? A radio show comes and goes. Here, our conversation is instantly and permanently accessible via search engines.....it even gets prioritized to the top of search hits because of Google adsense.

I am not embarrassed by what I post here on the record.....are you?

“It'd be like someone disagreeing with the concept that 2+2=4 and saying "See, I proved you wrong!”

Nonsense to the N-th degree!!! Argument from ignorance.

2+2=4, NOT because of what someone believes or agrees or opines....beliefs/opinions are irrelevant.

2+2=4 because it is tautologically derived from the DEFINED axioms/rules of base-10 arithmetic. It is within the context of a system.....the rule-based axiomatic system that is DEFINED in base-10 arithmetic.

And btw....2+2=11 in base-3 arithmetic, and not 4 as you allege....so your sweeping statement above, is WRONG....again, because it is within a different system of rules encompassing digits, operands, and derivations.

You see, my dear Matt.....you cannot avoid DEFINITIONS. It is irrelevant who agrees or who disagrees with the pre-DEFINED rules of Arithmetic. And by disagreeing, you are NOT proving anything wrong (as you allege).....you are simply proving your IGNORANCE of concepts. These rules are not opinions.....they are tautologically objective within their defined context of usage...outside that realm, they are inapplicable...got it?

“But, if you think it does, then produce such an individual. Back it up.”

Ummmm....have you ever heard of this nice search engine called Google? Read the instructions on how to use it to produce a list of baby torturers in your local area....ok? Perhaps you can get one to call your radio show.

“1) The Law of Identity, 2) The Law of Non-Contradiction, 3) The Law of Excluded Middle, and 4) The Law of Proper Inference. “

There are no laws in reality. Apparently, you confuse reality with the legal profession. Law is a discipline that is full of liars... I mean lawyers. In reality, we have explanations, not laws. 'Laws' means that YOU adopted a statement as being dear in YOUR heart. That doesn't concern reality in the least.

Reality does not enact laws, which are human concepts. There is no legislature, no Parliament, Matt. There are no lawyers in Mother Nature’s realm. She doesn’t take people to trial or ask them for their testimonies. She just moves atoms from one location to another.

“If you want to argue that these laws are not absolute truths,...”

Ummmm.....what do you mean by “truth” ....define it! Are you SCARED that I will instantly rip it to shreds before your very eyes???

“logical axioms”

Indeed....they are axioms...rules DEFINED by man.

“upon which proper discourse is based”

Only within the context of Classical Logic!! They are NOT applicable in many other logical systems which humans use, like Quantum Logic, for example. This means that they are without question, NOT absolute....got it? Your whole argument is self-refuting because it is an argument from IGNORANCE.

“Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."

Indeed my Blue does!!! You see, my dear Matt.....Blue is one of my dogs. My other dog is Wednesday. Blue always falls asleep faster than Wednesday. If you don’t “believe” me, please come here and time them for yourself, ok?

You don’t have the slightest clue of what you are trying to argue. You are attacking strawmen at every turn. You are chasing your tail in circles because you don’t understand the basics of concepts, grammar (context and syntax), and most importantly....you don’t understand that ALL concepts are DEFINED!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Matt Slick,

“Of course absolute truth exists”

Ummmm....what do you mean by this formidable term “exist”?? You’ve said nothing, my dear Matt.

Physics IS the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Anyone claiming the existence of an entity (object) has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.

Therefore, the crucial words that anyone discussing matters of reality (existence) must be able to define are the words ‘object’ and ‘exist’. If you cannot define these two words, you are NOT talking about reality. You are talking about Religion. So here goes...

object: _________

exist: __________

Please fill in the blanks, Matt.

Here, let me help you....here are the scientific (i.e. rational, consistent, unambiguous) definitions.

Object: that which has shape

Exist: physical presence

The 'physical' part alludes to an object. The 'presence' part invokes location. An object exists if in addition it has location. Superman is an object (has shape, can be illustrated). Superman is an object that does not exist. So is an ideal cube or a tribar.

I mean, if you don't agree with the scientific definition of 'object' or 'exist', your job is to point out what is wrong with them and propose alternatives. So far you just made unsubstantiated statements about a concept (absolute truth) existing, because you don’t understand that all concepts presuppose the presence of objects. Objects precede concepts. A sentient observer (object) is necessary to conceive of a concept. Also, the definition of the word object precedes the definition of the word concept.

In the absence of a sentient being, no concepts can be conceived. Concepts do NOT exist! But, you are free to argue otherwise with YOUR definitions.

Q: In your Religion, is “absolute truth” an entity/object, or a concept?

Matt: “You have presupposed the absolutes of logical X upon which logical discourse is built when you've tried to argue against absolute X!”

Ummmm......what do you mean by X, Matt? Where is your DEFINITION of X? You’ve said NOTHING! But please, keep on evading the issue.....it’s quite amusing to see you dance while your shoes are on fire!

“If you want to deny the logical absolutes exist, then...well.... again, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."

That my dog Blue sleeps faster than my dog Wednesday (as explained above) is not an absolute, and neither it is a truth.....it is a CONSUMMATED EVENT of reality. Do you understand the difference? Perhaps you should take an introductory course in Reality 101. Reality has objects which perform events. An event (i.e., motion) takes up two or more locations of an object. For instance, the explosion of a star, the single beat of a drum, my dog sleeping, a car collision, etc.... without exception take up no less than two frames in a film.

Where do truths, lies, morals, beliefs, absolutes and opinions fit in Mother Nature’s realm?

Reality has NO concepts like beliefs, absolutes, opinions, morals, truths and lies. Only human apes invent such nonsense.

“Where's my money?”

Oh, you didn’t know? I have it right here.....$5000 USD in my PayPal account. I will gladly TRANSFER it to the account of YOUR CHOICE if you can rationally define the following terms which make or break your argument....and I expect nothing from you if you can’t define them. Losing your argument is good enough for me.

Morals: __________

Absolute: ________

Truth: ___________

Exist: ___________

Are these 4 petty terms too much for you to swallow? Ok, then please tell me how much money you would like after you define all 4 of them, ok? I mean, what more incentive do you want for taking 4 minutes of your time to define these simple terms (WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND..nudge nudge...wink wink) for our audience?

I am on the RECORD with this offer.....everyone take note!!! I can’t turn back now, for if I default on the payment to Matt Slick, then I will have to delete this article and remove my account from HP out of sheer embarrassment.


El Dude 4 years ago

He'll avoid definitions again. Third time running, I'll bet!

Btw, FF when you said:

"2+2=11 in base-3 arithmetic, and not 4 as you allege....so your sweeping statement above, is WRONG....again, because it is within a different system of rules encompassing digits, operands, and derivations."

... that's actually a really useful example, gracias. I'd never thought of that — and philsoophers and religionists always use stupid examples like the oh-so-perfect hyper-accuracy and PLatonic perfection of godly mathematics (amen) to justify their absolutist beliefs. You demonstrated nicely how logic is tautological ('tautologous'?) and NOT objective (or "absolute", whatever that nonsense means).

Definitions 1—0 Religion


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

“ and philsoophers and religionists always use stupid examples like the oh-so-perfect hyper-accuracy and PLatonic perfection of godly mathematics (amen) to justify their absolutist beliefs. “

They do so because they don’t understand what they are talking about. They cannot offer any explanation for their claims. They don’t even understand the “meanings” of the KEY words in their dissertations. And the reason for this circus show is because they are just parroting arguments which were invented by religionists from the past 2000 years. There is nothing new here.

But when someone like me asks them for objective definitions....definitions which don’t invoke the biases and opinions of a human observer....these people fold under questioning. That’s when they realize that the KEY words of their dissertation (i.e. truth, morals, etc.) are predicated solely on the opinion of a human observer. They are scared to post any definition because they KNOW that it will instantly refute their argument.

They are also clueless to the fact that there are literally thousands of systems of logic, and new ones invented every day. And each system is founded on its pre-defined rules and hence is inapplicable in any other context; much less in reality.

Reality does NOT depend on logic or axioms or on alleged "logical absolutes", nor is it governed by them.

Whomever disagrees with this statement should use whatever fancy logic and axioms they have in their arsenal to explain to the audience what makes the pen fall to the floor....

a) is it ‘warped space’?

b) is it ‘graviton particles’?

c) is it both (a) and (b)?

d) Is it sometimes (a) and sometimes (b)?

e) none of the above

The fact that they can’t answer this simple question elucidates that they are blowing smoke. And they will use a million excuses to misdirect the audience from the fact that their magical logic CANNOT be used to answer this VERY SIMPLE question!!!

Reality is not asserted by magical axioms which are a cure-all snake oil fed to the unsuspecting members of the audience. Reality can only be explained; whereby all the key terms in the explanation are defined OBJECTIVELY. And this is why we grab the clueless logician/philosopher/theist/atheist by the neck and put him on the podium in front of an audience and ask him to EXPLAIN himself. This is the litmus test which instantly elucidates whether he has any clue of what he is talking about.


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 4 years ago

Hi fatfist. Regarding your definition of 'exist': "that which has shape and location", I'm wondering do you think it could be shortened to simply "that which has location"? Would something's having location entail it has shape? (And vice versa come to think of it.)

Regards,

Spastic.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Spastic,

Here is the issue.....the word "that" in the definition of exist is a place-holder for any word in any language. This means that we first have to resolve whether the word we plug in there does indeed have shape or not. If it does, then we check if it satisfies the 2nd condition of location. Only if both conditions are satisfied can we say that we have an object that exists.

A circle is an object which does not exist, because it has no location. Love does not have shape, hence does not exist. We have to be rigorous in these definitions because the theist can chime in and say: "God is love, and love has location....it is located where God is....therefore God exists".


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

Matt Slick wrote this:

(I would assert that the following is absolute truth.

"It is always morally wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.”)

What is remarkable to me about the give and take that followed is that Slick never seemed to grasp that his initial premise requires opinion - "always morally wrong". Right or wrong is a dichotomy. A dichotomy is not self resolving. Resolvement of a dichotomy requires an observer to operate a system of logic or express an opinion. Therefore, right or wrong resolvement cannot be objective.

Thus, the following is not an objective claim:

(The statement is either true or it is not true – which itself implies an absolute truth.)

This is logical sleight-of-hand. As was shown above, dichotomies are not self-resolving, therefore either statement between morally right or morally wrong is either a logical necessity of a system of logic or it is an opinion - in neither case can the solution be considered anything other than observer dependent. If it is observer dependent, the only way for the solution to be eternal is to assume an eternal being who preceded the resolution.

This eternal being must be assumed in order for there to be absolutism applied to dichotomy resolvement. The argument really boils down to this:

That God(eternal dichotomy resolvement) exists is true.

Morality is dichotomy resolvement.

Therefore, morality is eternally true, i.e. absolute.

Epic failure of begging the question.

(If it is not true that ‘the statement is either true or not true’, then how would you demonstrate that the statement is or is not true?)

The statement is self-refuting by inclusion of the words "wrong", implying "not wrong" as the dichotomy alternative. Again, dichotomies are not self-resolving.

(If you assert that the statement is not absolutely true, then you would need to demonstrate that it is not true.)

Why do religionists always seem to assert the responsibility is on others to disprove their claims? In order to show the impossibiliy of its absolute nature, one need not demonstrate the claim as either true or false, but that the resolution it offers between right and wrong is dependent on an observer.

If it requires an observer, it cannot be absolute. Game over. You lose. Thanks for playing.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

“The statement is either true or it is not true – which itself implies an absolute truth.”

Ah yes, the classic negated tautology......it is either raining out there, or it is not raining out there. When we critically reason such statements, we see that they have nothing to do with truth....they are of no use or value to any discussion about reality. Such statements are what we call: Negated Rhetoric.

I suppose the next thing that Matt will tell us is that, A = A is some sort of absolute truth...LOL!

Tautologies, whether negated or not, are simply defined to be the case because the negation may not even be a valid option/dichotomy.

“If it requires an observer, it cannot be absolute. Game over. You lose. Thanks for playing.”

Bingo!

Thanks for your input, Winston. I sure do hope that Matt will respond and address these issues by finally posting the definitions of his key terms.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Why is it that Religionists are always SCARED to justify their wild claims?

Ummmmmm....Mr. Matt Slick of CARM.org, World-Famous Logician Extraordinaire and famous Youtube celebrity......there is still $5000 USD waiting for you right here!!

You gave up, conceded defeat? Thought so!


El Dude 4 years ago

Fattie can I have the 5k instead if Slick doesn't show up? I promise I can show you god right afterwards.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ha ha! El Dude....God is very easy to see...just drink a bottle of vodka or take some recreational drugs. But the surefire method is to let our parents brainwash us at an early age, and repeat to the next generation.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Peyote buttons=god.


Pi 4 years ago

w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2t77qDa-c


El Dude 4 years ago

Oh, looks like some well-spoken bald guy critiqued this article in a lengthy YouTube video. You're becoming famous!

I wonder if HE wants the 5k?!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

Yeah, this well-spoken bald guy knows very well that he can WARM the hearts of his brain-dead followers by spewing a bunch of verbal diarrhea on them....and they promptly eat it up.

But Stefan is more than welcome to come here and pick up where his religious equivalent, Matt Slick, left off.

Christmas is coming and for the "spirit" of the season, and for all those clueless hearts Stefan@freedomainradio has educated with his breathtaking video....I am willing to kick it up a notch.....

I will transfer $10,000 USD to the PayPal account of ANYONE who can post here ANY statement that is objectively explained by them to be "absolute truth".

The ball is in the court of Stefan M., Matt Slick, and their feeble-minded followers....can they step up to the plate, or are they scared that I will pull their pants down and give them a spanking???

I am on the record!!!

Obviously Stefan M didn't read Matt Slick's slicky attempt with math/logic and the "2+2=4" argument. LOL....Stefan will have a rude awakening if he ever brings his argument here.....OMG will he ever!!

Can somebody tell Stefan @ freedomainradio that $10,000 USD is waiting for him here??


The Genie 4 years ago

I think the only defense of your opinion, in a nutshell, is that because I can't communicate my argument without using language, and language is an invention of humans, I cannot demonstrate absolute truth.

Does that accurately describe your perspective here? Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

"Shape is the only intrinsic property that an object has. If the universe consisted of a single object, that object would still have ‘shape’, but it wouldn’t have any other property, like mass, color, weight, etc."

Are you suggesting that to exist, the wavelength that an object emits that gives it what the English language identifies as "color", requires an observer present to name the effect of the wavelength on their eyes "color" and name and define the fact of reality that creates this effect "wavelength"?

It seems like, to make your argument, you need to assert that an object doesn't emit a wavelength until an observer claims it does. Which is true, in a sense, as the word wavelength requires an observer to define it and use it in a sentence to have meaning.

On the other hand, if the definition of wavelength is taken as an assumption by both parties, it is now possible for me to communicate to you what I mean when I claim that "it absolutely true that this particular apple that I'm holding is red".

Basically, you set up an impossible standard of proof: I need to prove to you absolute truth without communicating with you, because communication is inherently subjective and requires mutually assumed definitions (i.e. opinions). It's a logic trap, not an argument.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

The Genie,

“because I can't communicate my argument “

And who is “I”? What argument are you referring to here? Might you be Stefan Molyneux? If so, welcome, and don’t be shy, I don’t bite.

“because I can't communicate my argument without using language, and language is an invention of humans, I cannot demonstrate absolute truth. Does that accurately describe your perspective here?”

No, that is not what I am saying. Language is first and foremost necessary for human communication of concepts and for naming objects. As such, we must unambiguously define all our KEY terms which make or break our argument. I assume that you are a proponent of “absolute truth”. Do you claim that absolute truth exists?? If so, then at this point the onus is on YOU to define these KEY terms of your argument:

1. Absolute:___________

2. Truth:___________

3. Exist:___________

And remember.....you must define these terms OBJECTIVELY, without invoking human observers and their opinions, because this is subjective. We need to unambiguously understand what these terms mean.

If absolute truth exists.....then it must exist objectively and independently of a human being....right? The Moon and Sun do....and they did before any species evolved on this planet. Can you please explain how “absolute truth” exists after you define the above terms??

Thank you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

The Genie,

“Are you suggesting that to exist, the wavelength that an object emits that gives it what the English language identifies as "color", requires an observer present... “

No. Existence is observer-independent.

Exist = object + location

The moon was an object, and in addition, it had location before any species evolved on the Earth in order to look at the Moon and give an opinion about it.

There is no provision for observers, opinions, beliefs, truth, proof, fact, faith, wisdom, knowledge, evidence, etc. in the definition of EXIST. Existence stands on its own without anybody’s testimony. This is objective.

“"it absolutely true that this particular apple that I'm holding is red"

No it is not. And before you go any further, you must define “absolute” and “truth” objectively without invoking observers.

The apple is red to you. This is your subjective testimony. The apple is not red to a blind or color-blind person. The apple APPEARS red to you because our eyes have evolved to respond to only an extremely limited bandwidth of the EM spectrum......the Visible Spectrum. That apple retransmits every single frequency of the EM spectrum as it receives....even if these frequencies are extremely attenuated and undetectable by the bandwidth and input sensitivity of biological eyes, or of any instrument we can build to detect them.

“Basically, you set up an impossible standard of proof”

Sorry to break the news to you.....but I am NOT asking for proof, nor expecting any proof. Reality can only be rationally explained....never asserted, never truthed, and certainly never proven.

Proof is the hallmark of religion. You seem to subscribe to religious methodology to defend your arguments. You need to understand that proof is in the eye of the beholder. It was once proven that the Earth was flat.....and actually it still is today by the Flat Earth Society.

REMEMBER: Proof is what you personally convinced yourself of. What is proof to you....is a LIE to your neighbour!

Proof = OPINION!

“I need to prove to you absolute truth without communicating with you, because communication is inherently subjective and requires mutually assumed definitions (i.e. opinions). It's a logic trap, not an argument.”

No, you are going off in an irrelevant tangent. What you need to do before saying anything else, is to objectively DEFINE the key terms which make or break your argument.....

1. Absolute:___________

2. Truth:___________

3. Exist:___________

If you don’t tell the audience what you objectively mean when you invoke these terms in a sentence....then you’ve said nothing. This is the issue. So please, let’s stay on topic so we can objectively address your argument.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Stefan 30 minutes to long.


El Dude 4 years ago

Hmmm I'm not sure The Genie was saying truth 'exists' – although then again, if it doesn't exist, I'm not sure what absolute truth means in the first place. From what I can tell, Stefan, who is a smart cookie for sure, goes along the lines of: 'truth doesn't exist, like the scientific method doesn't exist, but both are valid/accurate/rational concepts' (I'm paraphrasing / potentially butchering him though!).

I think he and his crew are empiricists? Or at least come out of that tradition. He's verbally dexterous that's for sure! I wasn't convinced by his video though, and I still have no idea what an absolute truth might mean...

