I admire atheists for devoting time for "God"

[ppp]

The limitation of truth in regards to correspondence truth as it regards metaphysics and the idea of "das Ding an sich". Of if you want it the current version: Having reality independent of mind. That connects to how science is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism. More if you want.

You are trying to use correspondence to assert the existence of 8 other versions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are trying to use correspondence to assert the existence of 8 other versions?

No, in the meta-sense of comparing all versions it breaks down.
If you want, what happens in practice, it is this. These different versions of human behavior all work, but all only in a limited sense each. None of them are universal, absolute and all that, none are the Truth.
Now you want to compare, right? But then it turns out that the standard(truth) you use it also limited, so now you hunt for a meta-meta truth that can settle which one is the correct one. But that doesn't work, because the meat-meta truth is also limited and then you use a meta-meta-meta truth, but it never stops. It is an infinite process of more meta on top of meta.

We are in effect playing Agrippa's Trilemma.
Now the short answer is that existence as a concept is not true as per correspondence theory of truth.

If you want it with natural science as how brains work, here it is. There is no central center in the brain for the Truth. There are different centers for different behaviors, but there is no one behavior(Truth) that controls all other.
All kind of truth are in effect different cognitive behaviors and they all work, but in a limited sense.

I use a relative model, because I will simply shift between different versions of truth according to which one appears to work best(subjective and itself relative) in a given context. I am relativist and use truth in a relativistic sense. In effect I am not one part of my brain, but different parts and combinations depending on what is at play.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ppp]

If you want, what happens in practice, it is this. These different versions of human behavior all work, but all only in a limited sense each. None of them are universal, absolute and all that, none are the Truth.

How did you determine that when I say there is a mug on my desk, that it is not the universal, absolute and bees knees truth? You say it with such surety.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you determine that when I say there is a mug on my desk, that it is not the universal, absolute and bees knees truth? You say it with such surety.

Do you want the answer to that one in all its absurdity? Any given human behavior is both absolute in one sense and relative in another. Depending on how you think, you get a specific answer that entails this absurd duality. The same is the case for me. Here it is in short: Reality appears to be a combination of regularities, which also functions as variations in other senses. Reality is a regularity(absolute) that allows for some variations(relative). Reality is this duality of overall an absolute regularity, which also allows for some variations.

So for me this is an absolute, but because of variation you can do it differently in some cases and that works as an absolute for you, but that for me, your absolute is a variation to me and so in reverse.
It is a form of dualistic absurd Taoism; i.e. a cosmic force which flows through all things and binds and releases them. The duality is binds and releases. The duality is both regular and variable and yeah, that doesn't add up as one and only one Truth, but it is my truth.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ppp]

I am sleepy and my eyes are crossing. I will read this again after I get a night's sleep. But I am immediately stuck on terminology:

Any given human behavior is both absolute in one sense and relative in another.

I do not know what you mean by absolute or relative in this context.

Reality appears to be a combination of regularities, which also functions as variations in other senses.

Regularities and variations. Again, you seem to be speaking in code. I can imagine different ways to apply those terms to reality. I am not going to try to guess which, if any, you intend.

Also, does your post answer, How did you determine that when I say there is a mug on my desk, that it is not the universal, absolute and bees knees truth?
It doesn't seem to address it. Maybe the morning will bring clarity.

Good night.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am sleepy and my eyes are crossing. I will read this again after I get a night's sleep. But I am immediately stuck on terminology:

I do not know what you mean by absolute or relative in this context.


Regularities and variations. Again, you seem to be speaking in code. I can imagine different ways to apply those terms to reality. I am not going to try to guess which, if any, you intend.

Also, does your post answer, How did you determine that when I say there is a mug on my desk, that it is not the universal, absolute and bees knees truth?
It doesn't seem to address it. Maybe the morning will bring clarity.

Good night.

Okay, your concrete answer is relative to how you treat real in the end. So here is the absurd truth of real. Real has no objective referent. Real is in your mind and nowhere else. Real is no different than God. Neither have an objective referent.

 

[Neb]

I don't believe in truth like you properly do. Further you haven't define truth. I know of at least 9 different versions of truths. So which one are you talking about?

If you're looking for absolute truth between theism and atheism propositions that is relative to your perspective of what the truth is then you not gonna find it here.

 

[Neb]

Atheism is not a proposition. It is not accepting a proposition of theism.

ISM is a proposition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you want it with natural science as how brains work, here it is. There is no central center in the brain for the Truth. There are different centers for different behaviors, but there is no one behavior(Truth) that controls all other.

I use a relative model, because I will simply shift between different versions of truth according to which one appears to work best (subjective and itself relative) in a given context. I am relativist and use truth in a relativistic sense. In effect I am not one part of my brain, but different parts and combinations depending on what is at play.

