Can the Supernatural be taken seriously? - Page 2

quote:

---

Basically, there is no one truth

---

By stating there is no one truth, you are affirming that there is at least one truth. Your statement!!!

You cannot deny an absolute truth without affirming one!

the statement- 'there is no one truth' means that there is no universal truth. My 'truth' is individual truth not universal truth!

You miss the point.

if you state there is no universal truth, you are infact stating a universal truth i.e. there is no universal truth!

quote:

---

if you state there is no universal truth, you are infact stating a universal truth

---

no, as I said, I am stating an opinion. This opinion is individual truth, not universal.

How then do we establish laws?

Are yuou saying there are no univeral absolutes?

sadly laws are established by people who believe in universal truth within specific contexts. Yes, to certify it, for the 7th time, im saying there are no universal absolutes.

Petesmith- you've yet to give your opinion on what this discussion is actually about- Should the supernatural be taken seriously?

Decius:

quote:

---

The falsehood of your opinion is that if you believe anything to be true as an individual, you in fact believe that to be the absolute truth, regardless of whether that belief is an individual truth or not from a third person point of view.

---

Thats not being false; that is the validity of my arguement. I've already established that individual absolutes differs from universal absolutes.

Truth is socially and contextually specific. If you don't believe in individual truth then your opinion is obliterated (because it is obviously not universal [ie. not everyone agrees with you]. If there was universal truth then there would certainly be only one rational course of action open to us- which is impossible). Universal truth is an empty abstraction. If truth must account for all the facts, and if accounting for all the facts results in inconsistency; only the most empty abstractions can be true. If we knew all the facts, one individual's "truth" would be inconsistent with another's, and therefore universal truth is false. All truth is relative.

quote:

---

you concurrently believe that we are both right even though we oppose one another. That is the only way individual truths exist according to you... and that is impossible

---

no, that is far from what I am saying. Note the word- Individual truth; thus meaning that my truth only exists within myself. Your truth exists within you. My truth doesn't expand to your truth, and your truth doesn't expand to mine.

Truth being socially and contextually specific means that
the way we perceive the world, together with our knowledge is socially, culturally, and historically embedded. The way we view the world depends on our social perceptions of truth. Human social diversity concedes different values, moral systems and thinking systems. Context of an individual or community shapes their values. Truth is not linear it is dynamic.

quote:

---

you said universal absolutes do not exist. That is clearly proven wrong by my color example. It does not matter if you believe it or I believe it, it still IS.

---

Yes, absolute universal truth does not exist. You claim that how it filters light which creates colour is absolute universal truth...far from it. Your colour example is your opinion- individual truth depends on how you perceive the world.

quote:

---

People not agreeing with me does not in any way detract from the validity of my claim nor the existance of it as a possible universal truth that applies to everyone, even if they don't believe in it.

---

yes it does, because if there was 'universal truth' then different opinions, different individual truths would not exist!

quote:

---

One human's knowledge of reality leads to less than half the knowledge two people will attain together. Take ten people's knowledge and you get closer and closer to a truer universal absolute.

---

comes closer to universal truth...does it so? not absolutely.

quote:

---

Individual truths may exist in some capacity where they may exist for one individual but be impossible to affect another in any way... which would permit it to exist as an individual truth

---

oh so now you claim that individual truth exists. Now your getting confused....if there are individual truths, then universal truth cannot exist.

quote:

---

truth, by definition, means universal certainty

---

by definition? by who's definition...by your definition hence your individual opinionated truth.

As you know I've established my point. All I can say is, that you are looking into the idea of 'truth' way too rationally. For your sake Decius your disdainful claims have no more validity than mine. So far, your opinion is rather contempt. You speak so fondly of absolute, yet you have yet to comprehensively explain what the 'absolute universal truth' is.

my point exists. I think therefore I am. Whatever you say, it is merely an opinion, not absolute universal truth!

providing an 'internet definition', or 'your definition' can't prove my opinion wrong nor does it aid my established individual understanding of truth. That weak and rather skewed definition claims universal truth, whilst I don't. That said, nothing can prove anyones point wrong, because as i've said for the millionth time, opinions come out of individual mouths.

quote:

---

our perceptions of truth. That doesn't actually affect the truth.

