Yes; that substance, though, is not truth. It is uncertainty.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Absence of Evidence = Evidence?
- Thread starter Cobblestones
- Start date
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I believe that you believe that.
Yay.
Willamena:
It is simple, I agree. To add the extra dimension of "believing we believe they are true" cascades into an infinite recession of "believing we believe". It's simpler than that. There is just belief.
Cottage:
Infinite recession? (!!) There is only truth or falsity. And our beliefs are either true or false. But we frequently think that what we believe is true, but then it turns out that it isn't. It happens to us all.
Willamena:
You now believe that your prior belief was false, because it's now true that it was false. Your belief is placed in something true. Did you believe in something true before you knew it was false?
Cottage:
If a thing is false then it is false, there is no its now true that it was false. It was always false; the belief was erroneous.
We believe now, because now is when truth and falsehood exist. Now is when everything exists.[/quote]
Cottage:
What I see exists now is a significant movement towards fudge. Truth and falsehood arent temporal. That a circle is not a square will be as true tomorrow as it is today, just as it has been in the past.
But what if we only believe that we think we believe? That is the regression. You are promoting something that is not "only truth or falsity." You're promoting something that is more complicated.
Now that you know of it, you've extrapolated that bit of knowledge back into the past.
Is that true? Is that truth that will never be realized as falsehood? Are you certain?
There is one statement that answers all of the above, and it is this: truth or falsity exists independent of belief. Our belief that p imposes no necessity upon it. Thus 'what we believe is true' is not a necessary truth.
I have no argument with the former statement, whatsoever. And I never claimed the latter.
jtartar
Well-Known Member
Cobblestones,
If you really want to know the truth about God, all you need to do is look into His Holy Scriptures, The Bible.
Do you know any other book that is over 3,500 years old that is still more up to date than any other book in the world??
What other book has things written in it that was not know, by any man, when it was written, Job 26:7,10, Isa 40:22.
What about the laws that God gave to the Israelites? Laws of cleanliness, and laws about health,Deut 4:6-8.
Consider this for a moment; Man has several branches of science that is trying to copy principles found in nature. How is it that when a man copies something in nature he is considered a genius for making such a wonderful design. The design he makes is far inferior to the design in nature, but men think NO ONE designed the things we see in nature. Science knows that nothing is designed without a designer. Consider what God thinks of men that cannot understand that design must have a designer, Rom 1:18-20.
A proof positive is the prophecies recorded in God's word. About a third of the Bible is prophecy. Man cannot prophecy one day in advance and be 100% accurate. God has had recorded prophecies that had fulfillment in several years, and some that had their fulfillment several thousand years later. Ever one of them has come true exactly on time, 100% of the time.
The Book of Daniel is full of prophesies about the march of the Gentile nations, Dan chapters 10-12. Could any man tell about what nations would rule before they came into existence???
The fourth chapter of Daniel tells about a huge tree that grew so large that it was seen all over the earth. The tree was then cut down and banded to some day it would grow again. In the initial fulfillment it was about Nebuchadnezzar, but it had a much larger fulfillment, it pictured God's Kingdom, a THEOCRATIC rule on earth,that ended in 607BC. The kingdom would be out of power for 2,520 years, then Jesus would begin his Kingdom rule in the midst of his enemies, exactly as happened in 1914, Ps 110:1-6, Rev 6:1,2, 12:1-9. Notice that right after the war in heaven Satan and his demons would be hurled down to earth, Rev 12:9, and immediately after that WOE for the earth, 12:12. Both Rev 6:1-8 and Rev 12:5-7 shows that right after Jesus was installed as King there would be WAR, in heaven first,then on earth. What man could prophecy 2,500 years into the future and have thing come true exactly as prophesied???
Daniel, chapter 2 tells about a huge image that stood for five different Kingdoms, starting with Babylon, then Medes and Persions, Greece, Rome, then the Anglo-American world power existing NOW. According to the Bible there were only seven world powers that had dealings with God's people Israel. We are the seventh, and there are no more, as Gods kingdom will destroy all nations and set up a government that will last forever, Dan 2:44.