Why should there be one center for the whole of brain, so that if that is damaged, everything stops? No organ of the body acts in isolation. That is how even people with mild or even severe malfunction of brain or heart or lungs are able to live. Just like in a car or any machine, a malfunction will not give the optimum results but can still work. In an computer, the sound function may not work but other functions may operate satisfactorily.

 

[Neb]

Maybe the answer is there is no such truth.

In Christianity and Judaism, there is one truth or axiom, ie., there is only ONE TRUE GOD, that may not correspond to what your definition of truth. Once you accepted your own definition of what the truth is then it becomes an absolute truth relative only to your own perspective of what the truth is.

One part of the law of non-contradiction as not(P and non-P) is that it only tells you that one must be false.

logic 101

In fact in some cases are both false for some version of truth.

if both false then it's not relative to the opposing propositions

You are aware that there at least 9 versions of truth, right?

they all relative to occurring circumstances.

 

[ppp]

ISM is a proposition.

Is there a reason that you strut your knowledge of suffixes, yet pretend utter ignorance of prefixes? You know that the a- prefix means not of the position of theism. Believers spend so much time attempting to defends their beliefs with wordplay and lies of omission. Do better than that, Neb.

 

[ppp]

Okay, your concrete answer is relative to how you treat real in the end. So here is the absurd truth of real. Real has no objective referent. Real is in your mind and nowhere else. Real is no different than God. Neither have an objective referent.

When ever someone says that, my first question is, Then how do we communicate? If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When ever someone says that, my first question is, Then how do we communicate? If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?

Okay, then please answer how we can talk about the subjective, if everything we talk about is objective?

I mean it. You are not the first one to hold the idea that words for their meaning must have objective meaning? If so, explain how I can answer: No! and explain the objective meaning of subjective and objective.

 

[ppp]

Okay, then please answer how we can talk about the subjective, if everything we talk about is objective?

First: You didn't answer my question. You said, "Real has no objective referent." I asked, "If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?"

Second: I never claimed or implied that that everything we talk about is objective. So, either you injected that all-or-nothing assertion based on your unexamined assumptions, or you are deflecting. I am truly hoping that it is the former.

To make it clear, I think that we have a combination of subjective and objective referents. Not all or nothing.

I mean it. You are not the first one to hold the idea that words for their meaning must have objective meaning?

Words are the top level. Words are just symbols for concepts. Concepts are just approximations of experiences. And here lies the problem -> If the foundation for experience is not a referent to an objective reality, then there is no reason for subjective experience to have any commonalities. No common experience means no common concepts. No common concepts, then no means of communication.

If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?

 

[chinu]

I admire theists -- at least some of them -- for the time they devote to atheists. You might think atheists were their gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First: You didn't answer my question. You said, "Real has no objective referent." I asked, "If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?"

Second: I never claimed or implied that that everything we talk about is objective. So, either you injected that all-or-nothing assertion based on your unexamined assumptions, or you are deflecting. I am truly hoping that it is the former.

To make it clear, I think that we have a combination of subjective and objective referents. Not all or nothing.


Words are the top level. Words are just symbols for concepts. Concepts are just approximations of experiences. And here lies the problem -> If the foundation for experience is not a referent to an objective reality, then there is no reason for subjective experience to have any commonalities. No common experience means no common concepts. No common concepts, then no means of communication.

If you are not referencing anything objective, and I am not referencing anything objective, then how do we have any concepts in common?

You are almost there! But here is the joke. If reality is objective, where does subjectivity exist and how can we in objective reality in effect talk about the subjective, if reality is objective?

 

[ppp]

You are almost there! But here is the joke. If reality is objective, where does subjectivity exist and how can we in objective reality in effect talk about the subjective, if reality is objective?

Telling me that I am almost there is just you stroking your own ego. And you still didn't answer my question. Which means that you do not have an explanation and are just wasting my time on that self-pleasure.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Telling me that I am almost there is just you stroking your own ego. And you still didn't answer my question. Which means that you do not have an explanation and are just wasting my time on that self-pleasure.

No, the short answer is that reality is not objective. It is a combination of objective and subjective, though to you still physical and natural. It is just that it is wrong that reality is objective and just that. See now I answered And I can explain it.

 

[ppp]

No, the short answer is that reality is not objective. It is a combination of objective and subjective, though to you still physical and natural. It is just that it is wrong that reality is objective and just that. See now I answered And I can explain it.

This doesn't explain it. But that may be because we are talking past one another. And not using 'objective' in the same way.

When I say that something exists objectively, I mean that it exists independent of any mind.
So, when I say objective reality, I mean everything that exists independent of a mind. I just call that reality.

Your turn. What do you mean when you say 'objective'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Objective or subjective wrt to your point of observation, from where are you making the observation.