Truth

MC Escher said:
Oh for pity's sake....

People believe what they WANT to believe!

Haven't you pack of nit pickers figured that out yet?
Is there any genuine truth besides that which is personal? If you believe in the bibles accuracy on the meta then you have a basis for ultimate truth. Outside of that is everything not subjective? Democrats and republicans each obviously see each other as wrong, even those who know the intimate details of the positions involved. I'm not trying to be coffee house philisophical, I'm just being beer inquisitive.

Comments

  • said:

    Is there any genuine truth besides that which is personal?


    The laws of physics.

    Even though our understanding of them is imperfect the laws themselves are what some cultures call "True Truths", which are ALWAYS true without regard to circumstances or position of observation.
  • said:

    Is there any genuine truth besides that which is personal? If you believe in the bibles accuracy on the meta then you have a basis for ultimate truth. Outside of that is everything not subjective? Democrats and republicans each obviously see each other as wrong, even those who know the intimate details of the positions involved. I'm not trying to be coffee house philisophical, I'm just being beer inquisitive.

    You can use that excuse for abstract concepts, but things that are physically observable and verifiable are a lot harder to fudge. Physics fall in there.
  • You can't know those things are real though and thus not true. You can only know that your mind is real, at best.
  • You can't know those things are real though and thus not true. You can only know that your mind is real, at best.
  • edited April 2011
    said:

    The laws of physics.

    I just watched a live debate last Thursday between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss (physicist). What became apparent during the debate was that Krauss, against his own advice (that we must allow reality to change our beliefs), was denying the physics that went against what he wanted to believe, lending truth to Escher's earlier statement, "People believe what they WANT to believe!"
  • said:

    You can't know those things are real though and thus not true. You can only know that your mind is real, at best.


    Reduction to absurdity.

    Your thread is now pointless. I suggest the mods close it.
  • said:

    said:

    The laws of physics.

    I just watched a live debate last Thursday between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss (physicist). What became apparent during the debate was that Krauss, against his own advice (that we must allow reality to change our beliefs), was denying the physics that went against what he wanted to believe, lending truth to Escher's earlier statement, "People believe what they WANT to believe!"
    I that indicates another problem with Larry Krauss' presentation. Sometimes he is very modest about science and the state of our knowledge, but when he gets into it with a fundie he reverts to making more bold assertions about reality, as if he or his discipline arbitrate what it is or is not.

    It's almost as if when you hear that someone saw him speak, you have to ask "Which one?".
  • Craig isn't really a "fundy" in the way most people mean it, though he thinks in a very structured, logical way, he does hold to the fundamental, historical, orthodox beliefs of Christianity and he is a very good debater.

    In the debate, the physics in question revolved around the origin of our universe. Craig used a quote from Krauss' own book to refute what Krauss said in the last round, that when Krauss says "nothing" created the universe, Krauss doesn't really mean "nothing" (non-being) but rather a vacuum that has a rich physical structure, equivocation which Krauss then conceded. Krauss pretty much admitted that all evidence points to a beginning of this universe, but kept clinging to the possibility of an unobserved (and fundamentally unobservable) multiverse, as if that imagining disproves Craig's point that a beginning of the universe is evidence for the existence of God (Krauss' position was that there is zero evidence for the existence of God).

    Perhaps Krauss, by necessity, had to wear the "fundy atheist" hat in a debate just to defend a side, whether that side is defensible or not.
  • said:

    Perhaps Krauss, by necessity, had to wear the "fundy atheist" hat in a debate just to defend a side, whether that side is defensible or not.

    I think he allows himself to over-reach rhetorically when he is faced with people whose ideas he does not respect. I suspect that his ideas about religion are not very far from Dawkin's line of "FSM" derision, and that he knows that kind of antipathy is not scholarly or reasonable, but can't resist claiming to know reality where his opponent clings to silly opinion.

    It may be that some of the people against which he has spoken, such as the Dover litigants, don't merit a lot of respect. But his shift depending on context leaves him open to exactly the kind of point you describe this craig fellow making.
  • "truth" is relative - just ask Orwell (or Stephen Colbert :P ). "Truth" is absolute, typically derived scientifically by induction and experiment, and irrefutable - though often challenged and rightfully so.
  • said:

    "Truth" is absolute, ....


    In your mind maybe.
  • said:

    said:

    "Truth" is absolute, ....


    In your mind maybe.
    Damnit.
  • Truth is not the same as facts. Is the statement "The sun rises in the east" a true or false statement?
  • It's false.

    The sun rises in the Higashi.
  • said:

    It's false.

    The sun rises in the Higashi.

    Indeed. Just left of the fallout.
  • One very simple test for truth is correspondence (not in the sense of letter writing, but in being).

    If truth is relative, and held in the mind of the person promulgating it, or in the collective mind of community, as is so often presented in post-modern philosophy, then is the bank teller speaking his or her truth or THE truth when they tally your account balance?

    I would probably not be off the mark to suggest that many people hold a "personal truth" that their bank balance is something other than a correspondence with reality, which the teller is paid to track and report.
  • People have faith in their bank balance similar to faith in the monetary system. Faith is not synonymous with truth.
  • said:

    One very simple test for truth is correspondence (not in the sense of letter writing, but in being).

    If truth is relative, and held in the mind of the person promulgating it, or in the collective mind of community, as is so often presented in post-modern philosophy, then is the bank teller speaking his or her truth or THE truth when they tally your account balance?

    I would probably not be off the mark to suggest that many people hold a "personal truth" that their bank balance is something other than a correspondence with reality, which the teller is paid to track and report.

    You go to your private bank and after meeting with the teller, you discover that you have $245 million in your account but to keep this type of account you're required to maintain a minimum balance of $250 million. If you go to work looking upset and your co-worker asks you the problem, is the statement "I don't have enough money in my bank account" true or false?
  • said:

    You go to your front porch, you discover that you have a puppy so you kick it into the air and shoot at it three times, but only hit it twice. If you go to work looking upset and your co-worker asks you the problem, is the statement "I didn't shoot the puppy enough" true or false?

  • said:

    said:

    One very simple test for truth is correspondence (not in the sense of letter writing, but in being).

    If truth is relative, and held in the mind of the person promulgating it, or in the collective mind of community, as is so often presented in post-modern philosophy, then is the bank teller speaking his or her truth or THE truth when they tally your account balance?

    I would probably not be off the mark to suggest that many people hold a "personal truth" that their bank balance is something other than a correspondence with reality, which the teller is paid to track and report.

    You go to your private bank and after meeting with the teller, you discover that you have $245 million in your account but to keep this type of account you're required to maintain a minimum balance of $250 million. If you go to work looking upset and your co-worker asks you the problem, is the statement "I don't have enough money in my bank account" true or false?
    Context... But you DO have a number in your account that is not subject to interpretation, as it corresponds with reality.

    image
  • said:


    Context... But you DO have a number in your account that is not subject to interpretation, as it corresponds with reality.

    Using one of Pop's masterpieces to illustrate a point is just plain wrong Guy.
Sign In or Register to comment.