In the nineth chapter of Dan, 24-27, we are given a prophecy that would amount to 70 weeks. This prophecy along with the one in the fourth chaper is talking about weeks of YEARS, not literal weeks. This prophecy told about the coming of the Messiah, Dan 9:24,25. The Messiah, who turned out to be Jesus, came exactly on time, 483 years after the prophecy was given. Jesus came on the scene in 29CE and the prophecy extended on for another 3 1/2 years after Jesus died at the middle of the last week. This made up the whole 70 weeks, or actually 490 years. The Jews understood the prophecy and were in expectation of The Messiah, when Jesus came to John the Baptist, luke 3:15-23.
Isaiah wrote a prophecy that was so detailed that people thought that the prophecy was actually written after the fact. God even had recorded the name of the King that would defeat Babylon, King Cyrus the Persion, and even how he would do this, even though it seemed impossible at that time.
This is just a few proofs of the Almighty Creator of all things. Has there ever been any man who could do even one of the things??? The answer is NO!!!
[Cobblestones,
If you really want to know the truth about God, all you need to do is look into His Holy Scriptures, The Bible.]
]
Cobblestones post correctly observed that an absence of evidence is not evidence. But here you are attempting to justify that non-existence with a narrative a book! A book is not proof. Im highly amused at the way you describe science as inferior and then the very next moment call upon science to support your belief that God is the designer by stating that science knows nothing is designed without a designer. First of all, science has nothing at all to do with what is simply tautological statement. A design indicates a designer because a designer is implied by the term design. But there is no evidence that anything in nature was designed, never mind being designed by some extraneous power; but perhaps you want to make comparisons with the designs of mere men and then infer from those that the Supreme Being must be like humans?
Consider what God thinks of men that cannot understand that design must have a designer, Rom 1:18-20.
It doesnt say that at all! It simply speaks of God expressing his wrath and frustration that men do not acknowledge him. So much for the invisible things of his eternal power! The unrighteous understood that a design implies a designer, but they didnt accept that the world was designed or that an invisible and eternal power was its cause. Poor old God! He then got into a temper, expressing his wrath at his finite, imperfect, contingent creation because he couldnt convince them he existed.
Now to prophecies, there is no prophecy that stands on it own, explicitly true and unambiguous in its claims, not being subject to careful explanations from hindsight or scholarly exegesis. More to the point is this: Prophecies even if scrupulously explicit and unambiguous cannot provide a full and final proof for the existence of a supernatural being. But there is a further reason that shows it to be an improper proof. For if you dont hold your faith from prophecies alone, but have additional or further reasons for believing as you do, then you cant expect others to believe something, which by your own admission, falls short of being able to stand alone as a necessary and sufficient proof. And if you did come to your faith by believing in prophecy alone, then why the need for all the other proofs.
If you really want to know the truth about God, all you need to do is look into His Holy Scriptures, The Bible.]
]
Cobblestones post correctly observed that an absence of evidence is not evidence. But here you are attempting to justify that non-existence with a narrative a book! A book is not proof. Im highly amused at the way you describe science as inferior and then the very next moment call upon science to support your belief that God is the designer by stating that science knows nothing is designed without a designer. First of all, science has nothing at all to do with what is simply tautological statement. A design indicates a designer because a designer is implied by the term design. But there is no evidence that anything in nature was designed, never mind being designed by some extraneous power; but perhaps you want to make comparisons with the designs of mere men and then infer from those that the Supreme Being must be like humans?
Consider what God thinks of men that cannot understand that design must have a designer, Rom 1:18-20.
It doesnt say that at all! It simply speaks of God expressing his wrath and frustration that men do not acknowledge him. So much for the invisible things of his eternal power! The unrighteous understood that a design implies a designer, but they didnt accept that the world was designed or that an invisible and eternal power was its cause. Poor old God! He then got into a temper, expressing his wrath at his finite, imperfect, contingent creation because he couldnt convince them he existed.
Now to prophecies, there is no prophecy that stands on it own, explicitly true and unambiguous in its claims, not being subject to careful explanations from hindsight or scholarly exegesis. More to the point is this: Prophecies even if scrupulously explicit and unambiguous cannot provide a full and final proof for the existence of a supernatural being. But there is a further reason that shows it to be an improper proof. For if you dont hold your faith from prophecies alone, but have additional or further reasons for believing as you do, then you cant expect others to believe something, which by your own admission, falls short of being able to stand alone as a necessary and sufficient proof. And if you did come to your faith by believing in prophecy alone, then why the need for all the other proofs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
There is one statement that answers all of the above, and it is this: truth or falsity exists independent of belief. Our belief that p imposes no necessity upon it. Thus 'what we believe is true' is not a necessary truth.