---

Straight from the horses mouth! your context affects your perception of truth.

quote:

---

By proving that absolute truths exist

---

hmmmm. That is an extreme abstract, rationalist and impersonal way of thinking. You have a very reductionist philosophy, which holds its problems.

I appreciate your contemptuous opinion (even though I obviously disagree with you), yet it seems impossible for you to give a comprehensive explination of what universal truth actually is, which is fair enough considering my point of view.

you may like to consider understanding relativism-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/. Once you have read that; considering you can understand it, then the way you perceive the world, and how you view 'truth' may change (this is to anyone as well).

Decius- we could keep going on and on and on, if we wish.

quote:

---

I don't claim that your view is an opinion

---

what do you think it is then?!

quote:

---

And since logic is on my side, I'll believe what I have explained until someone logically proves my premises incorrect (which is always possible).

---

You have a predilection for systems and abstract deductions where you are ready to distort the truth intentionally, and to deny the evidence of your senses only to justify your own logic. Thankfully I am beyond logic and rationality.

If it is always possible that some one can prove you wrong, then it isn't absolute universal truth is it!

quote:

---

An "internet definition" from a "dictionary" about a "word" in the "english language" that we are "using to communicate" is quite "necessary" when people attempt to communicate using "language".

---

Yes it can be helpful to communicate with, but considering neither of us absolutely agree with each other, it isn't exactly the best of ideas to spill out a definition, that claims the 'absolute' is it. We should be far beyond a definition by now, or at least I am.

quote:

---

1. You believe that a red object ceases to be red if a person doesn't believe it is red.

---

yes, because one's individual truth is contextually specific. Individual truth depends on how we perceive it.

quote:

---

2. You don't believe that an english dictionary definition of a word adequately defines the way it should be used in an english speaking discussion forum.

---

Who said it is adequate enough. Who said it is the way it should be used. Freedom of speech my friend.

quote:

---

3. You don't believe that physics and chemistry provide humanity as a whole a reasonably accurate way to observe and predict universal truths.

---

Science is an incredibly reasonable and accurate way to observe and predict theories, not absolute universal truths.. The ultimate goal of science is to understand the natural world in terms of scientific theories, which are only concepts. The word 'theory' refers to a speculative idea. They are not answers. They are simply reasons.

quote:

---

4. You believe that because everyone does not know universal rules that that means they do not exist (similar to an infant not knowing about gravity... that means it doesn't exist!)

---

Yes, knowledge of the world and how we perceive it is socially and historically specific as I have already established; that I only believe in individual truth; where everyone doesn't know the 'absolute universal truth' because it doesn't exist.

I think therefore I am. I hope you do read into Relativism

quote:

---

you have yet to comprehensively explain what the 'absolute universal truth' is.

---

I now know what the problem is. You think that for something to be true we must know it and be able to explain it.

Truth is true whether we know and understand it or not.

I have a red car. It is the truth. You may not be able to prove it but it is still true.

quote:

---

I now know what the problem is. You think that for something to be true we must know it and be able to explain it.

---

What I am saying is, if you well and truly believe in 'universal truth', you have automatically introverted yourself the ultimate requirement to provide an 'absolute universal' reason and explination of what the universal truth is. I am not a determinist! Opinions are individual, not universal. I am not a reductionist.

quote:

---

Truth is true whether we know and understand it or not. I have a red car. It is the truth. You may not be able to prove it but it is still true.

---

Your opinion is refering to your belief that 'truth' is universal. You are thinking too rationally. Just like Decius, you seem to have a predilection for systems and abstract deductions where you are ready to distort the truth intentionally, and to deny the evidence of your senses only to justify your own logic, that is where the problem lies. And problems cannot be resolved by the same level of thinking that gave birth to them.

quote:

---

for systems and abstract deductions where you are ready to distort the truth intentionally, and to deny the evidence of your senses only to justify your own logic, that is where the problem lies

---

what????

To simplify it for you- your rationality and abstract opinion is prepared to deny all individual truths, in order to justify your own logic.

If we deny your 'individual truth', why is that a problem. From what you have said it only applys to the individual anyway!