Curiously, there's a strange backtrack/slip-up he does in the video critique, whereby he says first that not all truths are absolute, then that absolute doesn't mean all of time etc – but then what's he arguing against? I mean, that's what absolute means or at least YOUR definition and thus what your article was addressing, no?! Then he says X is true, and Y is true, and so on (example). Fine but... what I think he meant there is X exists, or Y is a fact/assumption. But it sounded a bit messy and confused. Like he's using truth as fact, assumption, axiom, proof, evidence, all wrapped into one.

Anyway. Just my 2c!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

“I wasn't convinced by his video though, and I still have no idea what an absolute truth might mean...”

Well this is ALWAYS the problem with everyone who is a proponent of “absolute truth”, or even plain vanilla “truth”.....they can never define this key word which makes or breaks their argument. They have essentially said NOTHING!

I went thru the 30 min pain of watching his whole video, as I owe at least that much to him....but nowhere did he DEFINE “absolute truth”....he only said:

“Ummm, ya’ know.....I don’t THINK fatfist’s definition of absolute truth is correct because I say so!”

Sorry Stefan, but you get an “N” for NO EFFORT.

It is quite obvious that Stefan Molyneux is NOT a philosopher nor a rational thinker. All Stefan Molyneux has to do is google absolute truth and see the philosophical consensus on this term......which is “true for all possible circumstances”. I mean, he gets 0 points for not understanding his own argument!!

“he says first that not all truths are absolute, then that absolute doesn't mean all of time etc – but then what's he arguing against?”

Clearly, his whole 30 min video is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE with the stabbing of straw puppets!

Stefan needs to understand that ‘truth’ is a concept, not an object. As such, the term ‘truth’ alludes to an action (ie. motion, time).....it is rationally an adverb/verb, because this concept necessarily requires an observer to perform an action to RESOLVE (truth resolution i.e. adverb verb) a propositional statement, and conclude whether it’s ‘true’, based on his personal (subjective) findings. Stefan doesn’t understand what is a concept and what is an object.....so he chases his tail in circles for 30 minutes!

“But it sounded a bit messy and confused. “

You are being far too generous. To make a 30 min video in an attempt to debunk my article, and NOT define the KEY terms which make or break your argument (absolute, truth, exist).....is what I call: TROLLING TO BRING IN CHANNEL SUBSCRIBERS!

I wish Stefan Molyneux....and Matt Slick, for that matter.....would come here and have an objective rational discussion with a critical analysis of their claims, statements and definitions. But this will never happen because they have an agenda and a persona to protect.

But my offer of $10,000 USD still stands if they can explain a single absolute truth....even with their OWN definitions!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

For every truth claim (P) there is an implied negation (not-P). An implied negation shows that the truth claim of P can only stem from a resolution of a dichotomy. Dichotomies are not self-resolving. Therefore, an observer is necessary to resolve the dichotomy.


Shane 4 years ago

The statement "there is no absolute truth" IS A STATEMENT OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH...

Game Over


Shane 4 years ago

See a destruction of this article here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2t77qDa-c

A summary begins around 23-24 minutes.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Why do the atheist and theist defend absolute truth religion so much?


Shane 4 years ago

Its true that the assertions of this author are boring and irrelevant to real life beyond comprehension...but it isn't ABSOLUTELY TRUE...

Its true my username is "Shane"...but it isn't ABSOLUTELY true...see what a HUGE difference it makes?!

What we have w/fatfist and his fellow pseudo-intellectuals/philosophers is one big circle jerk of nitpicking irrelevancy...

Its as productive as debating over the existence of reality...

"I'll give a million$ to anyone that can prove the existence of reality outside of human perception."

What a waste of effort and time...


Shane 4 years ago

I define "dog" as a creature w/8 legs, wings, and the ability to speak...a creature that has always existed and always will exist.

I'll give a billion$ to anyone who can prove a "dog" exists...


Shane 4 years ago

QUESTIONS TO FATFIST:

1. What is the difference between truth and 'absolute' truth?

2. Placing "absolute" before "truth" is redundant, isn't it?

3. If 'absolute' truth doesn't exist...how can you be so sure that YOUR particular definition of it is valid?

4. Assuming you're correct that 'absolute' truth doesn't exist...what's the relevancy?

5. What is your motivation for pushing this assertion?

6. What is your political persuasion?

I've found that these kinds of arguments ("there is no absolute truth/absolute reality") typically lead to "there is no right and wrong"...which means there are only opinions and no facts (except for those of people making these assertions in the first place of course!)...

Typically, from my experience, these are the kinds of arguments put forth by members of the Statist Religion to rationalize the actions of the State...especially by members of the "social democracy" sect of Statism.


Jeremy 4 years ago

Shane 3 hours ago

The statement "there is no absolute truth" IS A STATEMENT OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH...

You win, but It is most likely that this guy doesnt have the spare 10,000USD that they are offering.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Shane,

“IS A STATEMENT OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH”

Really? Let’s see if you have any clue of what you are talking about, or if you are simply Stefan’s parrot....

Define the following terms objectively:

Absolute:_____

Truth:_______

“Game Over”

Oh, I most certainly agree with you......I mean, if you cannot define the KEY terms that make or break your argument, then of course it is GAME OVER!!

Please do NOT post any other arguments.....just define these 2 terms.

“QUESTIONS TO FATFIST:1. What is the difference between truth and 'absolute' truth?”

This is YOUR argument you idiot......the onus is on YOU to justify YOUR claims!!!

After you define the 2 terms above, please tell the audience what the term “absolute” does in front of the term “truth”....does it “bless” it or something?? Please explain!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Jeremy.......please spit the gum out of your mouth and PAY ATTENTION!!

Shane is about to define the terms “absolute” and “truth” for us. Then he will explain to the audience, and to the DUNCE facing the corner i.e. you, what the term “absolute” does as a qualifier of the term “truth”.

Oh darn.....I said PAY ATTENTION, ....not “pick your nose”. You can’t even understand English.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

The statement "There is no absolute truth" is a resolution of the dichotomy: "either there is absolute truth or there is no absolute truth".

A dichotomy cannot resolve itself. How, then, is it possible for this resolvement to be eternal?


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

I love the smell of burning objectavist, absolutist truth preachers, in the morning! But seriously watch and listen,as a brain..gets locked up in fog, at 31.36 when Stef says "you fight irrational absolutes with rational absolutes." AS IF there is a difference..between the concepts..?


Shane 4 years ago

@ fatfist

I still need answers to my 6 Q's...


AKA Winston 4 years ago

The Truth Pope is angry, Cap'n Walker. He thinks you've been slack, and he's got the vi-vi-vi-video.


The Genie 4 years ago

"And who is “I”? What argument are you referring to here? Might you be Stefan Molyneux? If so, welcome, and don’t be shy, I don’t bite."

What argument? Well, any argument whatsoever that requires me to communicate to you to "demonstrate one thing that is absolutely true". I hadn't specified my particular argument yet because I wanted to establish that I'm allowed to communicate with you to present it. But thanks for clarifying your position on this.

"As such, we must unambiguously define all our KEY terms which make or break our argument. I assume that you are a proponent of “absolute truth”. Do you claim that absolute truth exists?? If so, then at this point the onus is on YOU to define these KEY terms of your argument:

1. Absolute:___________

2. Truth:___________

3. Exists:___________

And remember.....you must define these terms OBJECTIVELY, without invoking human observers and their opinions, because this is subjective. We need to unambiguously understand what these terms mean."

Alrighty. Let me first clarify the definition you made that I don't agree with.

"An absolute is a claim of truth that is 'true for every possible circumstance'."

With this I disagree. Consider the following premise:

If: (A^B^C)

Then: Z

Or: If A & B & C are true, then Z is true.

Is a statement of absolute truth if, when A & B & C are true, Z is true. If A & B & C are true, and yet Z can be false, then the statement is conditionally true: it's truth is subject to unspecified conditions.

Basically, if the statement itself implies or outright states conditions, then the truth of the statement obviously hinges on the conditions, and it is ridiculous to say that an absolute statement is true independent of the conditions or circumstances it specifies as required for it's validity.

Absolute - Independent of unrelated circumstances and conditions.

When applied to truth, it means that the truth can be taken as is without needing to append conditions and clarifications.

Truth - The opposite of false.

I define truth as the opposite of false because it is the fundamental building block in creating the concept of opposites. I also come from a mathematical background, which defines logical connectives on true and false (Negation, Conjunction, Disjunction, Material Implication, Biconditional Implication, etc.) and I assume those rules hold when talking about truth.

Exists - A recursive definition: Things that exist can affect things that exist. Things that do not exist cannot and do not affect things that exist. Existence can be thought of as much like a mathematical subspace, in which things that are defined to exist impact other things that are defined to exist, except in this case the existence of something is not defined but derived from its ability to affect other things that exist. A "unicorn" may not exist, but the "belief that a unicorn exists" probably does exist and may influence or affect a person who exists. On the other hand, a rock thrown at you will affect you whether or not you believe it exists, and so it exists.

I define existence pretty broadly. There are some things, like the Christian "God", in which there is no way for me to personally establish whether or not it can impact other things that exist (these enigmas either exist or they don't, don't get me wrong; it is just a problem of human perception, not the subjectivity of truth, that makes it impossible for me to personally determine it's existence); however, it is absolutely true that belief in the Christian "God" exists.

I define existence this way because it closely matches what people typically use the word "exist" for. Some people claim "God" exists, because (for example) they believe he turned dust into a man and a rib into a woman, and so if it can affect things (human beings, skin tissue, organs, dust, etc.) that exist it also exists.

"Can you please explain how 'absolute truth' exists after you define the above terms??"

Absolute Truth is simply the expression of a tautology (as per its definition: a tautology is always true regardless of the truth value of its variables). Absolute truth is a tautology that relies on no unspecified circumstances to be true: for example, "apples are red" is true with some apples and wrong in others, whereas "this apple in my hand is red" states all of the circumstances necessary to ascertain it's truth value.

It is also independent of time: "this apple will always be red" is not absolutely true, but "this apple is red" is making a particular statement about this particular time period. And it will remain a true statement 500 years from now as the statement refers to the particular point in time in which I made the statement.

Absolute truth exists because it affects other things that exist. If the statement, "this apple emits a frequency of light that is consistent with what English speakers call the 'red' color" is 'absolutely true', the apple will appear red to some viewers, and if it is 'absolutely false', the apple will not appear red to some viewers. The truth of a statement directly impacts and is impacted by things that exist, and therefore truth exists.

Absolute truth is foundational for the existence of all life, as per the above definitions. If tautologies did not exist and persist regardless of unrelated conditions and specifications, anything could flit in and out of existence randomly and no life would form.

"No. Existence is observer-independent.

Exist = object + location"

So does the frequency of light an object emits exist? Or not? And can you clarify what you mean by object and location?

"There is no provision for observers, opinions, beliefs, truth, proof, fact, faith, wisdom, knowledge, evidence, etc. in the definition of EXIST."

In that, we disagree, or we have very different definitions of fact, truth, evidence and proof. Well, okay, the communication of proof and evidence is subjective, but that's about the only concession I'd give you.

"The apple is red to you."

If any two people can agree in their communications that to be "red" is a result of emitting a particular frequency in the EM spectrum, then they are able to communicate that the apple is red. If they can't, then this is a product of the subjectivity of language, not the subjectivity of truth. It still possible for one to tell the other that the apple emits a particular frequency in the EM spectrum, unless of course the two people cannot agree on the meanings of those terms either. The apple is red to anyone who agrees with my definition of red.

"This is your subjective testimony. The apple is not red to a blind or color-blind person."

Wrong, because if a color-blind person can read the frequency that the apple emits and a blind person can hear it announced to him by a computer, and they both agree on the definition of red stated above, then they will both agree that the apple is red. These are flaws of communication and perception (which depend on the observer), not of truth (which is independent of the observer).

You are setting up a situation in which you require an observer to ascertain the truth of a particular statement, and then proceed to claim that certain observers come to a different conclusion, and then you use that to demonstrate that truth is subjective.

It is a derivation of the age old "if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. The modern answer is obvious: if we plant a recording device next to it, we can clearly hear that it does make a sound. Of course, you could modify the statement to claim, "well, what if there is no way to observe or record it?", in which case the answer is, "we can't know if it will or not".

If an observer is unable to ascertain whether or not something is true (or if he falsely concludes it is, when it isn't, or that it isn't, when it is) that just means that the observer is unable to ascertain whether it is true (or mistakenly believes it is or it isn't), not that it does not have a truth value or that truth is dependent upon that observer.

You're


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Shane,

“I still need answers to my 6 Q's...”

Shane, I already warned you that BEFORE you spew any other statements here which use the words ABSOLUTE or TRUTH, you must define these God-like terms of YOUR religion!!

Are you deaf? Do you have a learning or comprehension disability??

Remember, these are YOUR claims. You are the religious fanatic who is positing the POSITIVE CLAIM for truth....absolute, non-absolute, vanilla, or otherwise. So the onus is the religious fanatic i.e. YOU, to define these terms which make or break YOUR argument. Otherwise you’ve said NOTHING. You are a disgruntled TROLL because YOUR RELIGION has been DESTROYED!!

And here is where Stefan Molyneux’s CIRCUS SHOW begins. We have finally seen Stefan’s political agenda.

1) Stefan has a non-defined God-like standard which he calls “TRUTH”.

2) Stefan asserts his fanatical Religion of “truth” with dogmatic and irrational venom.

3) When Stefan and his congregation are asked to “please define truth”.....they run away with their tail between their legs because this Q destroys their RELIGION!!

4) All these clowns do is bellyache.....”mommy, fatfist is bad because he embarrassed our Religion in front of the whole world”.....even though I have asked them to define their OWN terms of their OWN argument.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@The Genie,

The Genie: “"An absolute is a claim of truth that is 'true for every possible circumstance'."....With this I disagree. “

The Genie: “Absolute - Independent of unrelated circumstances and conditions.”

The Genie: “When applied to truth, it means that the truth can be taken as is without needing to append conditions and clarifications.”

Erm.....Genie, can you look at me straight in the eye with what you just said?

You just said that “truth can be taken as is without needing to append conditions and clarifications”. This is EXACTLY the SAME as saying “truth can be taken as is FOR EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE”. Because, IF there is a possible circumstance where the truth cannot be taken as is, then that is a CONDITION......get it? Hellllloooooo....anybody home????

Regardless, I will not argue with you on this issue and I will take YOUR definition because it is EXACTLY THE SAME as the standard philosophical definition. Please, don’t waste our time on irrelevancies, ok?

““Truth - The opposite of false.”

.....and false is the opposite of truth.

Do you per chance wear a big red nose and big red shoes for a living???

Nonsense to the N-th degree!!!

All definitions are predicated in positive terms....except for the definition of the special term “nothing”. Whenever somebody tries to pull the wool over our eyes to deceive us with negative predication....we grab this clown by the throat and throw him off a 20 storey building....got it?

All definitions are OBJECTIVE....they MUST be in positive terms to describe exactly what they mean with no ambiguities!! Please learn the kindergarten basics before coming here to argue with your ignorance, ok?

“Exists - A recursive definition: Things that exist can affect things that exist.”

All you said was........duh, I define “walking” as: things that can walk, will affect things that can walk.

Erm.....Genie....are you serious????.....you’ve said NOTHING!!!

What do you MEAN by ‘exist’???

“A "unicorn" may not exist, but the "belief that a unicorn exists" probably does exist and may influence or affect a person who exists”

OMG, that was soooooooo sweet.....so nice....loved it!!

Can I please use that as my opening line in the comedy club??? I promise to pay you 20% royalties!!!

“I define existence pretty broadly.”

With your circular description that is pure useless rhetoric.....I would say that “pretty broadly” is a gross understatement!!

Have you passed Junior Kindergarten yet??

“Absolute Truth is simply the expression of a tautology (as per its definition:”

FINALLY....WE GET SOMEWHERE WITH OUR GENIE!!!

Indeed, absolute truth is a TAUTOLOGY!!!!

It is nothing but a pre-defined concept....a rule!!. All concepts are conceived by man. Concepts do not exist as they are dependent on objects (i.e. the human to establish a relation and conceive them).

Therefore, your concept of “truth” resolves to none other than OPINION. Memorize this for the test next week, ok?

“Absolute truth exists “

Erm.....Genie.....you still haven’t defined ‘exist’. Until you do, you will continue to chase your tail in circles.

“if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

No friggin’ way!!!!!!

The term “sound” is concept which is necessarily predicated on an observer to SENSE with their hearing.

A tree falling in the forest will simply move atoms of air and create pressure effects with air. Only an observer can CONCEIVE of “sound”. Once again, the term “sound” necessarily invokes an OBSERVER.

I bet you were NOT paying attention when you kindergarten teacher taught this to the class, right?

“The modern answer is obvious: if we plant a recording device next to it, we can clearly hear that it does make a sound.”

Wrong again! It is the recording device making sound.....not the tree. The tree phenomenon was a consummated event. The recording is artificial. Please tell me you understand this much.

“"well, what if there is no way to observe or record it?", in which case the answer is, "we can't KNOW if it will or not".”

Nonsense to the N-th degree!!

This is NOT an issue of knowledge, wisdom, belief, truth, proof, faith, experiment, observation, authority, etc.

When the tree fell and hit the ground, it also made surface-to-surface contact with atoms in the air....it moved atoms. This happened irrespective of whether there was a stupid (and very proud) ape philosopher there to actually HEAR a “sound”....got it?

“If an observer is unable to ascertain whether or not something is true “

Are you a clergy from the Religion of Relativity?

READ MY LIPS: Reality is NOT dependent on observers and their stupid OPINIONS of truth & proof. Reality is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!!

Before idiotic (and proud) philosophers were born from apes on this planet, trees did actually fall in the forest....got it?


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Stef- no sorrry , I mean Genie!?; "Existence can be thought of as much like a mathematical subspace."..riiiight..just like in the matrix..eh? Or is it Star-trek..Gene Rodenberry thinks of captain Kirk..and lo he appears? Is a "Dagger of the mind".. equivalent to a dagger in your chest...?


Ekkusu 4 years ago

Summary of The Genie's points so far:

Truth: the opposite of falsehood

Absolute: applying unconditionally

Exists: affects other things that exist

It seems that the term 'absolute' is irrelevant. With that out of the way, the question is how to define truth, or now how to define falsehood. My guess is The Genie will define it "recursively" as the opposite of truth.

It's no wonder, coming from a mathematical background he's picked up the bad habit of forcing the listener to solve a puzzle in order to figure out what he means by a term. He is pathologically unwilling to give a clear definition but instead confuses definition for argumentation and tries to use his definitions AS his argument.

Defining truth as the opposite of falsehood, and exist as affecting other things that exist, gives the listener absolutely no insight into what is going on in the speaker's mind. It is no different than claiming there is absolute twixle, and that twixle is defined as the opposite of moozle. As Bill Gaede would say, "What have we learned?"


Grimm 4 years ago

What is pseudo-philosophy?

How about someone making the assertion "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth."