Willamena:
I have no argument with the former statement, whatsoever. And I never claimed the latter.
Cottage:
So lets recap, then. You said if we believe things its because they are true. Is that correct? But as we believe, and have believed, things that that arent true, that statement must therefore be false! It comes back to three possibilities. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: The euro is the currency of Italy; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: The sun revolves around the earth; or we believe things are true which are subjective/unjustifiable: Obama will prove to be the best US president in modern times. So a belief may be true/false whether or not we believe it to be true/false. Agreed?
__________________
Originally Posted by cottage
There is one statement that answers all of the above, and it is this: truth or falsity exists independent of belief. Our belief that p imposes no necessity upon it. Thus 'what we believe is true' is not a necessary truth.
Willamena:
I have no argument with the former statement, whatsoever. And I never claimed the latter.
Cottage:
So lets recap, then. You said if we believe things its because they are true. Is that correct? But as we believe, and have believed, things that that arent true, that statement must therefore be false! It comes back to three possibilities. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: The euro is the currency of Italy; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: The sun revolves around the earth; or we believe things are true which are subjective/unjustifiable: Obama will prove to be the best US president in modern times. So a belief may be true/false whether or not we believe it to be true/false. Agreed?
__________________
It is inaccurate, though, to say "we believed things that were false" in the manner you used that phrase earlier (but I suspect you've changed contexts now). But no matter. I do (mostly) agree, have all along, just word it more accurately.
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it. To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.) But we believed in them because they were true, so to say we ever believed in them is to say that 'we once knew they were true'.
"That Things Are True" is a different story, a different narrative, than the "That We Know Things Are True" story. I'm saying, there is no "That Things Are True" story without the "That We Know Things Are True" story already in place. What use is a truth that we know nothing about?
We cannot believe something to be true/false but that we know it to be true/false. So I do not agree with your wording in the last sentence.
Last edited:
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
So lets recap, then. You said if we believe things its because they are true. Is that correct? But as we believe, and have believed, things that that arent true, that statement must therefore be false! It comes back to three possibilities. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: The euro is the currency of Italy; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: The sun revolves around the earth; or we believe things are true which are subjective/unjustifiable: Obama will prove to be the best US president in modern times. So a belief may be true/false whether or not we believe it to be true/false. Agreed?]
Willamena:
It is inaccurate, though, to say "we believed things that were false" in the manner you used that phrase earlier (but I suspect you've changed contexts now). But no matter. I do (mostly) agree, have all along, just word it more accurately.
Cottage:
Explain what you mean? Nothing has changed. It is true that weve believed things that were false.
Willamena:
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it.
Cottage: Yes!
Willamena:
To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.)
Cottage:
That careful choice of words cracks me up! It isnt another truth that conflicts with the earlier truth: it is the truth! And its not an 'apparent conflict' but a false belief. This is shades of Hirohitos speech to his people in 1945: The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japans advantage.
Willamena:
But we believed in them because they were true, so to say we ever believed in them is to say that 'we once knew they were true'.
Cottage:
Oh do be serious! The world was once believed to be flat, but the world isnt flat. So all youre saying here is that its true it was once believed to be flat!
Willamena:
"That Things Are True" is a different story, a different narrative, than the "That We Know Things Are True" story. I'm saying, there is no "That Things Are True" story without the "That We Know Things Are True" story already in place. What use is a truth that we know nothing about?
Cottage:
Got nothing at all to do with use. Youve already agreed that truth or falsity exists independent of our beliefs.
Willamena:
We cannot believe something to be true/false but that we know it to be true/false. So I do not agree with your wording in the last sentence.
Cottage:
Not sure what youre saying there. What Im saying, very simply, is that a belief may be true/or false regardless of what we believe. Examples: Obama is the President is true, whilst the earth is flat is not true.
__________________
Originally Posted by cottage
So lets recap, then. You said if we believe things its because they are true. Is that correct? But as we believe, and have believed, things that that arent true, that statement must therefore be false! It comes back to three possibilities. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: The euro is the currency of Italy; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: The sun revolves around the earth; or we believe things are true which are subjective/unjustifiable: Obama will prove to be the best US president in modern times. So a belief may be true/false whether or not we believe it to be true/false. Agreed?]
Willamena:
It is inaccurate, though, to say "we believed things that were false" in the manner you used that phrase earlier (but I suspect you've changed contexts now). But no matter. I do (mostly) agree, have all along, just word it more accurately.
Cottage:
Explain what you mean? Nothing has changed. It is true that weve believed things that were false.
Willamena:
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it.
Cottage: Yes!
Willamena:
To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.)
Cottage:
That careful choice of words cracks me up! It isnt another truth that conflicts with the earlier truth: it is the truth! And its not an 'apparent conflict' but a false belief. This is shades of Hirohitos speech to his people in 1945: The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japans advantage.Willamena:
But we believed in them because they were true, so to say we ever believed in them is to say that 'we once knew they were true'.
Cottage:
Oh do be serious! The world was once believed to be flat, but the world isnt flat. So all youre saying here is that its true it was once believed to be flat!
Willamena:
"That Things Are True" is a different story, a different narrative, than the "That We Know Things Are True" story. I'm saying, there is no "That Things Are True" story without the "That We Know Things Are True" story already in place. What use is a truth that we know nothing about?
Cottage:
Got nothing at all to do with use. Youve already agreed that truth or falsity exists independent of our beliefs.
Willamena:
We cannot believe something to be true/false but that we know it to be true/false. So I do not agree with your wording in the last sentence.
Cottage:
Not sure what youre saying there. What Im saying, very simply, is that a belief may be true/or false regardless of what we believe. Examples: Obama is the President is true, whilst the earth is flat is not true.
__________________
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
Does being raised in a Christian home by a pastor, going to Christian schools, reading the Scriptures in its original Greek, studying the Church Fathers, and going to church at least twice a week for 40 years count? Hmm? Just curious because you seem to think I am an uninformed dolt.
It's explained in the rest of the paragraph I'd written.
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it.
Cottage: Yes!
Willamena:
To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.)
Cottage:
You're making this unnecessarily complicated. Regardless that it has been replaced by the truth, it was indeed the truth when it was true. 20 years from now, it will still be true of today that "the euro is the currency of Italy." It will never be false (unless, of course, they're fooling us all).
I don't get how Hirohito's quote is relevant to what either of us is saying.
I'm going to take a guess here and suggesting that you think the concept of truth be slaved to time, so that no matter how far back in time you can imagine, what you recognize as the truth now will have always been the truth. I'm suggesting that truth exists independent of time.
No (actually that's an urban legend), what I'm saying is that truth exists independent of time, and that belief is dependent on truth.
Now, those people who allegedly believed the world was flat may have looked at it from a perspective from which it was flat. There is no falsity if we include all relevant information. There is falsity if we ignore relevant information, or try to change the context in which the information was known. That they (allegedly) believed it is an indicator of a truth. From there the onus is on us to try to understand from their point of view the way it which it was true.
Yes. Truth and falsehood exist independently of belief, and are not dependent on it. That would suggest a backwards dependency. Belief is dependent on truth, and disbelief on falsehood.
A truth that is not usefully true is no different than fiction.
I dunno... it looks pretty flat to me, looking out my window here.
[Originally Posted by cottage
Explain what you mean? Nothing has changed. It is true that weve believed things that were false.]
Willamena: It's explained in the rest of the paragraph I'd written.
Cottage: Im afraid I didnt understand it. Would you mind putting it in different words?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it.]
Cottage: Yes!
Willamena:
To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.)
Cottage:
That careful choice of words cracks me up! It isnt another truth that conflicts with the earlier truth: it is the truth! And its not an 'apparent conflict' but a false belief. This is shades of Hirohitos speech to his people in 1945: The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japans advantage. ]
Willamena:
You're making this unnecessarily complicated. Regardless that it has been replaced by the truth, it was indeed the truth when it was true. 20 years from now, it will still be true of today that "the euro is the currency of Italy." It will never be false (unless, of course, they're fooling us all).
I don't get how Hirohito's quote is relevant to what either of us is saying.