And then, to defend against those pointing out the self-defeating/contradicting nature of this assertion, saying, "I didn't? make a statement of absolute truth because there is no absolute truth--and no one can convince me otherwise!"

Then challenging "I'll give $10K to anyone who can convince me to admit my logical error!"

And, to top it all off, saying, "No one convinced me I made a self-defeating/contradicting assertion! I win and you lose! Na-na-na-na-na-na-naaa!"


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Interesting,

The concept of truth appears so essential to epistemology that any perceived attack on the concept of truth causes an immediate defensive response by the faithful. It never ceases to amaze me how a supposedly intellectual discourse can devolve so rapidly into emotional finger-pointing.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Grimm a.k.a. Shane,

Back again?

Listen buddy, how many times do I have to tell you that when you post sentences with the words “absolute” or “truth” or both,....your sentences have no meaning because you have not defined these terms LIKE I ASKED YOU TO DO 3 TIMES ALREADY.

Do you have serious mental problems....or do you enjoy TROLLING?? Have I destroyed your Religion so much that it hurts you deep inside and causes you constant mental anguish....so you feel the need to come here and spam the comments section?

GROW UP YOU IMMATURE CRYING BABY!!

Are these the type of subscribers that Stefan Molyneux has on his channel....just TROLLS? Are these the people who pay donations to Stefan so he can stroke their spirit & soul with irrational gobbledygook?

Can’t he send here anybody with half a brain who can defend Stefan’s argument, since Stefan is SCARED to post here?

“How about someone making the assertion "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth."”

Yes, this is YOUR strawman! I never claimed any truth. Actually, TRUTH = OPINION and you cannot show otherwise. Not even Matt Slick nor Stefan Molyneux are able to come here and argue otherwise.....just read their comments. If you’d like to show otherwise, you can start by DEFINING “truth” any which way you like, got it?

Just do this you troll, and I will PayPal you $10,000 USD to the account of your choice.....I AM ON THE RECORD.

So please, Shane.....don’t troll here anymore. Just post the definitions of your terms and a rational argument...if you have any....otherwise, get lost!!


Grimm 4 years ago

"Actually, TRUTH = OPINION and you cannot show otherwise."

OK, then your assertion that "there is no absolute truth" is just an opinion.

No more or less valid than me asserting "there is absolute truth".

Why waste your time trying so hard to convince anyone of anything?

Oh, and if you had a shred of integrity, you wouldn't censor what I said...you're obviously threatened by it. Your childish insults are another manifestation of your insecurity.

I'm LOL at your offer of $10K to anyone who can make you admit your OPINION is wrong!!!

Thank God there are REAL intellectuals like yourself who are tackling the REALLY IMPORTANT philosophical dilemmas confronting mankind!


Grimm 4 years ago

From YouTube:

Here's another gem straight from Mr. The Only Truth Is That There Is No Truth:

"Actually, TRUTH = OPINION and you cannot show otherwise."

Oh, but he's a reasonable guy and will give you $10K if you can convince him to admit his? OPINION is wrong!

Shouldn't we be thankful that such intellectual luminaries are out there tackling the REALLY important philosophical question?

LOL


Grimm 4 years ago

I can go outside, right now, and fly by simply flapping my arms.

I can't go outside, right now, and fly by simply flapping my arms.

Both of these assertions are equally valid since "truth = opinion".


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Try it..but make sure you are at least say..5 to 10 floors up a building..or near a cliff..you know- give yourself a chance..Soo valid=truth=opinion..if your so concerned with "validity" and one assumes, proof..you have no-other option really..JUMP.LOL


AKA Winston 4 years ago

I can fly (P) or I cannot fly (not-P) is an example of the Law of Excluded Middle. Neither P or not-P is true until the dichotomy is resolved. It is only axiomatically valid that one or the other must be considered true.

A dichotomy does not self resolve. Therefore, how it is resolved can only be a choice, right?

So, yes, Son of Sam (presuming he was mentally ill), really did hear the neighbor's dog ordering him to kill, so that to him the dog talking was true.

At the same time, the jurors (who for the most part were not menatally ill), were of the opinion that dogs do not talk and therefore assumed it was true that the neighbor's dog did not talk to Berkowitz.

So how do we know that each truth about the dog is not valid? After all, Berkowitz sincerely believed what he heard was true, while the jurors believed it was false. So how do we know for sure that both conclusions were not true? We don't, except for another axiom - the LNC states that a positive claim and its negatition cannot be true at the same time.

So it must be the case axiomatically that only one of the propositions is true, and which is true is based on the choice of how to resolve the dichotomy - do we believe Berkowitz's claim of talking dogs or do we believe it false based on evidence presented by the prosecution that dogs have never been known to talk? Did O.J. spill his blood at the scene when he killed or did the L.A.P.D. plant the blood at the crime scene?

So, as should now be obvious, I can fly and I cannot fly cannot be equally valid; axiomatically, only one can be true and the choice of which is based on opinion, is it not?


El Dude 4 years ago

Grimm said:

----

"I can go outside, right now, and fly by simply flapping my arms.

I can't go outside, right now, and fly by simply flapping my arms.

Both of these assertions are equally valid since "truth = opinion"."

----

This is intellectual sloth. It's just a trick used to win an argument and not learn anything. Whether you can fly by flapping your arms or not is either a consummated event, or not. If it did happen, I sure hope you can explain how. A consummated event thus becomes part of a statement of the facts. You either accept someone's SotFs ("assume" it was so) or not. That's all. It has nothing to do with "absolute truth". Maybe in 150 years we'll have flying machines that work by actually flapping your arms.

People who "believe" in absolute truths just mistake a basic tautology (A=A; 2+2=4) for the Divine Word of God & Absolute Truth. Or they refuse to define "absoute" at all, then use 15 times in one paragraph as "proof" that someone's (absolutely!) wrong! Or they try to weasel out of it altogether (like the empiricists) by claiming some truths are NOT absolute but some are (again without defining a anything). It's really strange.


El Dude 4 years ago

Example conversation between a rationalist and a lunatic:

R: "There are no absolute truths, it's a nonsense term, and here's why [explains in depth...]"

L: (*Ignores the explanation*) "Is that absolutely true or just an opinion?"

R: "It's a rational explanation; do you understand what I said?"

L: "Well if what you're saying IS true, then there is absolute truth."

R: "But I just explained how it's just a tautology... A=A by definition, remember?"

L: "So is it TRUE that it's a tautology?"

R: "Seriously, what's wrong with you?! It's a tautology by definition, as I explained three times now..."

L: "That's an absolute truth! You're saying it's absolutely true that it"

R: "*Sigh*. What is it you don't understand?"

L: "I understand perfectly."

R: "So you understand then that even if YOU are defining my OPINIONS or EXPLANATIONS as an absolute truth (fine, let's just go with that!), then that in and of itself is, again, ANOTHER tautology, and relies only on your personal definitions (in this case, because you want to "win" an argument using circular logic")??!!

L: "That's bullshit you're a hypocrite bla bla bla..."

R: "Seriously, just define your terms. Please."


Grimm 4 years ago

@ El Dude

"This is intellectual sloth."

This is your OPINION.

If you can prove to me this is an absolute truth I'll give you $10K.


Grimm 4 years ago

@ Jake Archer

There is no truth, only opinion.

How do you know I can't fly by flapping my arms?

I've never tried it and never will, but IF I did...how do you know I wouldn't fly?

I can fly by flapping my arms...this is my opinion though I'll never actually try it.

If you can make me admit my opinion is wrong I'll give you $10K.


Grimm 4 years ago

@ AKA Winston

PROVE to me that the Son of Sam heard dogs ordering him to kill!

Its my opinion that he didn't hear any such thing...but, if you can convince me to change my opinion, I'll give you $10K.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

(PROVE to me that the Son of Sam heard dogs ordering him to kill!)

Grimm,

Oh, no, Brother Grimm - you have to prove to me it didn't happen. After you've proved it didn't happen you can send me as much cash as you want.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston, El Dude, Jake.....please ignore this religious TROLL going by 2 names: Grimm & Shane.

It is obvious that this clown cannot answer any questions, especially to define "truth" and "absolute".....and neither can Stefan Molyneux.

These trolls know that they haven't the slightest clue of what they are talking about whenever they invoke these terms. They are only angered that all their arguments have been destroyed and nothing is left of their Religion!


Michael Price 4 years ago

Ok, you want an absolute truth? OK, it was true at 4:06 PM Sydney time on the 21st of November, 2011 that if I gave such an example you wouldn't give me $20000.

Note that the statement "that if I gave such an example you wouldn't give me $20000." was true at the time. But the statement that at the time the statement was true is true for all time. There will never be a circumstance where my giving you such an example at 4:06 Sydney time, 21/11/2011 will cause you to give me $20000. One absolute truth.

In any case you're simply playing word games here, an absolute truth doesn't need to be proven or even provable. For instance I could say that there were not, prior to the development of the original lifeform that spawned all life on earth, other lifeforms that sprung up, replicated, but died out leaving no descendants. That's either an absolute truth or it's opposite is, but neither is provable.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Michael,

“Ok, you want an absolute truth? OK, it was true at 4:06 PM Sydney time on the 21st of November, 2011....”

Timezones are pre-DEFINED standards....they are axiomatic rules conceived of and followed by humans who wish to follow them!

I bet when your Geography teacher taught that lesson in Grade 5 you were chewing gum and laughing it up with your buddies at the back of the class, right?

Axiomatic rules are made to be broken! The rules defining the daylight saving time standard has been changed, and in addition, not followed by some countries/states. Anything to do with defined standards/rules is not absolute, much less “truth”.....as they certainly were NOT truth BEFORE they got defined....and NOT truth now that the rules are changed and/or unaccepted.

Does truth change from day to day in your Religion, Michael?

Since the examples you have provided show your alleged “truth” to have changed or be changeable, then just what in YOUR God’s name makes it “absolute”???

You have provided EXCELLENT examples which rationally demonstrate that TRUTH = OPINION.....thanks a bunch!!

“In any case you're simply playing word games here”

No Michael, you’re not playing word games, so don’t be so hard on yourself. You are actually playing with your ignorance!

Would you like to try again, Michael? Wanna throw more of your so-called “truths” my way so I can educate you??

Or.....would you like to objectively DEFINE “truth” for the audience so they can laugh some more at your ignorance?

I really don’t think that you are foolish-enough to post a DEFINITION for “truth” here, Michael....everyone AVOIDS it at all costs!!!!! LOL....can you blame them?

Whadda ya’ say, Michael?


El Dude 4 years ago

They all avoid the definitions!


The Genie 4 years ago

"Erm.....Genie, can you look at me straight in the eye with what you just said?"

Is this necessary? Can you at least attempt to keep your comments civil? Or are you just here to bolster your own ego by denigrating everyone who expresses any kind of disagreement?

I'm going to pretend, just for this one reply, that your comment isn't just a faceroll of troll and actually try to take you seriously outside of your insipid remarks at my expense. Hope I'm not wasting my time here.

"You just said that 'truth can be taken as is without needing to append conditions and clarifications'. This is EXACTLY the SAME as saying “truth can be taken as is FOR EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE”. Because, IF there is a possible circumstance where the truth cannot be taken as is, then that is a CONDITION......get it?"

Actually, "every possible circumstance" is very different from "unstated conditions".

Even if we assume that "circumstance" and "condition" are directly interchangeable synonyms (and they're not), there's a very important distinction between "every condition" and "all unstated conditions". I evidently didn't make myself clear in that regard.

Although it would help if you could respond to my statements in their entire context, since I did provide a few paragraphs detailing the distinction I was trying to make just before and after the particular sentences you decided to pick out. Let me know what you didn't understand out of the following so I can clarify:

If A & B & C are true, then Z is true.

Is a statement of absolute truth if, when A & B & C are true, Z is true. If A & B & C are true, and yet Z can be false, then the statement is conditionally true: it's truth is subject to unspecified conditions.

Basically, if the statement itself implies or outright states conditions, then the truth of the statement obviously hinges on the conditions, and it is ridiculous to say that an absolute statement is true independent of the conditions or circumstances it specifies as required for it's validity.

"...and false is the opposite of truth."

You got it. It's really that simple.

"Nonsense to the N-th degree!!!

All definitions are predicated in positive terms... except for the definition of the special term 'nothing'."

Is that just because you said so, or...?

I really don't get the point you're trying to make here. A definition is merely a statement that implies a prescription for use of the word.

"All definitions are OBJECTIVE....they MUST be in positive terms to describe exactly what they mean with no ambiguities!!"

How is the statement that truth is the opposite of falsehood ambiguous? That's all that formal logic ascribes to it. I did imply (heck I outright stated it) that I was speaking of "logical truth" here. There's an entire field of mathematics that uses these definitions. I did specifically state that, with regards to truth and falsehood, the standard logical connectives apply, and that should be more than enough definition for you.

"All you said was........duh, I define 'walking' as: things that can walk, will affect things that can walk."

The problem with that particular statement is that it equates a verb with a noun and so it sounds, aesthetically at least, absurd. But note that it is true that things that can walk can affect things that can walk, since anything that can walk exists and things that exist can affect things that exist.

"With your circular description that is pure useless rhetoric.....I would say that “pretty broadly” is a gross understatement!!"

Useless rhetoric? Language is the foundation of communication, is it not? Rhetoric is never useless.

When you ask somebody "does God exist?", what exactly are you asking him? You are asking him, quite simply, whether "God" can somehow affect or impact the things he already believes exist. This is clearly right for any meaningful definition of existence.

That definition matches what people use the word for; and, after all, that's all that really matters when it comes to language. Name me one thing that falls under it that an average person would say doesn't exist, or one thing that doesn't fall under it that people would say does exist. If you can't, then clearly it meets its intended purpose.

"Indeed, absolute truth is a TAUTOLOGY!!!!"

You're trying to make a semantic point by reinterpreting my words. What I was attempting to express there was that the phrase "absolute truth" is synonymous with the word "tautology", since a tautology is true regardless of the truth values of its variables, and an absolute truth is true as long as everything it specified as non-variable holds constant.

Functionally, these two definitions say the same thing: variables can have any value, constants must hold.

“If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

No friggin’ way!!!!!!

The term “sound” is concept which is necessarily predicated on an observer to SENSE with their hearing."

If you define the word sound to require an observer, then sure. But I'm talking about acoustic waves here. Acoustic waves, aka "sounds", are generated, whether or not an observer is there. Do I really need to go out of my way to make sure I say "acoustic wave", "emitted light wave frequency", and the like instead of the more common terms, "sound" and "color", or are you going to nit pick at every irrelevant detail?

"A tree falling in the forest will simply move atoms of air and create pressure effects with air. Only an observer can CONCEIVE of “sound”. Once again, the term “sound” necessarily invokes an OBSERVER."

According to your definition of the term. This is a good example of what you were talking about before when you said "irrelevant distinction", because if you want to insist that sound have this definition, I can just start saying acoustic waves. If course, what would be the point of that?

"Wrong again! It is the recording device making sound.....not the tree. The tree phenomenon was a consummated event. The recording is artificial. Please tell me you understand this much."

The recording is a product of the existence of the acoustic wave, which of course implies that the acoustic wave existed, and therefore a sound was made by the tree. Is that just as clear to you?

Or is this just going to obscure communication, and should I instead say something like "the recording of the sound implies that the sound occurred" and waste less of everyone's time?

“"well, what if there is no way to observe or record it?", in which case the answer is, "we can't KNOW if it will or not".

Nonsense to the N-th degree!!"

Really? So you're saying that even if there's no way to observe or record something, you can be absolutely sure that it happened? Well... so I guess absolute truths do exist. Thanks I guess.

(Or did you just forget to read what you quoted?)

"This is NOT an issue of knowledge, wisdom, belief, truth, proof, faith, experiment, observation, authority, etc.

When the tree fell and hit the ground, it also made surface-to-surface contact with atoms in the air....it moved atoms. This happened irrespective of whether there was a stupid (and very proud) ape philosopher there to actually HEAR a “sound”....got it?"

Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I SAID?

This is why you should respond to the entire point, not half of a thought.

“Reality is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!!"

Let's read the entire sentence before we respond, shall we? Please explain to me what your response has to do with this sentence:

"If an observer is unable to ascertain whether or not something is true, that just means that the observer is unable to ascertain whether it is true, not that it does not have a truth value or that truth is dependent upon that observer."

I believe the quote above has something to do with the fact that truth is observer-independent.

Now, I should point out that a lot of my comment was cut out, as you can see by that out of place "You're" at the end of the post.

I didn't say too much of immediate importance anyways, so I'll just drop it.


The Genie 4 years ago

"Timezones are pre-DEFINED standards....they are axiomatic rules conceived of and followed by humans who wish to follow them!"

Oh for fuck sake, you're doing it again. He needs to use words to communicate with you, that means everything he says relies on axiomatic rules conceived of and followed by humans who wish to communicate with each other. The truth of statements depend on the agreed upon definitions for the words that make up the statements; this is a feature of language itself, NOT truth.

If you really want to get into what I'm talking about when I say truth is the opposite of falsehood, check out

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculu...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Genie,

“Actually, "every possible circumstance" is very different from "unstated conditions.....If A & B & C are true then.....”

Genie, please listen....your line of reasoning is very ambiguous and subject to many interpretations. You said that you don’t like my definition (and actually the standard philosophy definition) of the term “absolute”....which means “non-contingent, unlimited, unrestricted”. That’s fine.....but you need to provide your own objective definition. So please, don’t beat around the bush any longer....

Absolute:______________

Fill in the blanks, please!

Fatfist: "...and false is the opposite of truth."

Genie: You got it. It's really that simple.

Sorry Genie.....but you are trolling!!! You expect me to keep a serious face when you post crap like that???

You did NOT define TRUTH and you did NOT define FALSE. Do you have a serious learning disability?

Fatfist: “All definitions are predicated in positive terms... except for the definition of the special term 'nothing'."

Genie: “Is that just because you said so, or...?”

No! Not because I said so. Because nothing means “no thing....no object”. It is INHERENTLY predicated on NEGATION. All other words in language which APPEAR negative are the context opposites of a ROOT word. This means they are negated BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CONTEXT OPPOSITES. They are NOT defined in negative terms. Only their positive ROOT words are defined. You can find many examples with prefixes: a-, im-, an-, dis, il-, in, ir,.....etc. This is critically REASONED....not ASSERTED.

Have you taken a basic course in grammar?

“A definition is merely a statement that implies a prescription for use of the word.”

No, a definition is not a prescription. A prescription alludes to an operational or functional definition, i.e. definition by example. We don’t define by examples like kindergarteners do. When dealing with reality, we had better define our terms OBJECTIVELY and unambiguously without contradictions or loopholes. A definition gives the meaning of the word. Do you understand now?

Fatfist: "All definitions are OBJECTIVE....they MUST be in positive terms to describe exactly what they mean with no ambiguities!!"

Genie: “How is the statement that truth is the opposite of falsehood ambiguous?”