Cottage:
With respect, it is you who are making this unnecessarily complicated. How on earth can something that is true be replaced with the truth? The truth is the truth. For example: if Italy has the euro is true then Italy has the Lire is false, and it is as simple as that. Were seeing convoluted statements, appeals to relativism, the splitting of hairs and carefully contrived massive understatement, hence my reference to Hirohito.
Willamena:
I'm going to take a guess here and suggesting that you think the concept of truth be slaved to time, so that no matter how far back in time you can imagine, what you recognize as the truth now will have always been the truth. I'm suggesting that truth exists independent of time.
Cottage:
Oh, for heavens sake! Truth is independent of time. So what are you trying to say now, that the world was once flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, or that witches really did deserve to be hanged and burned?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Oh do be serious! The world was once believed to be flat, but the world isnt flat. So all youre saying here is that its true it was once believed to be flat!]
Willamena: No (actually that's an urban legend), what I'm saying is that truth exists independent of time, and that belief is dependent on truth.
Cottage: It certainly is not an urban legend, more of which in a moment.
Willamena:
Now, those people who allegedly believed the world was flat may have looked at it from a perspective from which it was flat. There is no falsity if we include all relevant information. There is falsity if we ignore relevant information, or try to change the context in which the information was known. That they (allegedly) believed it is an indicator of a truth. From there the onus is on us to try to understand from their point of view the way it which it was true.
Cottage:
I like the way you repeatedly say allegedly, seemingly unaware that there are people even today who believe the world is flat. These folk subscribe to the flat earth societies because their beliefs are founded in Biblical explanations, rather than science. And, excuse me, but there is no onus or obligation upon us to understand the way in which it was true, no more than we should understand Hilters reasoning for the Final Solution. To make an argument for truth on the basis of false or mistaken reasoning just serves to demonstrate the falsehood. Consider this proposition:
All planets are made of blue cheese
The earth is a planet
The earth is made of blue cheese.
This is the manner in which Aristotle proceeded with his cosmological beliefs. The logical structure was correct but his major premise was false and therefore so was his conclusion. His belief that the earth was the centre of the universe was false, no matter how you attempt to accommodate it.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Got nothing at all to do with use. Youve already agreed that truth or falsity exists independent of our beliefs.]
Willamena:
Yes. Truth and falsehood exist independently of belief, and are not dependent on it. That would suggest a backwards dependency. Belief is dependent on truth, and disbelief on falsehood.
A truth that is not usefully true is no different than fiction.
Cottage:
Sorry, but I dont know what your point is here.
Explain what you mean? Nothing has changed. It is true that weve believed things that were false.]
Willamena: It's explained in the rest of the paragraph I'd written.
Cottage: Im afraid I didnt understand it. Would you mind putting it in different words?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Things are not true to us until and unless we know they are true. So while we know the truth of "The euro is the currency of Italy," it is the truth. And while we know it as true, we believe it.]
Cottage: Yes!
Willamena:
To say "we believe things because we think they are true" is to find out later another truth that apparently conflicts with the earlier truth. (This apparent conflict is also true, but that's another story.)
Cottage:
That careful choice of words cracks me up! It isnt another truth that conflicts with the earlier truth: it is the truth! And its not an 'apparent conflict' but a false belief. This is shades of Hirohitos speech to his people in 1945: The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japans advantage. ]
Willamena:
You're making this unnecessarily complicated. Regardless that it has been replaced by the truth, it was indeed the truth when it was true. 20 years from now, it will still be true of today that "the euro is the currency of Italy." It will never be false (unless, of course, they're fooling us all).
I don't get how Hirohito's quote is relevant to what either of us is saying.
Cottage:
With respect, it is you who are making this unnecessarily complicated. How on earth can something that is true be replaced with the truth? The truth is the truth. For example: if Italy has the euro is true then Italy has the Lire is false, and it is as simple as that. Were seeing convoluted statements, appeals to relativism, the splitting of hairs and carefully contrived massive understatement, hence my reference to Hirohito.
Willamena:
I'm going to take a guess here and suggesting that you think the concept of truth be slaved to time, so that no matter how far back in time you can imagine, what you recognize as the truth now will have always been the truth. I'm suggesting that truth exists independent of time.
Cottage:
Oh, for heavens sake! Truth is independent of time. So what are you trying to say now, that the world was once flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, or that witches really did deserve to be hanged and burned?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Oh do be serious! The world was once believed to be flat, but the world isnt flat. So all youre saying here is that its true it was once believed to be flat!]
Willamena: No (actually that's an urban legend), what I'm saying is that truth exists independent of time, and that belief is dependent on truth.
Cottage: It certainly is not an urban legend, more of which in a moment.
Willamena:
Now, those people who allegedly believed the world was flat may have looked at it from a perspective from which it was flat. There is no falsity if we include all relevant information. There is falsity if we ignore relevant information, or try to change the context in which the information was known. That they (allegedly) believed it is an indicator of a truth. From there the onus is on us to try to understand from their point of view the way it which it was true.
Cottage:
I like the way you repeatedly say allegedly, seemingly unaware that there are people even today who believe the world is flat. These folk subscribe to the flat earth societies because their beliefs are founded in Biblical explanations, rather than science. And, excuse me, but there is no onus or obligation upon us to understand the way in which it was true, no more than we should understand Hilters reasoning for the Final Solution. To make an argument for truth on the basis of false or mistaken reasoning just serves to demonstrate the falsehood. Consider this proposition:
All planets are made of blue cheese
The earth is a planet
The earth is made of blue cheese.
This is the manner in which Aristotle proceeded with his cosmological beliefs. The logical structure was correct but his major premise was false and therefore so was his conclusion. His belief that the earth was the centre of the universe was false, no matter how you attempt to accommodate it.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Got nothing at all to do with use. Youve already agreed that truth or falsity exists independent of our beliefs.]
Willamena:
Yes. Truth and falsehood exist independently of belief, and are not dependent on it. That would suggest a backwards dependency. Belief is dependent on truth, and disbelief on falsehood.
A truth that is not usefully true is no different than fiction.
Cottage:
Sorry, but I dont know what your point is here.
Do you have something against relativism? It has it's place; however, I do believe in the truth being absolute. You, on the other hand, seem to believe in an absolute truth. I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this.
I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we believe in things because they are true. That's why we believe.
I'm aware of them. We had a thread a few years ago on the topic. There is a "Flat Earth Society" that takes the "flat world" idea literally. They do profess belief in it, and in looking at the truth that they claim to believe it is plain to see that it is the truth of a literal interpretation. This makes the point I mentioned earlier: that belief is an indicator, and in understanding their belief ("standing under," putting ourselves in their shoes) we can see the truth that they see.
Obviously this is a part of your worldview, but for me there is a human obligation.
If you say so, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
Well JTartar? Any response? Or do you only pontificate to people who actually have never experienced your religion and therefore cannot challenge your faith or reason?
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
I think at times we all fall into jelly-headedness. The important thing is what flavour!
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Were seeing convoluted statements, appeals to relativism, the splitting of hairs and carefully contrived massive understatement, hence my reference to Hirohito.]
Willamena:
Do you have something against relativism? It has it's place; however, I do believe in the truth being absolute. You, on the other hand, seem to believe in an absolute truth. I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this.
Cottage:
First of all, relativism does indeed have its place: people understand the world differently, hence religion, politics and aesthetics, but it has nothing whatever to do with this discussion if were speaking of what is true and false. Secondly, if the truth is absolute, then it is absolute, that is to say the absolute truth. And I have already explained my views on this. By existing in a certain way a thing is not contradictory, which means it cannot be other than what it is. President Obama is the US President is true, but neither Obama nor the office of President need exist.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
So what are you trying to say now, that the world was once flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, or that witches really did deserve to be hanged and burned?]
Willamena:
I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we believe in things because they are true. That's why we believe.
Cottage:
Well, Im sorry but youve been defending Aristotles cosmological beliefs as true, and in the case of the sun revolving around the earth you said: there is no falsity if we include the relevant information. I have to tell you that with all the relevant information included, the belief is still false, because if the earth revolves around the sun is true then the sun revolves around the earth cannot also be true.
We believe things either because we have prior knowledge, ie that Ombama is the President, or we believe things because we assume theyre true, and in the case of the latter our beliefs may be proved true, false or unjustifiable.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
I like the way you repeatedly say allegedly, seemingly unaware that there are people even today who believe the world is flat.]