It is ambiguous because it is CIRCULAR. You have NOT defined truth nor false. Which part don’t you understand? Please, stop trolling here or I will kick you! I’ve had enough of your crap, ok?

“ There's an entire field of mathematics that uses these definitions. I did specifically state that, with regards to truth and falsehood”

Irrelevant! Math is a language which is DESCRIPTIVE, and not EXPLANATORY. Math only describes. This is why you cannot use math constructs to DEFINE your terms of true and false. It is impossible to do.....as I have shown you.

“But note that it is true that things that can walk can affect things that can walk, since anything that can walk exists and things that exist can affect things that exist.”

No it is NOT true. You did not define TRUTH yet.....REMEMBER?

And that is not a definition. Do you even know what a definition is, or are you just trolling here?

" Useless rhetoric? Language is the foundation of communication, is it not?”

Indeed! So please start defining in no ambiguous terms:

Truth: _____________

Absolute: _____________

“Rhetoric is never useless.”

It IS useless because rhetoric is repetition...it adds no value...exactly like your posts here! You don’t have a single argument!

Fatfist: "Indeed, absolute truth is a TAUTOLOGY!!!!"

Genie: “You're trying to make a semantic point by reinterpreting my words. What I was attempting to express there was that the phrase "absolute truth" is SYNONYMOUS with the word "tautology",

Hey.... Genie.....that’s what I said you babbling ape!!! Helllllllooooooo.....anybody home?

“since a tautology is true regardless of the truth values of its variables”

A tautology is TRUE by the DEFINITION and ASSUMPTION of its AXIOMS!! A tautology is NOT true.....we have to ASSUME it and take it for granted AS IF it were true in order to use that logical system within that context of its supplied axioms. Outside that system, it is NOT true, not FALSE, not anything! Why? Because it is UNDEFINED and UNASSUMED! Don’t you even know the basics?

“If you define the word sound to require an observer, then sure.”

No. Sound necessarily requires an observer. There is NO sound without an observer....there is only air and other objects. Sound is a concept. All concepts are CONCEIVED by observers....Got it????

“ are you going to nit pick at every irrelevant detail?”

When talking about reality, every relevant detail is important. And this is why you need to DEFINE your terms.

“The recording is a product of the existence of the acoustic wave”

No! The recording could have been made by a synthesizer or sound generator. Ever think of that, genius??? Hence, it is not truth nor absolute because of this exception....got it? This possible circumstance contradicts any truth.

“So you're saying that even if there's no way to observe or record something, you can be absolutely sure that it happened?”

No. The recording is an imitation at best. It could also be artificially generated by a circuit board. But to a believer like you, it SOUNDS like the real deal,... therefore you conclude it as “absolute truth”. See how you are? You put OPINION before objectivity.

“Well... so I guess absolute truths do exist. Thanks I guess.”

Yeah, you are welcome. Is this the BEST a troll like you can do? Do you even have an argument to support truth, absolute or otherwise?

“I believe the quote above has something to do with the fact that truth is observer-independent.”

No way! Truth is a concept which is necessarily VALIDATED to the labels of either “true” or “false”. In order to be VALIDATED, it necessarily needs an OBSERVER. Validation is a VERB....it needs someone to perform it. Rocks and gases cannot validate supposed truths.... Got it??

TRUTH = OBSERVER-DEPENDENT = SUBJECTIVE = OPINION

It is impossible for you to argue otherwise, and you know it.

Hence, absolute truth = OPINION = BUNK....comprende?

Which part didn’t you understand?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Genie,

“He needs to use words to communicate with you, that means everything he says relies on axiomatic rules conceived of and followed by humans who wish to communicate with each other.”

No. You haven’t a clue, my dear Genie.....you have nothing but sawdust in there.

If he needs words to communicate, then he had better DEFINE the KEY terms which make or break his argument: truth and absolute.

“The truth of statements depend on the agreed upon definitions for the words that make up the statements;”

Nonsense to the N-th degree!!

A statement is “truth” BY DEFINITION of the term "TRUTH", only!!

If you can’t define “truth”, then nothing you've said can be regarded as "truth". Now go memorize this for the test next week.


DaveSmith7 profile image

DaveSmith7 4 years ago

Boiling away the fat, all we have have left is The Genie's circular definitions: True is the opposite of false, and false is the opposite of true. This tells us zip.

He tries to justify this circularity by saying it's from the field of logic, an appeal to authority. "Hey, if logicians do it it MUST be OK!"

But in fact, true and false in propositional logic are just as silly as true and false in any other academic field. They are terms of everyday speech, not rigorous ones. The field of propositional logic is completely asinine because it takes statements as free-floating entities, rather than as communication of what someone has in their mind.

Invoking authority is just another of your magic tricks that won't work here, Genie.


DaveSmith7 profile image

DaveSmith7 4 years ago

Until we define "truth" we can have no idea of what we're even talking about. So far The Genie says his presentation is about Two Things that are Opposites of Each Other (TTOEO). That's enough of a definition for him apparently, but no one else has any idea what he's talking about. He just raves on about TTOEO as if the meaning were obvious. A lot like theists (and atheists).


Kev 4 years ago

What a child like article full of contradictions and gobbledegook plays on words. You are simply arguing about the definition of truth not about whether truth exists. Within what we know and understand about this physical universe there ARE truths. I wrote this comment is an "absolutely true statement" it doesn't have to be true in the past and it will always be true in the future and I don't have to prove anything for it to be true.


El Dude 4 years ago

Still avoiding definitions – unbelievable! 'Absolutely' stunning!


El Dude 4 years ago

Lol, Kev just repeats the same brain-dead nonsense for the hundredth time... Kev did you even read the article?! Amazing how public education kills so many brain cells.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

DaveSmith,

Here is Genie's argument so far:

1) "Umm...duh....I define the word 'running' as the OPPOSITE of 'not-running'."

2) "You see, fatfist, a definition is actually a 'prescription', much like the one a doctor would give his patient."

3) "Duh, I use the definitions of mathematics, even though math cannot define the words 'point' and 'line'".

4) "Sound is an object that exists".

5) "TRUTH is NOT a tautology, it is actually SYNONYMOUS with tautology"

and here is the kicker....

6) "Duh...Truth is observer-independent, even though an OBSERVER is required to use his 5 senses to resolve a claimed situation or statement as either 'true' or 'false'"

7) "Tautologies are observer-independent. We just set up their rules and decree that every human follows them...but nonetheless....they don't require a human....they magically stand on their own somewhere out there in OUTER SPACE!"

8) "Duh....did I mention that tautologies and truths are NOT concepts....they are not conceived....God just placed them somewhere in the Universe for us humans to discover. This is again another one of God's tests to determine if we are worthy-enough to go to Heaven!!"


El Dude 4 years ago

OMG! Fatfist has been DISPROVEN!

Every utterance Fatfist makes is clearly an ABSOLUTE RUNNING! Either it's a running or not-running. If it's NOT-running, clearly that's a statement of ABSOLUTE NOT-RUNNING!

Fatfist, the gig's up!

*Drinks another INFINITE ABSOLUTE beer and collapses*


El Dude 4 years ago

I will now provide EVIDENCE to back my proof that Fatfist is absolutely wrong:

http://designhey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ab...

http://www.idrinkonline.com/images/Absolut%20Glimm...

We did SCIENTIFIC TESTING on 1 litre of Absolut Insanity and 700ml of Absolut Vodka (original). I assure you the measurements were MATHEMATICALLY accurate. After the first bottle we verified wave-packets by observing them in mid air. I can now also confirm that they're pink.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Kev,

“You are simply arguing about the definition of truth not about whether truth exists.”

Kev, you have no clue....nada!

There is no argument about whether ‘truth’ exists or not. Any human ape knows that ‘truth’ is a concept and NOT an object.....any buffoon knows that concepts, like ‘truth’, are IMPOSSIBLE to exist!

Existence is observer-independent. The Moon exists irrespective of whether an idiotic ape, which we call a ‘human’, observes it, lands on it, smells it, tastes it, or hear it fart......got it? We scientifically define (objectively without ambiguities) the term ‘exist’ as follows......

Exist: physical presence (object + location)

Object: that which has shape

Is ‘truth’ an object in your Religion, Kev? Did your Priest make you memorize in the confession box that ‘truth’ has shape, much like Jesus does? Is there a halo around truth in order to make it special and powerful??

As a concept, ‘truth’ MUST be DEFINED. Otherwise the clown who uses this term has no clue of what he is saying out of his big red nose. Such a parrot just memorized what his Priest told him in Sunday Service and comes here to make a damn fool out of himself!!

“Within what we know and understand about this physical universe there ARE truths. “

Ohhhhh.....wow....OMG....really???

Please Kev, do us all a favor and just post ONE truth here......just ONE! And before you do, please tell our AUDIENCE what this God-like word ‘truth’ which YOU invoke, actually means....please define it!

Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is, ok? I dare you.....I double-dog dare you.....I TRIPLE-DOG DARE YOU!!

“I wrote this comment is an "absolutely true statement"”

Nonsense to the N-th degree!! Argument from extreme ignorance!!

Your mother may have posted this comment....or anybody else with access to your computer. Or your comment may have been written by someone else days before, and posted via a background task in that particular time. These are *some* of the POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES where your alleged ‘truth’ cannot be ‘absolute’. Your problem is TWO-FOLD....

1) It is IMPOSSIBLE for your alleged ‘truth’ to be absolute, as explained above.

2) Your alleged ‘truth’ is also SUSPECT of not being a ‘truth’.... if you cannot OBJECTIVELY PROVE it,.. it is nothing but a LIE!!!

How are you going to PROVE that it was YOU who posted that comment at that SPECIFIC TIME in the PAST, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have been posted by anybody else or even an auto-posting background task???

Whada ya’ say, genius? Ever think of that, or are you sooooooo caught up in Stefan Molyneux ‘s Religion, that you cannot think or see straight anymore??

“it doesn't have to be true in the past “

Total IDIOCY!!

Your alleged ‘truth’ NECESSARILY INVOKES TIME!!!!!!!

You allege it happened in the PAST, not in the FUTURE!!!

What you ALLEGE you did is a Consummated Event....an action performed by a human ape in the past....get it?

Do you understand this much, or do you need sessions with a Cognitive Psycho-Therapist to help you out??

“it will always be true in the future “

There are NO truths in the future!!

You can say your car is white, but it won’t be white in the future after I paint it blue for you. Do you understand this basic stuff, or should I repeat it?

ALL ALLEGED TRUTH STATEMENTS REFER TO A CONSUMMATED EVENT OR INSTANCE IN THE PAST. TIME IS INHERENT IN THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH!

In order to RESOLVE a propositional statement as ‘true’, you must necessarily invoke an OBSERVER who uses his limited sensory system AND his personal bias, in order to subjectively and dogmatically decree that this statement is TRUE.

Hence, TRUTH = YOUR OPINION

Learn this lesson, and learn it well.


Allen 4 years ago

Try as I might, I couldn't get the Molyneux crowd to define their terms either. To them it's either you accept the qualifier or you reject the concept of truth in toto.

It's funny, contrary to Molyneux, all "Objectivists" I've encountered thus far get very emotional, become personal, shout "relativist," and leave in a huff, when you asked them to define "absolute," or question the whole "objective/subjective" dichotomy at all. Molyneux failed big time in his vid.


Allen 4 years ago

Pardon that I posted twice, my computer hung.

It's interesting. I actually watched his video prior to reading your article above. I noticed right away the holes in his argument as well as his lack of defining his terms. I've held much the same perspective as you regarding the term "absolute' for some time, as well. Keep up the work!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Allen,

Stefan will forever refuse to DEFINE 'truth' because he and his congregation know full well that they are selling top quality prime Bullsh** to the audience.

They can call me a Relativist all they want, but my next article in this series will be: There is NO Relative Truth.....followed by: There is NO Truth!!

All their holes will be plugged. There will be no place for them to run and hide. If they want me to go away, they will have to define 'truth' on their terms. Because no matter what I define, these circus clowns will perpetually bellyache about it. The ball is in their court.

Thanks for dropping by, Allen.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

What's the matter, prometheus? Are you bored?

Don't worry, I'm sure there must be somebody out there who can post a definition of 'truth' and 'absolute'.


Ekkusu 4 years ago

::crickets::


Allen 4 years ago

Truth is a metaphor. Originally the solidity and firmness of a (an oak, most likely) *tree* inspired our PIE ancestors to liken certain social relationships and common, repeatable occurrences to such a tree. True(th)is derived from "tree" as a metaphor. It's simply too bad "absolutists" have such a hatred for the metaphorical nature of language relegating it a priori to inferiority opposed to "truth."

Wait 'til these guys investigate the *metaphors* at the roots of "object" and "axiom"...

Oh, can I have the $10K now? ;-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Allen,

It's very clear that Stefan and his followers are ignorant on the philosophical issue of the "absolute". He really doesn't understand the topic nor the arguments that have been revolving around this term for thousands of years. Since the Greeks conceived of it over 2500 years ago, philosophers have been struggling up to this day to demonstrate or "prove" a single absolute truth.

I don't mind to educate Stefan on the basics of Philosophy 101, but at least he should have the balls to admit that he was clueless on this issue,....instead of being stubborn and blindly marching along as if nothing so he doesn't tarnish his reputation and Internet Persona. I guess some people need to learn the hard way. It's ok, I taught this same lesson to Matt Slick; self-proclaimed to be the Internet's BEST Philosopher/Logician. The extremely stubborn Matt Slick was educated rather quickly....and so will Stefan!!

Not even the clueless clowns hosting the Atheist Experience show could refute the “absolutes” that Matt Slick had allegedly “proven”. Just watch that episode on youtube and see how Matt Slick turned Matt Dillahunty into an ass-hat, and forced him to make ridiculous assertions in the end so he could exit the hot-seat which Matt Slick put him on.

But maybe I am wrong.....Stefan MIGHT be the first philosopher on this planet to have conceived of an absolute truth.....LOL!!!. If this is the case, then of course he DESERVES $10k and more!!...as I am really interested to know what this absolute truth is that he discovered, which nobody else could. This will be good....oh, real good...I can't wait!!!


Allen 4 years ago

I'm not against Stef in toto, or even dislike him. I actually agree with some of his conclusions, (but from a different perspective). I simply see his ego far to big for its worth, his methodology a bit wanting, his assumptions seemingly remain unquestioned.

You are not the first to speak of Stefan's ignorance regarding the history of the Western philosophic tradition. You might enjoy "The Damnation of Philosophy" by Sisyphus Redeemed (an assistant professor of philosophy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks Allen....I don't dislike Stefan either. This is not a personal issue at all. The issue is that he strawmaned my article out of his ignorance. I mean, he was caught with his pants down trying to do a "cold" review of an article without even understanding the fundamental philosophical issues. It's quite embarrassing not to understand what the term "absolute" means.

His problem is that he counts waaaay too much on his public image....his Internet Persona...to show that he is right and wins arguments. This doesn't work with me! Most of his followers are clueless and swallow everything he claims. His artificial image allows him to get away with this because nobody has faced him and held him accountable for his statements. I am glad that you have studied Philosophy and understand the critical issues behind the "absolute". Very few people do, even though they claim to be Philosophers. Thanks for the link.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

WOW!!!

I just watched the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc

Looks like Stefan Molyneux considers himself as MESSIAH OF PHILOSOPHY!!!!!

And he has quite the consistent pattern as we see at 13:45 in the video: "the strawmanning of his competition, begging the question in his favor....."

Oh boy, another Messiah who needs a reality check.

This will be good!!


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

I've been re-appraising this video for the last seek or so..but it shocks me how last year, when I first saw it, why I didn't take it more seriously!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jake,

"but it shocks me how last year, when I first saw it, why I didn't take it more seriously"

Human beings are born and conditioned to worship authority. This is part of our evolutionary makeup for over thousands of years of brainwashing. We were ALL brainwashed to some degree in the past. Just forget the past and take pride that you able to see right through charlatans at this point in your life.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

This article in my opinion needs to be read by a good deal more people. Even if they don't get it at first, I think it may be an important step in freeing them from truth peddlers, from those charlatans, who offer false certainties and justifications for bigotry..


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jake,

Stefan thinks that he can use his radio & internet "persona" and his projected "authority" which his brain-dead followers worship, in order to win his argument of ignorance against my article. He fools no one! I easily cut through these "sleights of hand" and I get to the bottom of any claims. It will NOT be business as usual if Stefan decides to debate me face-to-face....fist-to-fist!!

Cheers from the crowd and a show of "hands" in his favor will NOT make him win any debate against me. I don't eat shit. It would be in his BEST interest to censor me!


StrangerInTheNight 4 years ago

Not sure he'd respond well to insults and baits though, even if he was interested in debate, which I doubt he is.

Just a suggestion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Stranger,

There are no insults or baits....just criticism. I sure hope that criticism is allowed in this day and age. I welcome any criticism here which is on-topic with this article.

When a self-professed Messiah of Philosophy has NEVER heard of the 2500-year-old philosophical concept called the "absolute", it must be quite embarrassing for him and his followers.

‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to any qualification or circumstance. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. "Absolute" and "truth" are also not equivalent (i.e. synonyms); contrary to the claims of New Age "Pop" Philosophers. Is Stefan going to throw all this in the trash and re-write a 2500-year-old philosophical concept, upon which this article is based on? Strawmanning an article is not an argument. Saying that 'absolute' means "what I want it to mean"... is not an argument.

Q: When philosophers have been searching for a single "absolute truth" for the past 2500 years and cannot conceive of one, what makes Stefan think that this article gave him an epiphany to one?

A: It didn't. The poor guy just didn't understand the philosophical issue of the 'absolute'. Will he come clean and admit to this oversight....or will he continue to proudly plow forward as if nothing?


StrangerInTheNight 4 years ago

Well I can't disagree with your core reasoning, only your style.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Jeez..if you want to see an Atheist get all his panties in a bunch..that A.E, interview With Matt Slick IS a doozy..! ;-0 . http://youtu.be/VmRRL0n2nyw


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Stranger,

I know, but style is subjective to each individual. We are not all robots which were built on the same assembly line, are we? And I hope that we were not all created by God to be “good” Christians. So why should we expect everyone to cater to our personal whims? Such a subjective standard has nothing to do whether the explanation given in an argument is rational or not.

Nowadays it’s quite common for people to harp on subjectivity to make their argument (sorry, I don’t mean to single you out in this post). But, such people really don’t have a rational argument to begin with, and are just grasping at what they can to help make their point.

For example, Stefan does this at 24:40 of his video, where he accuses me of “ad-homs” and claims that it interferes with “objectivity”. Let’s analyze his proposal because almost everyone on the Internet is unethically using this Classic Bellyaching Technique to shut down their opponent and discredit them.

Almost 99% of people who bark out the word “ad-hom”, including Stefan, haven’t the slightest idea of what this fallacy entails....not even a clue! They think that an ad-hom is a personal insult, or some other subjective issue, like: “you’re an idiot and your mother wears army boots!” That is NOT an Ad-Hominem!! An Ad-Hominem is: “you’re an idiot and your mother wears army boots, therefore, because of this, your argument is false!”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which an argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant SUBJECTIVE issue about the person presenting the argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, a subjective attack is invoked against the character of the person presenting the argument. Second, this attack is taken to be EVIDENCE against the person’s argument. This is the most POPULAR Bellyaching Technique on the Internet (LOL, any wonder why??) and has the following form:

1. Person A makes an argument: There is no absolute truth because....

2. Person B makes an attack on person A: Your argument is not objective because you are an emotionally-defensive person.

3. Therefore the audience should conclude that person A's argument is false.

Q: What have we learned?

A: That Stefan has taken Mind-Reading & Astrology lessons and is now able to read people’s emotions in their writing.....err, I mean, ....that Stefan is using a SUBJECTIVE criterion in order to gauge objectivity. But hey.....if it fools the audience, then more power to him!!

I mean, c’mon! Are there people out there who are so foolish as to fall for this BS? Can’t anybody think for themselves anymore? Don’t people understand the difference between objective and subjective?

As we can see, such irrelevant accusations are akin to the soccer player who FAKES an injury when he comes in casual contact with his opponent; in the hopes that the referee “red-cards” his opponent. That’s the only way he knows to move forward with the ball. Humans are known to behave this way in all sectors of society....its business as usual.

What is unusual....is honesty. If the proponent of an argument doesn’t know what they are talking about, then they shouldn’t pretend that they do. Education should not be their enemy!

Thank you for raising this very important issue, Stranger.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jake,

"if you want to see an Atheist get all his panties in a bunch..that A.E, interview With Matt Slick IS a doozy..! ;-0 . http://youtu.be/VmRRL0n2nyw"

What is funny here, is that a Theologian (Matt Slick) has managed to kick atheist butt with the utmost finesse. I congratulate Matt Slick for a job well done!!

Even a theist realizes that there are only OBJECTS and CONCEPTS....and no other option! But the fanatical atheist will not listen to reason.

Notice how the clueless atheist, Matt Dillahunty, is asserting an irrational THIRD OPTION.....like a magical category of “spirits”, ...even though he cannot even name or define his alleged category. Breathtaking!!

And this is when a rational person begins to realize that atheism is a pernicious religion which is no different than theism. Anybody who claims that they have a BELIEF or a LACK OF BELIEF in an entity, is telling you in no uncertain terms that they are an irrational fanatical fundamentalist. They are telling you that they will NOT listen to reason. They will fight for their irrationality at all costs.....and even come here in my hubs to troll and spam because they read an article which destroyed their Religion.

Existence has nothing to do with BELIEF or LACK OF BELIEF. What good is atheism when the clowns of this Religion are still arguing with theists (after 2500 years) over the existence of God? Atheism has NO rational argument to conclude whether there is or isn’t a God.....only a critical thinker can do that!


Taco Bell 4 years ago

"But the fanatical atheist will not listen to reason."

They like to put on their cape and repeat the same old "doot do do do!" The problem is, when they did it with tights, it is "plum" wrong.


El Dude 4 years ago

Some people are trying to convince me that logic is derived from the consistent behaviour of matter and energy. Forgetting energy for a moment, can you help me immunise myself against these empiricist claims, as I go all mushy headed when they say this.

I can just feel it's not right, but I can't quite argue against it coherently. They say a tree cannot both be a tree and a chicken at the same time. Fine, I get that. Then they lead into the reason that A=A (or whatever) is because we note that objects have this 'property'. E.g. the three laws of logic are like three laws of objects/matter.

I'm sure there's some word trickery going on here but I can't quite ferret it out. I thought logic was just some system of symbols Aristotle came up with?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ed Dude,

“can you help me immunise myself against these empiricist claims”

Ha ha! There is no pill or shot to take. Empiricism is observer-dependent. If an observer cannot sense, nor has instruments which can sense, say, invisible matter vibrating at 10^9999999 Hz, does that mean that it doesn’t exist? I mean, we have no observations, no experiments, no predictions and crap like that.....and so what? What does that have to do with the unobservable and undetectable?

Clearly, reality is not dependent on the subjectivity and the extremely limited bandwidth of an observer’s sensory system and the technology they invent. Reality just is. As such, reality can only be reasoned objectively via critical thinking; that is, reality can only be rationally explained. This is the best that any living entity in the universe can ever hope to achieve. Those who claim otherwise; those who claim proof/truth/evidence/certainty are clearly Religious idiots who haven’t a clue about what they’re arguing for.

“They say a tree cannot both be a tree and a chicken at the same time.”

Oh please! This is utter nonsense. This is not an argument, nor does it add any value to a rational discussion. A tree is an object because it has shape. Trees had shape (did not blend with their background) before humans came aboard. Humans merely POINTED to that object and uttered “tree”. They associated a word with an object of reality. Similarly with “chicken”.

In reality, matter, like a tree, cannot morph into other categories of matter, like chickens, cars, rocks, etc. in ZERO TIME. That is, the matter comprising the tree cannot rearrange itself in a SINGLE FRAME on the Universal Movie and become a chicken. This is a STATIC concept. How would a snapshot of a tree in a STATIC instant (i.e. photograph) rearrange itself to become a chicken? We don’t need any laws of logic, axioms, assertions or contrived syllogisms to critically reason this.

An instant comprises but one frame in the universal movie and is conceptually a cross-section of 'time'. This image consists solely of static objects. An instant is synonymous with existence: all objects at a fixed location with respect to each other. Hence, time (i.e. morphing of tree to chicken) is irreconcilable with the notion of ‘instant’. An instant is not a 'when’, it is a 'where.' An instant has nothing to do with time, it has to do with location. The mathematicians may want to make their interval as infinitesimal as they can imagine, but it will never amount to an instant because they are talking about a MOVIE which is DYNAMIC....not an SNAPSHOT with is STATIC. Sure, the atoms comprising a tree could rearrange themselves to a chicken (C-H-N-O chains of atoms) eventually (i.e. movie/dynamic), but this is not the issue at hand.

Hence, a tree morphing into another object in zero time (instant) is clearly impossible and it has nothing to do with any human-contrived laws of logic. Laws are invented by humans. Nature doesn’t give a shit about humans and their stupid laws. Nature has no laws. Nature just is. Nature can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained.

“Then they lead into the reason that A=A (or whatever) is because we note that objects have this 'property'. E.g. the three laws of logic are like three laws of objects/matter.”

Nonsense and bullshit to the N-th degree. The laws of logic and A=A are parroted by the lesser-evolved beings who haven’t a clue what they are talking about. It is these clowns who use the laws of logic to PROVE that space is a substance that can be warped, and that time is a substance that can be stretched. A syllogism can be invented to logically prove that I am your mother’s great grandfather. And it would be logically “true” because it is tautologically consistent. Well guess what? Reality is not based on logic and tautologies.

Furthermore, objects only have one intrinsic property: shape. That’s it. There are no others. Any other alleged property that humans can conceive of is necessarily dependent on at least two or more other objects.

All other properties are either extrinsic, like ‘location’, or they are observer-dependent like mass, weight, energy, etc. because they need another object in order to be conceived. A=A is NOT a property of objects. A=A is an artificial tautology (rhetoric). It is utterly meaningless and of no value at all in any argument. No wonder it is used as an argument by stupid parrots who really have no arguments to support their assertions. Again, laws are invented by humans to place general constraints/conditions on their observations....ie. subjective!

Reality is observer-independent (objective), and remember....logic is descriptive, not explanatory. These parrots are clueless to the fact that there are literally thousands of systems of logic, and new ones invented every day. And each system is founded on its pre-defined rules and hence is inapplicable in any other context; much less in reality.

Reality does NOT depend on logic or axioms or on alleged "logical absolutes", nor is it governed by them.

Whomever disagrees with this statement should use whatever fancy logic and axioms they have in their arsenal to explain to the audience what makes the pen fall to the floor....

a) is it ‘warped space’?

b) is it ‘graviton particles’?

c) is it both (a) and (b)?

d) Is it sometimes (a) and sometimes (b)?

e) none of the above

This question destroys all their nonsense. The fact that they can’t answer this simple question elucidates that they are blowing smoke about reality being dependent on logic. And they will use a million excuses to misdirect the audience from the fact that their magical logic CANNOT be used to answer this very simple question.

Reality is not asserted by magical axioms which are a cure-all snake oil fed to the unsuspecting members of the audience. Reality can only be explained; whereby all the key terms in the explanation are defined OBJECTIVELY. And this is why we grab the clueless logician/philosopher/theist/atheist by the neck and put him on the podium in front of an audience and ask him to EXPLAIN himself. This is the litmus test which instantly elucidates whether he has any clue of what he is talking about.

“I thought logic was just some system of symbols Aristotle came up with?”

Yes. And he did that for the purpose of isolating tautological systems within CONTEXTS. He called these contexts: AXIOMS. The Classical Laws of logic are not applicable to other contexts, like the Quantum Laws or the Fuzzy Laws of logic. And this is just one of the many issues which destroy their arguments.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

A=A

The tautology of em:

Question: What causes the pen to fall to the floor? Answer: Gravity

Question: What is gravity? Answer: That which causes pens to fall to the floor.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

LOL

What have we learned about gravity with A=A?

That gravity = gravity. Astounding!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

On a forum question, a poster who came to your site as well has continually weakened his argument to the point where now he is claiming that the relationship between objects = logic.

It is amazing how difficult it is for so many to remove sentient observation from the mix and consider reality simply from an objective position.

How hard is it to understand that to recognize motion requires memory to plot positions?

As I pointed out to this fellow, if logic is the actual action of position change, it cannot be also the description of the change else it fails on excluded middle.

His claim is another tautology: x = logic, logic = x.

Brilliant.


El Dude 4 years ago

Winston, I'd really like to see this dialogue if it's available somewhere?

I'm still learning and keen to refine my understanding and arguments.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

El Dude,

The discussion is interwoven on this forum question: "If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?" You would have to dig through it, though, to find the salient discourse.

Actually, the question I framed was for the point of coming at the question of concept/objects from a different perspective to illustrate that without sentience there is nothing left but objects.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

This following came from an exchange with someone arguing that logic is not subjective, but is a state that occurs simultaneously with objects. I think it expresses well the misunderstanding of philosophy proponents.

(Words can "mean something" But also Words "are" those things that they describe.)

This is asserted tautology that is unwarranted. It reaches the false conclusion that equivalency (=) is an action rather than a description.

This is the basic error that is the hallmark of all irrational claims: the equivalency sign (=) has magical powers that transforms ideas into objects.


DaveSmith7 profile image

DaveSmith7 4 years ago

"(Words can "mean something" But also Words "are" those things that they describe.)"

Yes, this is THE key misunderstanding in the world today. Platonism. People have been mired in this silliness of thinking that "the word is the thing the word describes" for millennia.

Korzybski called it out with his famous phrase, "The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing described."

Philosophers spend most of their time trying to *prove definitions*.

Reification.

These are all different aspects of the same problem. Words are not things; words point to things. Words are just communication tools to try to get other people to see what the speaker is thinking, feeling, or imagining.


bowspearer 4 years ago

While I understand what you are driving at, you entire proof here makes a dangerous assumption and falls for the same fallacy which you accuse so called "absolute truth" of bearing.

There is a very simple proof that there are absolutes in that there is an absolute body of knowledge in the universe- both in terms of the laws of the universe and the history of the universe from start to finish. That body of knowledge is the absolute knowledge of the universe.

Therefore if there is an absolute knowledge, which I have just proven there is (and before you start, there is a difference between actual history and recorded history) there must also be absolute truth.

Individually no human could grasp either, however collectively as a race, once time travel and telepathy exists, it's theoretically possible to reach that point collectively eventually. However it requires a collective mindset that is truly scientific.

The problem is that these days, most scientists do not practice science. What they do is perform an experiment in controlled conditions and take a line of best fit on the readings measured.

From there they come up with a model and claim it's absolute, when really the only time their model is 100% reliable are in those closed conditions and when something happens that fits with that line of best fit.

The reality is that absolutes exist and the whole purpose of science is to discover them, which is what the Russians who practice REAL science and actually take things back to physical principles rather than models, actually practice.

Sadly your "logical proof" here has been more one of "if p then q" rather than "if a=b and b=c, then a also = c".

I'd recommend taking this train of thought that's behind this blog post, back to the drawing board for a major rethink.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@bowspearer,

“there is an absolute body of knowledge ....”

What is knowledge? What does this formidable word even mean?

If you're smart, instead of just copying words you don't understand, you would look up the word knowledge at the wiki or at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You would learn that they have been debating the word knowledge for hundreds of years. Not a single idiot of Webster knows what the word knowledge means.

And, of course, you have no idea what it means either. That's why you used it in an irrational context.

There is only ONE way to show that you 'know' something. You run an experiment and prove your knowledge to an audience. In the instant case, that audience is YOU (i.e., "I know"). You see....’knowledge’ is a verb. Knowledge necessarily requires an OBSERVER to perform an action....and then claim: I know! As such, knowledge is SUBJECTIVE. What is ‘known’ to you.....is ‘unknown’ to your neighbor. Perhaps you talked to and ‘know’ God....but your neighbor certainly doesn’t.

So who is right and who is wrong? How do we objectively resolve this dilemma? Do we flip a coin? Do we consult a crystal ball or a ouija board? Do we ask for the opinion of a professional? Do we go to the polls and vote on the issue?

Reality doesn't deal with ‘knowledge’...the humorous activity performed by human apes. Reality just is. You cannot summons Mother Nature or God in a court where they can testify to their ‘knowledge’ or ‘omniscience’. Reality has no memory bank to browse. Reality is static, not dynamic. There is no past....there is only the present.

Reality can only be rationally explained. That is why science only deals with explanations (theories). It is in religion where they already 'know' and tolerate no dissent. In Science, we explain and we do so rationally. Knowledge is incompatible with explanation, and not even God can predict without error any experiment to be run in the future.

knowledge: the ability to predict the result of an experiment without error

Believe, you can only believe a consummated event: the past. Knowledge and belief belong to different chronological realms. Never the twain shall meet.

There was an idiot named Plato who defined knowledge as a kind of 'belief' and that's what the philosophers continue to use today. Yet this idiot Plato claimed that 'knowledge' is 'true justified BELIEF'!!! And we still have idiots parroting this nonsense today. That's what happens when amateurs invade and take over Science. They have no idea how important it is to define words.

“there is an absolute body of knowledge in the universe- both in terms of the laws of the universe and the history of the universe from start to finish. That body of knowledge is the absolute knowledge of the universe.”

There is KNOWLEDGE ‘in’ the universe? Are you sure about this? Who is performing this act of ‘knowledge’....your God?

Let’s critically analyze your statement....

1) Is the universe a container of sorts, like Tupperware, which contains verbs, like ‘knowledge’, running, singing, writing? How do you put verbs IN a container?

2) Does the universe have edges or a border? If so, what is outside those edges? God perhaps?

Can you objectively answer these key questions which make or break your argument?

We learn in Junior Kindergarten the difference between objects and concepts. The universe is not an object since it has no shape, borders, edges or boundaries. The universe is a concept!

Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

Similarly, ‘knowledge’ is a concept. Concepts cannot contain other concepts. Only objects, like Tupperware, can contain other objects, like the “sawdust” in some people’s brains. Concepts are human relations....they cannot be ‘in’ anything!

As you can see my friend.....DEFINITIONS are paramount to any assertions made by the proponent of an argument. If you cannot define your KEY terms rationally for the purposes of objectively explaining how they make sense in your argument.....then you clearly don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

“there is an absolute knowledge, which I have just proven”

Ummm...yeah! People have been ‘known’ to prove anything after downing a bottle of scotch. 99% of the world’s population has proven God after downing a bottle of Holy Wine....so I guess that settles it.

“The problem is that these days, most scientists do not practice science. “

You’ve got one thing right!!

“absolutes exist “

What do you mean by ‘exist’? Define ‘exist’ and you’ll be redeemed by the fruits of your labor!

Exist: physical presence (object + location)

Only objects which have location can possibly exist. The Moon is an object because it has shape. Furthermore, the Moon has location because there is a static distance between the Moon and every other object in the universe. Hence the Moon exists irrespective of any observer or their opinions on the issue.

Let’s now test your word “absolutes”. Do absolutes have shape? Do absolutes have location? If not, how can they possibly exist???

“the whole purpose of science is to discover them”

Science does NOT discover. Only explorers, like Marco Polo, discover. Science is study in which the Scientific Method is rigorously applied to formulate Hypotheses and Theories. Science only EXPLAINS....and it does so rationally! You need to take an introductory course in Science 101.

“the Russians who practice REAL science”

Not a single Russian has been able to explain WHY a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Russians should just stick to doing what they do best....drinking Vodka and dancing to Rasputin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvDMlk3kSYg

“your "logical proof"”

Ummm....what planet are you from?? Do you know the difference between ‘proof’ and ‘explanation’? Perhaps you should go to primary school here on Earth and learn the difference before you argue with yourself in front of the mirror.

PROOF = OPINION. Which part are you having trouble understanding? Only Religious Fanatics will go out of their way to PROVE something to you. There is not a single proof in this article...only rational explanations. Go to school and learn the difference. It will spare you much embarrassment.

Moral of the story: If you post words like exist, absolute, truth, knowledge and universe on the Internet without being able to define them.....you will make yourself look like a fool.


El Dude w/ coffee 4 years ago

Hello old friend! I come hither seeking advice.

While debating again recently I've narrowed the empiricist sophists down to the following position:

"[...] The scientific method is a set of rules that are valid because the universe displays consistent properties. That means science is by definition NOT subjective. Yes, logic does require a mind. Before minds there was only the consistent behaviour of the universe. There were no logical rules."

So far not bad then. Except they say that logic is also objective, like science. Although they're still using Karl Popper's version of science. So they're hanging on to something like... 'well logic doesn't exist, but logic is objective because it's based on the consistent behaviour of matter' bla bla.

I got them at least to drop the word "energy" (quite an accomplishment I think!)!.

Thoughts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Dude,

Here is what it basically boils down to....

“The scientific method is a set of rules that are valid because the universe displays consistent properties.”

The sci method is not dependent on rules. Rules are made by dictators who tolerate no dissent. And again, what the universe “displays” to a human ape is subject to the ape’s subjective sensory system. The universe already displayed Jesus walking on water, raising the dead and being the son of God. So is this valid? Why not? These idiots cannot have it both ways. Clearly, the above statement is contradictory.

The sci method has nothing to do with rules and validity....nothing to do with right/wrong, correct/incorrect, true/false, etc. It’s domain falls squarely within the realm of “rationally explaining” how nature does its deceptive tricks, like gravity, magnetism, light, electricity, etc. It has nothing to do with assertion, dogma and decree. It has to do with proposing (hypothesizing) an agent or actor (i.e. object) which will be used to rationally explain the phenomenon (i.e. theory, action, verb) we call gravity, magnetism, light, electricity, etc. Nobody can ever KNOW how nature performs these tricks. Only arrogant dictators claim to “know”, and force you to worship them and decorate them with Nobel Prizes for their “omniscience”. Only Religionists know. Scientists only hypothesize and theorize. It’s that simple.