Willamena:
I'm aware of them. We had a thread a few years ago on the topic. There is a "Flat Earth Society" that takes the "flat world" idea literally. They do profess belief in it, and in looking at the truth that they claim to believe it is plain to see that it is the truth of a literal interpretation. This makes the point I mentioned earlier: that belief is an indicator, and in understanding their belief ("standing under," putting ourselves in their shoes) we can see the truth that they see.
Cottage:
So what happened to the alleged Flat Earthers, and the urban legend? (!) One minute youre denying a thing and the next youre claiming it as part of your argument!
By putting ourselves in the shoes of the people who had those beliefs, (which we all do to some extent when reading history), we are able to learn how they came to those wrong, ie false conclusions. There were no truths in those cases, only mistaken beliefs. Face facts. The documented past is littered with examples of false beliefs, and we in our turn will add to them.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
And, excuse me, but there is no onus or obligation upon us to understand the way in which it was true, no more than we should understand Hilters reasoning for the Final Solution.]
Willamena:
Obviously this is a part of your worldview, but for me there is a human obligation.
Cottage:
You are arguing for something entirely different. The world is perfectly aware of what Hitlers motives and intentions were. But there is no obligation to understand why his belief that an entire race of people should be wiped off the face of the earth was in some way true.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
This is the manner in which Aristotle proceeded with his cosmological beliefs.]
Willamena: If you say so, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.
Cottage: Yes of course! But you might want to explain why?
__________________
Originally Posted by cottage
Were seeing convoluted statements, appeals to relativism, the splitting of hairs and carefully contrived massive understatement, hence my reference to Hirohito.]
Willamena:
Do you have something against relativism? It has it's place; however, I do believe in the truth being absolute. You, on the other hand, seem to believe in an absolute truth. I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this.
Cottage:
First of all, relativism does indeed have its place: people understand the world differently, hence religion, politics and aesthetics, but it has nothing whatever to do with this discussion if were speaking of what is true and false. Secondly, if the truth is absolute, then it is absolute, that is to say the absolute truth. And I have already explained my views on this. By existing in a certain way a thing is not contradictory, which means it cannot be other than what it is. President Obama is the US President is true, but neither Obama nor the office of President need exist.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
So what are you trying to say now, that the world was once flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, or that witches really did deserve to be hanged and burned?]
Willamena:
I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we believe in things because they are true. That's why we believe.
Cottage:
Well, Im sorry but youve been defending Aristotles cosmological beliefs as true, and in the case of the sun revolving around the earth you said: there is no falsity if we include the relevant information. I have to tell you that with all the relevant information included, the belief is still false, because if the earth revolves around the sun is true then the sun revolves around the earth cannot also be true.
We believe things either because we have prior knowledge, ie that Ombama is the President, or we believe things because we assume theyre true, and in the case of the latter our beliefs may be proved true, false or unjustifiable.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
I like the way you repeatedly say allegedly, seemingly unaware that there are people even today who believe the world is flat.]
Willamena:
I'm aware of them. We had a thread a few years ago on the topic. There is a "Flat Earth Society" that takes the "flat world" idea literally. They do profess belief in it, and in looking at the truth that they claim to believe it is plain to see that it is the truth of a literal interpretation. This makes the point I mentioned earlier: that belief is an indicator, and in understanding their belief ("standing under," putting ourselves in their shoes) we can see the truth that they see.
Cottage:
So what happened to the alleged Flat Earthers, and the urban legend? (!) One minute youre denying a thing and the next youre claiming it as part of your argument!
By putting ourselves in the shoes of the people who had those beliefs, (which we all do to some extent when reading history), we are able to learn how they came to those wrong, ie false conclusions. There were no truths in those cases, only mistaken beliefs. Face facts. The documented past is littered with examples of false beliefs, and we in our turn will add to them.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
And, excuse me, but there is no onus or obligation upon us to understand the way in which it was true, no more than we should understand Hilters reasoning for the Final Solution.]
Willamena:
Obviously this is a part of your worldview, but for me there is a human obligation.
Cottage:
You are arguing for something entirely different. The world is perfectly aware of what Hitlers motives and intentions were. But there is no obligation to understand why his belief that an entire race of people should be wiped off the face of the earth was in some way true.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
This is the manner in which Aristotle proceeded with his cosmological beliefs.]
Willamena: If you say so, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.
Cottage: Yes of course! But you might want to explain why?
__________________