“That means science is by definition NOT subjective.”

Science is objective because it eliminates observer testimony from nature’s phenomena. A stupid ape cannot claim that light is a stream of 0D particles because his magical math equations proves it to be so....or because it was inferred/extrapolated from some irrelevant experiment....or because they have a Ph.D designation, an IQ of 160+ and “infinite wisdom”. Such criteria are clearly authoritative BS which forced down the throats of the peasants i.e. the rest of us.

“Before minds there was only the consistent behaviour of the universe.”

....and this consistent behavior can only be rationally explained in a Theory by proposing objects which mediate this BEHAVIOR. Only objects can perform actions/behavior!

“they say that logic is also objective, like science.”

Logic is rule-based and assertion-based. Logic has no explanatory power. Logic cannot be used to DEDUCE what makes a ball fall to the ground instead of the ceiling i.e. gravity. Logic can only be used to ASSERT that 0D graviton particles and/or warped space facilitate gravity. Only the clueless use logic to draw conclusions from assertions in science.

“logic is objective because it's based on the consistent behaviour of matter'”

No, it is not. Logic is a concept....a set of rules invented by man. Matter is an object.....not invented nor created. Matter is eternal. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with matter.....these are 2 different contexts. Logic is used by the OBSERVER to observe the behavior of matter and assert conclusions based on their PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and biases during the observations.

Hence....logic is SUBJECTIVE when applied to the context of nature’s objective reality (i.e. matter).

Logic is only objective in the context of tautologies i.e. when applied to rule-based constructs which can only DESCRIBE....like math, etc. The realm of logic is strictly TAUTOLOGICAL (descriptive)....NOT objective reality. Logic is descriptive, it cannot explain anything in nature.


hi 4 years ago

is 1+1=1+1 not an absolute truth?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"is 1+1=1+1 not an absolute truth?"

It's a tautology. It's rhetoric. What do tautologies have to do with truth....much less absolutes? Tautologies are defined....never verified.

I can define the word "up" to mean left.

I can define the character "2" to represent the quantity 748.

Tautologies are pre-defined rules which are used within the context of a specific system of application. They have nothing to do with truth.

Truth is a concept which necessarily requires an observer to use their sensory system to sense/compare input stimulus and VERIFY some aspect of it.

Well, as it turns out....Jesus was already verified as truth....and so were ghosts, leprechauns, tooth fairies, santa claus, cinderella, the big bad wolf, the 3 little pigs, Adam & Eve, and even superman. They are all truth!


El Dude 4 years ago

Would you say truth is verification? I.e. the verb 'to verify', like 'proof' is really 'to prove' (show me; demonstrate)?

In which case, is there a distinction between proof & logic, versus truth & empiricism?

E.g. prove to me 'X = 2'; prove to me 'NOT Y', etc.

E.g. is it true that the ball bounced? Is it false that the building collapsed? Etc.

I'm trying to see the distinction and connection between: FACT, TRUTH, PROOF.

2+2=4 or E=MC2 I'd usually call a fact in the context of doing science, i.e. we'd invoke this fact but need to EXPLAIN what it means in terms of physics. Bill does this for example with Newt's Gravitational Constant. He answers, 'What does this DESCRIPTION actually mean, physically speaking?'

Do we thus prove a logical truth, because the axioms all work etc? Is a fact only to do with objects/physics?


El Dude 4 years ago

In other words... is truth just an agreement on either a logic tree, or something "in reality", which then becomes an assumption, or "proven" depending on these two contexts?

Ot am I full of Class A baloney?!

:D


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Dude,

“Would you say truth is verification? I.e. the verb 'to verify', like 'proof' is really 'to prove' (show me; demonstrate)?”

Truth is a concept that applies ONLY to propositional statements....there is no other context. It is a label or a “flag” to signify a state of affairs of the proposition. Think of it as an imaginary sticky label you place on the statement and write on it “true” or “false”. That is all truth is.....basically a checkmark or an X. Truth only has 2 conceptual states which require VERIFICATION before they can be declared as such.

Q: So how do we verify propositional statements?

A: Via a process we call “proof”.

Proof is the act of verification. An observer is necessarily required to use their sensory system to make observations/comparisons/etc. in order to declare a statement as true or false.....or unable to be verified.

“prove to me 'X = 2'; prove to me 'NOT Y', etc.”

This is nonsense. Mathematicians unwittingly use ordinary speech when they ask you to prove something. We have been brainwashed in school to think that in math we PROVE. There is no proof in math....there is only DERIVATION. Remember.....math and logic and ALL tautological systems are necessarily founded on their axioms or rules which set the foundation or starting point in a conceptual process of derivation. Hence, when an equation or any mathematical conditions are initially set, and the professor asks you to “prove” that X=2, ....the idiot is without question asking you to DERIVE that X=2. Remember....X is already pre-DEFINED to be 2 via the axioms and the initial conditions set forth by the given problem. It is your job to derive it....i.e. DISCOVER it!!!

Again....why DERIVE?

Because the axioms of all mathematical systems, like trig, calculus, algebra, etc. are founded on their initial rules/axioms. Everything else is derived from those....never proven. The answer is IN the axioms and the initial conditions of the defined problem. You need to DERIVE the answer. We are talking tautologies here....not sensory observations.

Similarly, when a logician uses a logical deduction to “prove” that “all X are Y”....what he is actually saying is that BY DEFINITION of X and Y, he was able to DERIVE that “all X are Y” by virtue of their DEFINITIONS, ie. tautological rules. He hasn’t proved anything. He only showed an “instance” of the conceptual pre-defined derivation tree.

“is it true that the ball bounced? Is it false that the building collapsed?”

Is it true that Jesus walked on water? Is it true that God created the universe?

To those who saw these events....it is TRUE only to them! It is not true to everyone else. Everyone else can only claim belief. What is true to the observer of the event....is a LIE to his neighbor. So how do we resolve this dilemma?

Whether the ball bounced, or the building collapsed, or Jesus walked on water, or God created the universe, etc....are alleged consummated events which can only be rationally explained.....never resolved as “proven”.

As reasonable and rational human beings, we can only deal with alleged events (i.e. claims) with the scientific method. We need to hypothesize and theorize whether it is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE for these events to have occurred. We can never be certain that they did occur.

A FACT has to do with the Hypothesis stage. In science we don’t have FACTS (alleged self-evident truths)....we only have the STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. The statement of the facts is the assumptions which describe the initial scene or conditions in our Hypothesis. For example....there was no space and no matter before the Big Bang. This is the statements of the facts which the Big Bang Theory is predicated on.

E= mc^2 is not a fact. It is a mere description!

Facts have to do with specific occurrences, with explaining a given consummated event, not with evidence or static relations or general statements (e.g., all swans are white). We explain theories, and the audience attempts to understand them. We can at best explain an occurrence, a phenomenon, something that happened. Hence, a theory can never become a fact... even if all of mankind votes for it.

In science, we don't have or use 'facts' (i.e. alleged truths). Facts belong exclusively to religion. It means that the pastor of Math has already decided for all of us what exactly happened (i.e. Big Bang, warped space, black holes, etc.) In Science, we have STATEMENT(S) OF THE FACTS. A statement of the fact is an ASSUMPTION. The proponent PROPOSES a scenario: what COULD have happened in the past. Whereas a blatant ‘fact’ that cannot be supported in the ‘explanation stage’ by a rational explanation, is simply forced down our throats as authoritative BELIEF! No different than what Religion and Mathematical Physicists do.

Therefore, Jesus walking on water is NOT a fact as alleged by Christianity. This religion claims that if 12 disciples in a boat saw JC walking on water, their 'observation of this event' converts it into an actual phenomenon of nature. And if all the cardinals vote for this phenomenon, it is now a fact. Sorry.....it doesn’t work that way!

In science, we make an ASSUMPTION, "Let us ASSUME that JC walked on water." Now we move to do Science: an explanation based on this assumption.

Can you now rationally explain how an object can walk on water unaided? If not, then what can possibly make it a ‘statement of fact’?

This is the only reliable and consistent way we can assess the difference between Scientific Theory and Religion.


El Dude 4 years ago

Very good explanations, thanks. It's all these different terms that I get muddled up with.

To clarify, are there never any circumstances where we can say 'facts'? For example, I thought Bill said (in WGDE) that 'facts' (rather than SotFs) are based on definitions. For example, it's a FACT that THIS chair exists right now, etc. NOT because of proofs or empiricism or whatever, but because it follows directly from definitions (and is thus objective).

Then, in order to do SCIENCE, would we convert this language to a SotFs instead? Like, 'let us PROPOSE that a chair [exhibit] broke under him... bla bla ' and 'this explains why he was angry and rubbing his ass.' And so on.

A few more queries to come... (just opening a fresh Guinness for the evening's discussion).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Dude,

“To clarify, are there never any circumstances where we can say 'facts'?”

Unfortunately, any other usage of the term ‘fact’ renders it in ordinary speech and makes it ambiguous (i.e. unscientific). In general, people use ‘fact’ to mean “self-evident truth”....whatever the heck that means.

“For example, it's a FACT that THIS chair exists right now”

It is not a matter of opinion (i.e. fact, truth, belief, proof) that this char exists. This chair only exists by definition of the term ‘exist’. We define ‘exist’, and if this chair meets the criteria of the definition, then we can say it exists. Furthermore,....since in science we define all our terms as observer-independent, then our definition must be CONSISTENT even if no observer is present to give an opinion, fact, truth or proof about the chair.

Existence is always part of the hypothesis stage. We assume the chair or the rock exists in order to explain (i.e. theorize), say, that hole in the window.

It is a STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: an ASSUMPTION necessary to explain a theory. The audience must assume the chair exists (even if it can’t be located for evidence) for the purposes of understanding our Theory. Just like in a court the jury must assume the existence of a knife which caused those knife wounds...even if the knife was destroyed by the accused.

If the burglar used a lawn chair to smash a window and gain entry in the house, then the existence of the chair is “the statement of the facts”. The explanation as to WHY the window was broken is the “theory”. That the window was broken is NOT a fact (ordinary speech). Events are not facts.

“just opening a fresh Guinness for the evening's discussion”

Hey, don’t forget to open one for me too.....thanks :)


El Dude /w Guinness 4 years ago

Right, I totally understand and agree with what you said. THIS chair exists because we define exist, and in oder for YOU to understand the theory, we need to assume its existence, since I can't (and oughtn't) 'prove' it to you, or convince you of this 'fact'.

I suppose the only difference then is that I am still clinging to some of these words, perhaps because of psychological baggage, or perhaps because I think we can still rescue the word 'fact' by redefining it to mean 'existing by definition only' or similar. A bit like Bill tries to save or redefine some words like Hypothesis, Theory, Time, Space, etc... but by using them consistently as opposed to the loonies in the Establishment.

But I suppose it's not important in the long run as long as we can communicate what we mean to each other.

In "fact"(arf), I think a lot of it has to do with not just propaganda and miseducation about the nature of science, and of reason in general, but that once we have associated certain ideas with specific words, it's very hard to untangle the nasty knots in our minds. (Maybe on some level they are "literally" tangles in the threads and fibres of our brains?). Anyway I'm just speculating -- that's the Guinness talking.

I opened one for you. Cheers! [_] *glug glug]


Ed 4 years ago

The only way that anyone can know if absolutes exist is if absolutes do exist. If absolutes do not exist then it is not possible to know this absolutely. The argument is rediculious, I cannot believe that someone has such a boring life that they would actually consider such a stupid idea.


El Dude 4 years ago

Uh oh, poor simpleton Ed didn't read the article!


Reddy 4 years ago

aboslutes can be solved by applying probabilities. everything is nature operates with probability not certainity.

the degree of absolutness is high in some fields and low in others.

what determines this degree is based on factors that the field is made of. Amen! ;)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Reddy,

"the degree of absolutness is high in some fields and low in others."

Absolute means "invariable". If it varies, like you assert, then just what the heck makes it absolute?


confuscience profile image

confuscience 4 years ago

Hey fatfist,

Find your hub extremely interesting. I have mused over your posts and find it simple, yet with my "education" of reification, it can be deceptively difficult. Please forgive my ignorance, but I would really like clarification on some things.

I understand "truth" to be a mere function of language, used within a system of logic, to label statements resolving to the 'world'. Facts are just opinions, not objects, and especially not concepts. Are facts the descriptions of specific objects at a particular time? Sorry, I'm a little slower than most of your participants, but I really want to understand...

Though I have not read all of your posts, I noticed references to "Bill's hubpage"... Can you direct me to his postings?

Thanks FF


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Confuscience,

“I understand "truth" to be a mere function of language, used within a system of logic, to label statements resolving to the 'world'.”

Yes, truth is a concept invented by humans for the purposes of assigning labels of true/false to propositions. But before we can assign these labels, we must resolve the statements as such by a process called “proof”. Proof is an empirical mechanism via the human sensory system. So if somebody saw Jesus walk on water,...then there you have it...it now becomes proven, whether you like/agree with it or not.

“Are facts the descriptions of specific objects at a particular time?”

Yes, facts are empirical descriptions of observed objects. As an example, the apple is red because we see it as such. So now mathematical physicists will decree that this apple absorbs all colors (photons) of the spectrum and only reflects red. But little do we realize that this apple, as all objects in the universe, reflect all the frequencies of the spectrum. And we can’t see them because their intensity (amplitude) is extremely low or their frequency is outside our visible spectrum (bandwidth). So that the apple is red, is naught but opinion. It can be grey to a color-blind person. You can find Bill’s rope hypothesis (which clearly explains how light works) by looking up user billgaede here or on utube.


Fnordian 4 years ago

Would you consider "Right now, I am typing this email to you" to be an absolute truth?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Fnordian,

"Would you consider "Right now, I am typing this email to you" to be an absolute truth?"

It’s irrelevant what “I” consider. My opinion on this issue ain’t worth a bucket of turd!

Any rational human can answer your question by objectively evaluating your proposal. So let’s begin by determining if your proposal is first and foremost a TRUTH, then we can further evaluate if it’s an “absolute” one, ok?

Who is ‘I’?

‘I’ can be placeholder for anyone or anything, even an automated text-generating system or HAL. So how can you prove without a single doubt in anyone’s mind that it was indeed ‘you’, say, Mr. Applebee with social security number ‘such and such’, living in address ‘such and such’?

Once you can answer this critical question, then you will have the answer to your original question.

As it turns out.....your proposal is not even a ‘truth’. So how can it possibly be absolute??


Reddy 4 years ago

Whoa dude ! it is a basic fact of nature that everything varies ! - nothing stays the same over time.

its a fact that the universe is different today than it was before and will be different in the future than what it was today.

even the constants of nature have been almost proven to change over time.

so when variation is such a fundamental part of the universe, it is safe or even mandatory to assume 'absoluteness' itself varies.

something can be absolute for a period of time only before entropy takes over and the degree of its absoluteness is changed.

something else might take its place... ' the throne of absoluteness ' ...... in the end 'being absolute' is only a matter of perspective.

ps. what i said IS absolute !! ;)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Reddy,

“assume 'absoluteness' itself varies.”

You are free to assume whatever you like. Just don’t make an ass out of me, ok?

If people like you and Stefan Molyneux had taken the time to read and understand the history and philosophical significance of the “absolute”, you wouldn’t come here to argue with yourself.

Online Etymology Dictionary: The English word, absolute, came from Middle French "absolut," which was originated from Latin "absolutus," a past participle of "absolvo," a verb, meaning "to set free, end, and complete," and "detached, pure."

So NO....absolute is concept which has nothing to do with variability. Your argument is based on the term RELATIVE, not absolute.

"Absolute" and "truth" are also not equivalent or synonymous; contrary to “pop” philosophy.

An "absolute" has at least two self-contradictory issues inherent in its definition and resolution:

1. An ambiguously asserted ontological claim which dogmatically decrees a condition or scenario not backed by evidence, science, or critical reasoning.

2. A feeble-minded appeal to authority; aka Religion! Eg. Pastor Benny Hinn said in the beginning there was God....so this is absolute. Pastor Stephen Hawking said in the beginning there was Big Bang....so this is absolute.

'absolute', 'truth', 'rock', 'falling', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, are just words. We define them by using critical thinking to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory. ‘Absolute’ in philosophy means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial, transient or variable, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

“In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.”

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner

From New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolute...

“The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense.”

“Greek philosophers did not explicitly elaborate on the absolute, but, the idea of an ultimate principle drove their inquiries forward. In addition, while medieval philosophers did not use the term absolute, their thoughts on God were the first explicit elaborations on the absolute. Since then, there have been many interpretations of the absolute. Major philosophers who have dealt with the Absolute include the German Idealists such as Schelling, Kant, and Hegel, and British philosophers such as Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton, Bernard Bosanquet, Francis Bradley, and Thomas Hill Green, and American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce.”

“Plato identified the good, which he characterized as permanently existing by itself in the incorporeal world, as the ultimate principle. The good, for Plato, was the absolute. Its goodness was, he argued, established by itself without recourse to any other thing whatsoever.”

“Aristotle placed a study of god (theology) as the first philosophy for the reason that it deals with the “unmoved mover” of all phenomenal. For Aristotle, the ultimate principle had to be that which is unconditional and independent, which has no prior condition whatsoever.”

“According to medieval philosophy, human knowledge, cognition, and languages are relative, limited, and conditional, whereas absoluteness is defined by negating those limitations and conditioning. Thus, knowing, discussing, and even describing the absolute are inherently difficult. Absolute means by definition a negation of relativity.”

This means that the proponent of “absolute truth” must necessarily reject Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. But most of them don’t. Such clowns want to play Double-Dutch and have it both ways. So how can these people be taken seriously?

“As in German idealism, the question of absolute/relative is also intertwined with questions of transcendence and immanence.”

For example, Matt Slick of CARM.org asserts “Logical Absolutes” which transcend space and time.

Even Ludwig Wittgenstein realized later in his life that there are no absolute truths. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche destroyed the notion that humans can ever determine a proposition as being certain in reality.

In his agonized search for absolute truth, Bertrand Russell crossed paths with legendary thinkers like Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert, and Kurt Gödel, and found a passionate student in the great Ludwig Wittgenstein. But his most ambitious goal—to establish unshakable logical foundations of mathematics—continues to loom before him. Through love and hate, peace and war, Russell persists in the dogged mission that threatens to claim both his career and his personal happiness, finally driving him to the brink of insanity.

Absolute truth alludes to infallible certainty.

Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible, so there can be no absolute truth to be known. He writes...

“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human

“I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’, like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself,’ contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGE I.16).

“something can be absolute for a period of time “

No! You are grossly confused because you have not sat down to think about your statements, and most importantly....to DEFINE the terms which you take for granted without understanding their meaning....namely, the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’.

“what i said IS absolute”

“assume 'absoluteness' itself varies.”

What you said contradicts itself. What you said is your opinion. What you said is RELATIVE to you.


El Dude 4 years ago

Please please Mr F do an article debunking "scientific empiricism" and/or logical positivism. Please please! :D


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

If I have time I will. But I've rehashed these topics many times in my comment posts. I tell you what....how about if you get the info from my comment sections and put a hub together? I can proof read it and make recommendations for you. It's easier to get the message out when more people participate to write rational articles, rather than everything coming from one source. C'mon, you can do it ;-)


Marla Neogra profile image

Marla Neogra 4 years ago from Parkersburg, West Virginia

OK, this was like trying to delve through a whole series of Big Brother. Kindergarten meets subjective reasoning.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Marla,

huh?


El Dude 4 years ago

'Are the laws of logic really confirmed in external reality?'

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34406.as...

Oh lord the awful debate burns my eternal soul!


Dino 4 years ago

I think "absolute" must be anything that stands on its

own, and is somehow understood as to not compare to anything else for its meaning. And, in reality there can

be nothing like that. So doesn't that settle this whole

question?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Dino,

The only anyTHING that can stand on its own is an "object" which exists. Objects need no observers nor their opinions in order to exist. They exist by virtue of their location.

But in the context of truth, the qualifier 'absolute' only applies to propositions which can be resolved as being first and foremost, 'true', and secondly, 'absolute'.

But what kills any argument of 'absolute' or of 'truth', is the fact that it is impossible to demonstrate any thing as being 'absolute'....and impossible to demonstrate any proposition as being 'true'.

Remember, the human sensory system is extremely limited, so what one person senses as 'true' (i.e. God exists), their neighbor will sense as a LIE.


tft 4 years ago

How can you prove that there is no absolute truth when you are not eternal?

You assumed that truth is just a word or concept, and does not correspond to anything physical. Wrong. If the statement "Matter is eternal" is true, then truth can correspond to this physical phenomenon. A "rock" is a word/concept, but it also corresponds to something physical. But surely, it is ridiculous to say that there is no rock b/c it's just a concept. Even logic corresponds to the laws of the physical world.

So truth does not depend on our mind. What is true is true, regardless of our existence and experience. Just b/c something is a concept doesn't necessarily mean it does not correspond to reality. When it does, then it's possibly true, and requires knowledge to prove.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Tft,

“How can you prove that there is no absolute truth when you are not eternal?”

How can you prove that there is NO fireproof leprechaun living on the Sun?

How can you prove that Michael Jackson was NOT an FBI agent?

How can you prove that Benny Hinn is NOT an incarnation of Jesus, especially when he heals people every day?

You can’t prove negatives, much less positives. What is proof to you, is a LIE to your neighbor. Proof is naught but opinion. There are no proofs in this hub. Only in Religion do they “prove” rocks, tables, cars, love, justice and virtue. The rest of us rational humans only explain.

“You assumed that truth is just a word or concept, and does not correspond to anything physical.”

Oh...what do you mean by “physical”??

Physical: that which has shape. Synonym: object, particle, thing, body, architecture, substance, finite, anything, something, discrete, entity, stuff, medium, ...

Does the word TRUTH resolve to that which has shape, like a rock does? Can you please FedEx me ‘a’ truth?? You see.....it is YOU who assumes that truth is an object, and thus contradict yourself.

“If the statement "Matter is eternal" is true”

No, it is NOT true! Truth is an observer-dependent OPINION and nothing else. Nobody witnessed the eternal-ness of matter nor its alleged and contradictory “creation”, got it? That matter is eternal is the default position...not an assertion....not a belief....not a subject of debate....and definitely not a truth or a lie. Your argument is not applicable in the context of eternal matter.

“A "rock" is a word/concept, but it also corresponds to something physical. “

Exactly, the word rock resolves to that which has shape....you are getting the hang of it. Now please do the same with the word “truth”. Does truth resolve to that which has shape? Please draw for me ‘a’ truth. I wanna see how you hypothesize ‘it’ (i.e. truth) looks like. I can draw a pic of God for you....God is physical....God has shape.

Here you go: http://heavenawaits.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/go...

Your turn....reference an image of this “truth” entity of yours. I mean, if I can draw God even though I have never been privileged to be face to face with the Almighty, then surely you should be able to draw your simple hypothesized “truth” object, right???

“it is ridiculous to say that there is no rock b/c it's just a concept”

Yes, because a rock is NOT a concept. A rock has shape and is thus an object. Is there an echo in here?

“Even logic corresponds to the laws of the physical world.”

Logic only corresponds to human-made laws, which are axiomatic rules....like court laws, traffic laws, mathematical laws, business laws, ..etc. Laws are nothing but tautologies – human invented axiomatic rules which are only applicable within a specific system or context.

Nature has no laws, lawyers or Cosmic Legislature or Parliament....there are no decrees or Cosmic Constitutions. There are no magical invisible ghost juries or judges which take you to trial and sentence you out there among the stars and planets. You confuse Science with Politics....a common mistake made by neophytes of Science and Philosophy.

Out there, there are only objects....nothing else....and certainly no concepts, like “truth” or “laws”.

“What is true is true, regardless of our existence and experience.”

You should try to read and understand before you make contradictory statements. What is true to you, is a LIE to your neighbor. TRUTH = OPINION. It is impossible for you to argue otherwise, but please have fun doing so....

“Just b/c something is a concept doesn't necessarily mean it does not correspond to reality.”

Exactly. All concepts are relationships/correspondences between objects. Truth is a concept which corresponds to first and foremost an OBSERVER (object 1), who uses his/her sensory system to sense objects and make a truth statement about them. This is why we have Gods, messiahs, prophets, ghosts, witches, monsters, 0D particles, photons, gravitons, wavicles, gravity waves, warped space, dilated time, dark matter, dark energy, dark forces, etc.

TRUTH = OPINION = BELIEF

“it's possibly true”

See, now you are getting the hang of it. Since the jury can be swayed either way, truth cannot possibly be a set-in-stone black or white issue. You are confirming that truth is naught but opinion. What was true yesterday (eg. Earth is flat), is a LIE today. TRUTH = OPINION. Please memorize this for the test on Friday!


Allen 4 years ago

Tft wrote: “A "rock" is a word/concept, but it also corresponds to something physical. But surely, it is ridiculous to say that there is no rock b/c it's just a concept. Even logic corresponds to the laws of the physical world.”

You are correct in one sense: “Rock” is a concept and a designation for a certain set of similar extra-human cases. On the other hand, in your attempt to show us contradictions in Fatfist’s reasoning you have seemingly forgot to examine your own presuppositions at play in your use of the highly overated “law of non-contradiction” (A=A, or in your case, “rock = rock”). The term/concept “rock” is a human invention, “rock” in itself does not exist. This is *not* to say that the trillions of similar cases we’ve equalized under the term “rock” don’t exist, only that “rock-in-itself” does not exist. In using “rock” we attempt to equalize unequal cases. For example: igneous , metamorphic, sedimentary; granite, limestone, schist; this stone in the creek I’m sitting on and the marble pillars at the bank. All of these are “rock” yet they are clearly not the same. It is *we* who’ve equated the barest similarities between each individual case, and subsequently formed a word/concept in order to communicate amongst one another.

Like words, the so-called “laws” of logic are a human invention. They have developed over time (they’ve evolved with us) and have shown themselves to be extremely useful for the relatively hairless and weak ape we have been, are, and for the foreseeable future, will be. What terms and the “laws of logic” don’t do, however, is guarantee that we know the essence of things simply by having a word to designate those “things” or that our provisional map, our approximations, are synonymous with “reality” itself.


tft 4 years ago

@fatfist,

"There are no proofs in this hub. Only in Religion do they “prove” rocks, tables, cars, love, justice and virtue. The rest of us rational humans only explain."

Why don't you explain your claims "Therefore, “There are no absolutes”, is NOT an absolute statement. It is a propositional statement that is PROVEN true." and “No! ALL truth is proven to be true. And it is proven that there are NO absolutes”. first?

"Does the word TRUTH resolve to that which has shape, like a rock does?"

Yes, although not as simple as a rock. You don't like my example, so I'll give you another: the sun rises in the east. This phenomenon is, obviously, physical; therefore it is necessarily formed by physical objects. Just b/c it is not a single physical object doesn't mean it is not physical.

"Truth is an observer-dependent OPINION and nothing else."

No, it is NOT. You're redefining "truth" irrationally. Truth is the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.

"Exactly, the word rock resolves to that which has shape....you are getting the hang of it. Now please do the same with the word “truth”. Does truth resolve to that which has shape?"

You can visualize sunrise and find pictures of it, right?

"Yes, because a rock is NOT a concept. A rock has shape and is thus an object. Is there an echo in here?"

"Rock" IS a concept. It has no shape. It corresponds to physical objects we categorize as “rock”, so we can use the word “rock” as if it is a physical object.

The rest of your comment all relies on the irrational assumption TRUTH = OPINION. If something turns out to be wrong, then it’s not truth. Also, opinion is not “proven”, at best it’s rationally justified.


Allen 4 years ago

tft wrote: " the sun rises in the east."

This is a figure of speech of which we now know isn't the case. It is a left-over from days gone by. By your own standards of truth ("Truth is the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.")this cannot be a truth statement since,:

1) The sun "rising" isn't the case at all,

and

2) Terms of placement such as "east" are precisely *observer dependent!*

Truth is a concept, and since concepts cannot possibly form without living, breathing, social (that is communicative) apes who've named themselves "human," truth is observer-dependent, that is, truth is inescapably *perspectival,* since humans cannot but be such. Truth doesn't exist in any extra-human manner.

I think the problem you are having is at least two-fold:

1)Truth as concept bothers you morally since concepts/language evolve with usage over time.

2) You seem to believe truth is eternal rather than *our* ("mankind's)best approximations of reality and how they all fits together.

As such you seem to be basing your argument in your moral favoritism for the ideé fixe over the ephemeral, fluctuating things which comprise reality (including ourselves, our knowledge, etc.).


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Truth cannot be a property because it is always a description of a relationship, and that relationship is always to its negation. Truth cannot stand alone but must be resolved, and resolution requires an observer.

An object cannot resolve a dichotomy.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Tft,

Fat: “"There are no proofs in this hub.”

Tft: “Why don't you explain your claims "Therefore, “There are no absolutes”, is NOT an absolute statement. It is a propositional statement that is PROVEN true." and “No! ALL truth is proven to be true. And it is proven that there are NO absolutes”. first?”

When people cannot define their terms and let their imaginations run wild, then words take on multiple meanings. Reality check: in order for a word to be used consistently, it only has one meaning. Case in point.....

Proof is a process of VALIDATION within a specified context. It is the OBSERVER who sets the context in question and outlines the axioms (i.e. rules) to be used “in the context”. When a misinformed and uneducated human ape unwittingly tries to PROVE a ‘truth’ for any proposition having to do with reality (i.e. existing objects),....then this ape is using his/her limited sensory system to give an OPINION about what they personally sensed. This is subjective. Humans cannot sense x-rays or magnetism because the sensory system has an extremely limited bandwidth. Many humans sensed that Jesus walked on water...others did not. Some humans sensed Big Foot....others did not. Some sensed Black Holes and the Big Bang....others did not. How do we resolve this? WHO is telling “THE TRUTH”??

MORAL OF THE STORY: Whenever a misinformed human ape attempts to PROVE any proposition,...this ape is unwittingly stating with a caveat that his SYSTEM OF PROOF ultimately resolves to none other than his personal OPINION. PROOF = TRUTH = OPINION. Which part are you having trouble understanding??

Fat: "Does the word TRUTH resolve to that which has shape, like a rock does?"

Tft: “Yes”

Ok then, tft....this is the SECOND time I am asking you: Since ‘truth’ is an object which has shape, PLEASE ILLUSTRATE THIS OBJECT YOU CALL TRUTH. Any image on the internet will do. I hope you came here to have an intellectual conversation and justify your claims. I hope you didn’t come here to troll with unjustifiable assertions,....please do not run away from this question, ok?

“the sun rises in the east. This phenomenon is, obviously, physical”

No! There is no physical object called EAST. You can say that the ball rises ‘in’ the box.....but not ‘in’ the east. Ball and box are objects. ‘East’ is not an object. ‘East’ is not physical....only the Sun and the Earth are physical.

Physical: that which has shape. Synonym: object, particle, thing, body, architecture, substance, finite, anything, something, discrete, entity, stuff, medium, ...

Please try to understand the words you use in your arguments before you make irrational statements.

That “the sun rises in the east”, is a RELATION which was established by humans. This concept (sunrise) relates the Earth and the Sun according to some human-invented rules. Humans invented the tautologies of CARDINAL DIRECTION (N,S,E,W) in a way that was convenient for their lifestyle, navigation, etc. These are the axiomatic rules of Cardinal Direction as mapped on the Earth by a process of “convenience” (i.e. OPINION). The sun merely “appears” to rise.....and it merely “appears” in the east direction according to the rules which we DEFINE and AGREE upon.....again, OPINION!

Reality check: There is no direction in the universe. The universe has no East. But you are welcome to argue and justify otherwise....

East is NOT physical. East is TAUTOLOGICAL. Which part are you having trouble understanding??

“Truth is the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.”

A property of a concept (like truth) is a relation we establish, define, and AGREE upon for propositions. Most say that propositions can either RESOLVE to “true” or “false”. Some also add other properties, such as “belief” or “indeterminate”. The point is....all this is based on someone’s OPINION on the context of truth.

Here is the question which makes or breaks YOUR argument: How do humans RESOLVE a proposition about reality as being “true” or “false”? Do they ask God for help? Do they ask an authority, like a Priest or an Oracle? Do they use a crystal ball or Ouija board? Or do they use their extremely limited sensory system?

Please answer this question and justify your argument before proceeding! I hope you didn’t come here to troll. You know what happens to trolls, right?

“You can visualize sunrise and find pictures of it, right?”

No! You cannot visualize or illustrate ‘a’ sunrise!!!

Sunrise is a VERB. Sunrise is what something (i.e. the Sun) DOES....and NOT what something IS. Sunrise is a movie...not a photograph. In order for something to RISE, it must move from location A to location B. i.e. motion!!! Sunrise is a DYNAMIC concept....and not an object.

Do you understand the difference between objects and verbs (i.e. what the objects do)?

You can only illustrate the Sun and the Earth....never ‘a’ sunrise, got it?

“"Rock" IS a concept. It has no shape. It corresponds to physical objects we categorize as “rock”, so we can use the word “rock” as if it is a physical object.”

Rhetoric. All you’ve said is that the word “rock” is a linguistic concept in and of itself. This word of language resolves to an object with shape. All objects we point to and name. We point to an object and utter “rock”. This object is now a rock for the purposes of our dissertation. This object is now an actor which will participate in a phenomenon....like “hitting somebody over the head”. All phenomena (like sunrise) are mediated by objects....never concepts. In fact, a phenomenon IS a concept...it is a relation between objects.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects. All concepts lack shape.

“The rest of your comment all relies on the irrational assumption TRUTH = OPINION.”

Oh please....be my guest.....please justify how the extremely limited human sensory system can be used to prove any truth in reality without this alleged “truth” being an opinion. The ball is in YOUR court because it is YOU who is making the positive assertive claim about “truth”.

“ If something turns out to be wrong, then it’s not truth.”

The Priest told the choir boy that homosexuality was WRONG a week before he mounted him.

Right and wrong....correct and incorrect....true and false....and only applicable to TAUTOLOGICAL situations with pre-DEFINED and pre-AGREED upon contexts. Hence, they are only OPINIONS when applied to reality (i.e. existence). Which part are you having trouble understanding??

Anyway...you cannot even post a single statement of ‘truth’ here. All your statements will either resolve to TAUTOLOGIES or OPINIONS.

“Also, opinion is not “proven”, at best it’s rationally justified.”

Opinions have NO objective basis for rational justification. Opinions are SUBJECTIVE – never rational........"u need to be humble", said the priest to the choirboy as he sodomized him!

Evidence demands that what is truth today is demolished tomorrow, meaning that it was not TRUTH but just an opinion. It was “true” the Earth was flat some time ago.

Re-read the top of my comment....

MORAL OF THE STORY: Whenever a misinformed human ape attempts to PROVE any proposition,...this ape is unwittingly stating with a caveat that his SYSTEM OF PROOF ultimately resolves to none other than his own personal OPINION. PROOF = TRUTH = OPINION. Which part are you having trouble understanding??

In reality, it is impossible to either prove or disprove. Proof means that your Priest mounted and raped you. He had his way with you and 'converted' you to his Religion. That's all that 'proof' means. What is PROOF and TRUTH and EVIDENCE to one, is a LIE and BLASPHEMY and OBSCURITY to another. Proof is a PERSONAL OPINION. There is no more truth in 'proof' than what YOU decided is proof to YOU. Perhaps the priest who raped you managed to convince you that God exists during that brief encounter. Perhaps God is 'proof' and 'truth' to YOU now that the priest made you see the light. God is NOT proof or truth to a rational human.


Bilbo Baggins 4 years ago

"That matter is eternal is the default position...not an assertion....not a belief....not a subject of debate....and definitely not a truth or a lie."

I agree from your articles that matter must be eternal. So what kind of statement or proposition would that be? Description, argument, claim... ? I've not studied philosophy so most of these words confuse me: truth, proof, claim, fact, theory, axiom, tautology, description, explanation, etc.

Thanks!


Bilbo Baggins 4 years ago

"Truth cannot be a property because it is always a description of a relationship, and that relationship is always to its negation." -- Winston

Can you explain this for me? Especially the negation part; can't wrap my head around that.


Bilbo Baggins 4 years ago

Think my last comment got eaten by internet goblins...

It was about matter being eternal. What kind of proposition (or claim, or description) is this? Is there even a word for it? Or is it just a 'sentence' that's explained. What I mean is, I get confused by all the philosophical words like claim, proof, truth, fact, axiom, negate, proposition, tautology, etc.

Thanks.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 4 years ago

Truth is a function of language... It is meaningless outside of language. An object is not "true", but a propositional statement about an object describes whether or not it resolves to the world.

The confusion stems from reifying the definition and function of "truth" between inquirers. For instance, someone claims the sun rises in the east. Somebody then questions the "truth" of their claim. Its the CLAIM that is questioned, not the rising sun. The claimant then provides physical "evidence" and personal testimony to "prove" the sun does rise in the east. This "evidence" and "proof" is then elevated to observer-independent status, by claiming the sun would have risen whether or not the eye-witness was there to see it. Here is when "truth" has been reified from a concept determining a statement's resolve to the world into a "property" associated with the action of the sun rising in the east. It has magically changed meaning from being observer dependent to being observer independent. This is what our "education" system has instilled in us.

@Bilbo

I think "truth" is a relationship between the claimant and their statements about the world, i.e. whether the statements resolve to the world or not. Maybe Winston is referring to "truth's" negation, being false, or not resolving to the world.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Bilbo,

First off, this is just one definition of truth. If you will look up truth on Wikileaks, you will find a history of contention over this seemingly simple word.

The way we are using it - indeed, even the way tft is using it - is the end result of resolving a dichotomy.

If I claim that "x" is real, I have at the same time eliminated the negation, i.e., "x" is not real. I cannot make any "truth" claim without resolving this position one way or the other.

The only way to resolve the dichotomy is with a sentient observer making a choice about reality. Ergo, truth is based on this choice, meaning it is the opinion of the observer.

We cannot simply state the word "rock" and say that word is a truth. In order for there to be a truth, there must be a claim about the rock's relationship to something - the rock exists is such a claim. The negation is that the rock does not exist.

To reach a "truth" about the rock and existence, we have to eliminate the negation. Dichotomies are not self-resolving. They require an observer. A sentient being has to decide, does the rock exist or does it not exist?

So it is silly to argue the truth of the rock existing, because the rock only exists because of the definition we assign to the word: exist. Exist=physical presence, that which has shape and location. This is the scientific use of language, and in this way we eliminate the observer and find that the rock exists irrespective of truths, hopes, prayers, opinions, or slingshots.


Cazamondo 4 years ago

Your argument that truth must be proven by current knowledge (and therefore there is no ‘absolute’ because current knowledge is fallible/erroneous and is always being revised or rejected) is putting truth in the position of being dictated by fallible, erroneous, ‘man’. Therefore, Absolute Truth cannot be proven or disproven by a human-constructed rationalism.

The argument about the existence/non-existence of the ‘hub’/web page might sound clever at first glance however scientists are now saying they can identify up to twelve different dimensions. The existence of God may yet become ‘plausible’ (however not ‘provable’) when we consider these newly discovered dimensions, of which ‘eternity’ may be one.

The word ‘void’ that is used in the Bible (“and the earth was without form, and void”- Genesis 1:2) is the Hebrew ‘bohuw’, a word that is not used anywhere else in the Bible when describing an empty space. Although I am not a scholar of Hebrew, but I do know that this word is only used when referring to the ‘emptiness’ that existed before the universe came into being.

We have only our own very limited language(s) to try to describe something that we have no personal experience of. Some have said that eternity is so minute that there is no space there. It is as you suggested, the box when the space is removed becomes impossible to look into. So dense and compacted – and then BANG! It all exploded outwards and the Universe came into being.

We are trying to understand and describe things beyond our space-time existence, with words that are framed specifically to get us through in this space-time existence. While I can appreciate your logic and reasoning about ‘absolute truth’ I am also aware that you are depending on the limitations of language and human knowledge to date.

You say that observations are subjective, so I expect you will be including your own in that category. It is incredibly arrogant of a human to expect, through human logic and reasoning, to understand how God exists outside of time or how God created the universe out of nothing! Especially when you admit by your own definition that there is no absolute truth: that human reason/logic/knowledge cannot present any absolutes!

Why would you want to continue discussing anything at all when you believe that everyone’s comments or views are subjective and therefore not reliable or believable (your own included)? Rationalism fails to admit its own limitations. “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Bilbo,

“I agree from your articles that matter must be eternal.”

I hope you can appreciate that this is not a matter of “agreement”. This is not an issue that we can resolve by voting at the ballot box. And most importantly...this is not an issue of “authority”. For example, ....a mathematical physicist who has 5 Ph.D’s, 7 Nobel Prizes under his belt, 3200 published articles in all the top magazines & societies, 45+ years experience in the study of physics and cosmology, well-respected and an expert authority on the subject...would be a total idiot if he claimed or believed that matter could possibly be created. Creation is an impossible claim....it is what it is.

“So what kind of statement or proposition would that be?”

That would be a rational RESPONSE to the positive CLAIM that “matter was created”. First we explain why creation is impossible by showcasing at least one ontological contradiction associated with that claim. Then we can rationally conclude that matter is eternal. We are negating this claim by providing a rational explanation of why. That matter is eternal cannot possibly be a claim because claims are associated with consummated events (phenomena) which are called Theories in science. The Hypothesis rooted in that claim, is that there was no matter and no space in the past. And this is where the claim of creation shoots itself in the face....at the Hypothesis level...because space is already “nothing” and cannot be created, much less for matter.

“I get confused by all the philosophical words like claim, proof, truth, fact, axiom, negate, proposition, tautology, theory, description, explanation.”

Quick and dirty:

A claim is a positive assertion of some phenomenon (i.e. there was a Big Bang). All claims require a Hypothesis and Theory which explains the events leading to the phenomenon.

Proof is the process by which we resolve propositions as either being true or false or whatever....

Truth is a label we attach to a proposition after we resolve (i.e. prove) that proposition. Think of truth as a “sticker” or “checkmark” you place on propositions. Truth is nothing more than that.

A proposition is a statement which proposes some scenario or case or whatever.

A fact is a hypothesis in Science. Philosophy treats a fact as synonymous with truth, neither of which have anything to do with reality.

Axiom is a pre-defined rule which we take for granted in order to work within some type of logical system (System of Logic)....like Classical Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Intuitionist Logic, Quantum Logic, mathematics, programming languages, business logic, court laws, transaction processing rules,...and countless of others invented by humans.

Tautologies encompass the pre-defined rules (i.e. axioms) of some System of Logic along with ALL their derivations. Eg. with the axioms of Arithmetic, we can derive that 520+54=574. This not an axiom, but rather a derivation...which is a tautology, because it is FOUNDED upon the axioms.

Theory is a rational explanation of an alleged consummated event. Eg, when I let go of the ball it fell to the floor instead of the ceiling because....blah blah...

A description in science (as opposed to ordinary speech) is a statement which uses adjectives to qualify attributes of objects (i.e. static relations) (eg. red, blue, big , small, long, short, 2D, 3D, cubic, circular, straight, continuous)...AND adverbs to qualify their motion (i.e. dynamic concepts) (eg. fast, slow, incessantly, rectilinearly, constantly, heavy, light).

An explanation is the claimant’s version of WHY a consummated event happened. A synonym for explanation is ‘theory’. To explain: To externalize or disclose the manner in which an individual claims a consummated event occurred. An explanation deals exclusively with the past; that is, with consummated events. For example: the assumed creation of the universe. All explanations answer a question beginning with WHY. Whereas a description answers a question beginning with HOW. A phenomenon is always a consummated event. There is no phenomenon that hasn't occurred yet. Light goes thru a prism and divides into colors. In science we form Theories to attempt to explain WHY this happens.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Cazamondo,

“scientists are now saying they can identify up to twelve different dimensions.”

Actually, what they are referring to is their 12 different levels of DEMENTIA! These poor souls need help, and there is no God to intervene...only the Insane Asylum can help these Mathematicians before they commit suicide, ...just like some of their crazy pioneers did -- Boltzmann, Cantor, Ehrenfest, Turing, Godel...

A word of caution: Never say the word 'dimension' around a topologist...it just drives them nuts!

Here, let me explain it to you in detail with an introductory lesson to Physics 101:

A dimension is a static CONCEPT that relates to an architectural property of a physical object. It is an indispensable ingredient of the adjective three-dimensional (3D), which we can only use in the context of architecture.

dimension: one of three mutually orthogonal directions in which an object points or faces.

There are only THREE dimensions: length, width, and height. They have only 2 properties: direction and orthogonality. Width does not stand alone and is nothing without length and height.

Dimension is an ADJECTIVE, used in the context of physical objects, not concepts. In physics, adjectives are used with objects, and adverbs are used with verbs.

Dimensions relate objects.

Dimensions can ONLY be attributed to objects....ergo, no objects, no dimensions. Dimensions are NOT stand-alone entities, like you allude to in your irrational statement!

In Physics, we do not “identify” dimensions, like we “identify” objects by pointing at them and naming them. Dimensions are pre-DEFINED static concepts which are only applicable to objects....not to the void/nothing or to ghosts, spirits and souls like you claim. Dimensions do NOT exist, just like adjectives do not exist. Only objects exist.

“The existence of God may yet become ‘plausible’ (however not ‘provable’) “

The existence of God is neither plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely, provable, unprovable, or even remotely possible. The existence of God is IMPOSSIBLE! Here, educate yourself before you continue to parrot the nonsense of theism and atheism...and end up sounding just like Richard Dawkins.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...

“You say that observations are subjective, so I expect you will be including your own in that category.”

Damn right!!!!

I have reported NO observations in any of my articles....nor have I been a witness to any such amusing activities....nor have I participated in any witness protection program.

“It is incredibly arrogant of a human to expect, through human logic and reasoning, to understand how God exists outside of time or how God created the universe out of nothing!”

Hell Yeah!!!

Time is an adverb quantifying the motion of related objects. Time is a concept. There is NO alleged OUTSIDE to any concept.....like there is an outside to an object, like your house for example, got it?

Furthermore.....creation is IMPOSSIBLE. Here, educate yourself before you die clueless, irrational AND extremely arrogant....

http://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIB...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/CREATION-I...

http://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Arg...

http://hubpages.com/education/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmol...

http://hubpages.com/education/UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE...

http://hubpages.com/education/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LIE...

“Why would you want to continue discussing anything at all when you believe that everyone’s comments or views are subjective and therefore not reliable or believable (your own included)?”

You really have no clue what this article and its comments are about....do you? Perhaps this stuff is way over your head. Take a break and consider another field of study....perhaps needlepoint.


Cazamondo 4 years ago

Absolutely - I never professed to be an intellectual genius such as yourself. But there appears to be a considerable amount of anger and arrogance in your reply - do you speak to all lesser beings in such a rude manner? Or perhaps I hit a sore point in your elaborately constructed intellectual jail you call your mind. At least Christians are humble and teachable. You must be a very unhappy person, and seem to be wanting to pull as many people as you can into your sadness and hopelessness.

Love and blessings, Cazamondo.

by the way, needlepoint may be a very good pastime for philosophers. It would allow quietness and time to think and reflect on the meaning of life. Thanks for the suggestion, but it's not my bag, however, I prefer to paint.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Cazamondo ,

All you’ve said in your last reply is:

“Golly fatfist, you are such a prick because you destroyed my religion. I have no constructive reply to you because.....well, because I just don’t have one!”

This is what happens when theists and atheist alike finally realize that....

a) Dimensions are circumscribed to objects, only!

b) There are only 3 dimensions.

c) God cannot hide in any of them.

d) There is no God.

When you are done waiting for the second coming of Christ.... when you are done feeling sorry for yourself.....when you are done quoting authority (i.e. your scriptures) and contradicting yourself,....when your delusionary dreams are over....then please feel free to come back and have an intellectual academic discussion about reality. I won’t bite, I promise. But when you come here quoting scriptures and authorities....make no mistake about it....you will get a RUDE awakening!


tft 4 years ago

Fatfist,

"Right and wrong....correct and incorrect....true and false....and only applicable to TAUTOLOGICAL situations with pre-DEFINED and pre-AGREED upon contexts. Hence, they are only OPINIONS when applied to reality (i.e. existence)."

Does a rock exist (physical object w/ location), OBJECTIVELY?

Is anything you said OBJECTIVE?

Is science OBJECTIVE?

It seems to me that you're implying every statement is subjective, and subjectivity is mutually exclusive w/ rationality.


Allen 4 years ago

tft wrote: "...subjectivity is mutually exclusive w/ rationality."

How so? Rationality is linguistic. Language is conceptual. Concepts don't exist "out there" apart from human apes who've evolved the capacity to simplify and strip countless similar cases to their barest qualities. Though similar, these individual cases can never be identical in reality.

The "mutual exclusivity" between subjectivity and rationality is a false dichotomy, and a pernicious myth. Not only does this myth rely on the belief that there are identical things in reality it also confuses concepts and things.

In your case,"rationality" must itself be considered a thing, rather than a concept, if it's not to be at all subjective ( another concept). This belief is clearly false.


tft 4 years ago

@Allen

Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I meant that statement as his belief. My understanding of Fatfist's point is that every statement is either derived from basic agreements (axioms) or just irrational opinion. His tone leads me to believe that he doesn't buy the "self-evident" status of axioms in logic, that all statements are ultimately ungrounded and thus irrational, so I asked those questions to make him clarify.


Allen 4 years ago

@tft

I see what you were saying now. Thanks for the clarification. As for me, I don't interpret Fatfist as making the same equation as you. While I can't speak for Fatfist, I do agree with him in that I don't buy the "self-evidence" status of axioms. Axioms are deliberate rules. They are conceptual tools as logic and reason are conceptual tools, and are ultimately grounded in the non-logical and un-rational "structures" of a living sensual body of a particular type of ape existing somewhere in the universe.

"Logic" and "reason" are simply terms for a multitude of processes, activities, relationships. All too often "logic" and "reason" are treated as things-in-themselves, which they clearly are not.

Another point: Please bear in mind we are talking about claims of "absolute truth."

Such claims are always made while invoking the names of "logic" and "reason" like a voodoo priestess invokes spirits while bleeding a chicken. Yet an "absolute" on its own terms is a contradiction within the *use* of logic/reason. This is the case particularly when such "absolutes" are dependent upon axioms!

1) An absolute cannot be dependent upon anything.

2) Logic/reason either corresponds to reality or it does not, at least according to absolutists. (Personally, I don't buy this dichotomy at all)

3) If logic/reason does correspond to reality, then an "absolute" must correspond to the impossible conditions of completeness unto itself; freedom from limitation, restriction, and relation; perfection; purity; etc.

4) If logic/reason doesn't correspond to reality, like the absolutist claims it does, then "absolutes," at best, are irrational as they make no sense.

I'm afraid claims of "absolute truth" constitute more of a theological snob-appeal than anything else. They are an epistemological claim presuming an ontological condition something undefined and undefinable. In other words, it's nothing more than the belief in God once more.


Allen 4 years ago

Correction.

I meant to edit the following to say: " 4)If logic/reason doesn't correspond to reality, then..."


tft 4 years ago

Allen,

I agree that "absolute" is a contradiction, but Fatfist goes further than that. If you look at his writing (while ignoring his troll-level straw man) you'd see how he tends to play the deconstructionist on one side and the rationalist on another side, to his convenience. Either I'm missing something, which I hope I am, or he's just intellectually dishonest.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

tft,

What stramans? Feel free to cut/paste my alleged strawmans. You haven't been able to answer any of my previous questions to you (not even illustrating an image of YOUR alleged 'truth' object). And you cannot answer this question either. So who is the troll??


tft 4 years ago

fatfist,

So you admit you're intellectually dishonest?

Don't dodge the questions. "Truth" also depends on your answers.

"So who is the troll?"

Obviously, YOU?


El Dude 4 years ago

Wtf!

Refuses to type out the strawman, yet insists angrily there was one.

Refuses to even define truth yet somehow claims there 'is' one.

Avoids everything FF asks for a civil debate, then says FF is an intellectually dishonest troll who evades questions!

Amazing. Projection 101.


tft 4 years ago

@El Dude

Sorry, but I don't eat red herring.


El Dude 4 years ago

Yet your arguments stink and your truth claims are fishy!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Tft is the typical troll who thought he understood everything his Priest rammed in his behind all his life. But after coming here, he quickly realized that his Religion was just a big farce after all. Now he is disgruntled and wants to act like an ass and troll in here so he can lift up his spirits somewhat....tis a form of personal redemption for him....he rubs his own tush to warm up his heart....awhhh, so cute!

Tft....this is your last warning....either participate in this discussion by answering the questions posed to you or you will be kicked. The ball is in your court.


Duff Paddy 4 years ago

You said: "We have just proven that: “There are NO absolutes”." in your article.

But then I see you also talking about how proof has nothing to do with science and is subjective (i.e. "logical proof").

Can you clear this one up for me please? Thanks.


Duf Paddy 4 years ago

Also you say: "syntactically absolute" is ok.

But I thought "absolute" was an irrational term? Or, isn't syntax again just another man-made concept that's not eternal, etc?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Duff,

“But then I see you also talking about how proof has nothing to do with science and is subjective”

This is an easy one, Duff....but the problem is that most people don’t understand what the word “proof” means.

The word “proof” is only applicable within the context of some respective axioms. For instance, if you are going to prove something via classical logic, then your “proof” is only applicable within that context of classical logic. For example, Quantum logic has proven (within its context) that a photon can be a particle and ‘a’ wave at the same time (i.e. wavicle). This clearly defies Classical logic. So this proof is only applicable within the Quantum domain/context. This means that “proof” only applies to TAUTOLOGIES. Proof is necessarily predicated upon a set of axiomatic rules which define and derive any respective proof derivations in that context. Proof is purely tautological.

Ergo, proof has nothing to do with reality. When any human attempts to apply the word “proof” to reality (i.e. sensory perception), their alleged “proof” resolves to none other than OPINION. Hence proof does not apply to reality (scientific method).

“Also you say: "syntactically absolute" is ok”

Sure, any syntax is ok because it has to be for grammatical correctness. But we cannot confuse grammatical correctness with reality.

For example. In grammar we treat “space” as a noun. Eg. ‘the’ space between you and me.

But, space is NOT a noun of reality. The nouns of reality are objects. Objects have shape. Space is shapeless, borderless, colorless, tasteless, etc. Space is a synonym for nothing. Space is a concept. Syntactical correctness has to do with grammar and ordinary speech. Whereas Scientific Language has to do with reality. People don’t learn this stuff in school, so as you can see, they confuse Ordinary speech with Scientific language. Then they come here showcasing their ignorance with strawman arguments and chase their tails in circles.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Hey Fatfist,

Can you prove to me those are really 36D cups on the MILF next door?


Allen 4 years ago

I noticed yesterday on the Mises.org site, that one of the Dailies was a piece by Mises himself on "materialism." Now, I like a lot about Mises, but this article was trash, attempting to demonstrate an indelible link between "materialism" and totalitarianism. He never once brought up, say, the Epicureans, for one thing.

I've joined the comment section which is becoming...interesting. It might be fun to see you there, if you're so inclined :-)


El Dude w/o Guinness 4 years ago

I'm sad. No Guinness.

Anyway, from: http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/t2111-non-co...

"Those who argue that logic is 'intuitive' or 'circular' completely miss the substance of this point (and substance may be literal here, since it is an ontological argument). There is no knowledge outside of reason and no reality outside of non-contradictory properties. Attempts to deny this in, for example, analytic logic, simply fail because without the OLNC their arguments fail to exist, and since the contrary of the OLNC also invalidates the LLNC, their arguments are in fact not arguments. One can not dispute that we can have certain knowledge of ultimate reality such as the OLNC, because anything that failed to meet the OLNC would not be reality."

So many logicians and logical empiricists have serious issues separating logic and reality.


El Dude 4 years ago

At least until as soon as I got the whole, "Oh, yeah we just 'attach' words to physical objects to avoid circularity' ...thing, when I was saved.

Saved from the 11th-Dimensional Jesus Particle.


Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article