Objective Truth

I seldom have the time to respond. Sorry if I do not, but I will read each and every post of the threads I started.

One looks for converging evidence.

For example, if you live in a box and all you can see is confined to the box, you can believe that is all there is. But suppose on the wall of the box is written the words - "there is something outside this box."

At the outset you have a choice, believe it or not. One day someone appears inside the box and declares " I am from outside the box". Of course, you can doubt it. But suppose he reveals to you more detail? Suppose he introduces you to things or feats that you are pretty certain do not happen in your box. You still doubt.

Next he allows you a glimpse of outside the box by putting in a small window. You still have doubts because you now think he is giving you an illusion, a magic trick.

This goes on and on, but at every step of the way events happen that move you from one of outright skepticism to a maybe.

At one point you have to question the authority of the claimant. What does he represent? Is he honest? Other evidences of his character. Why did he show up all of a sudden? What is his purpose?

So one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see. He wonders why only left ones. Thoughts go through his mind - there is a deceiver at work, a guy with only a left leg, a hopper, etc... You can arrive at no firm conclusion. You keep on walking - and there is a guy sitting on the dunes. You approach him and ask - Why are there only left footprints on the beach? He replies, a guy was walking on the beach and was carefully walking so that the waves only washed one footprint away. So know you are part way there. You ask - How can I be certain that you know this? - he replies "It was I who made them".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say something like RCC vs {insert skepticism or opposition}, I said he could simply said there is no truth without God to express his point. It's like saying if there wasn't God without pondering over the implications to express a point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is Absolute Truth ; there also has to be a Relative Truth .

Other-way , if there is Relative Truth ; there also has to be the Absolute Truth .

What is Absolute Truth ?

What is Relative Truth ?

First of all let us try to understand , what is the Truth ? The truth is that which is real , which happens in real-time , which has an existence . If something is having an existence , we call it real or we say it is true .

Now we are trying to know this existence . This knowledge of existence is based upon our perception of the existence . This knowledge depends upon the perfection of our perception . This knowledge can be upgraded later on based upon our experience of perception . So , the Truth about this knowledge can be considered as Relative Truth . This Relative Truth is depending upon ( or relative to ) our perception .

So, if there is Relative Truth ; there also has to be the Absolute Truth .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Descartes - a Catholic! - has provided an argument in his "Meditations" that perfection cannot be arrived at or achieved gradually.

How could "converging evidence" possibly lead to perfection of knowledge?
It would be like gradually achieving perfection - according to Descartes' argument, impossible.

This are two unrealistic examples.

When we are talking about absolutes, about the Divine, we cannot use the kind of plain, ordinary methods of coming to knowledge that we do in everyday life.

 

@wynn --

So you're saying that we can't use the methods that actually work and instead have to rely on methods that are wrong ninety nine times out of a hundred. Yeah, that will get us to perfection(tongue planted so firmly in cheek that the flesh has fused).

 

No, this is what you are saying.

I am not limited by your dualisms.

 

@wynn --

Perhaps if you could show me one thing that religion has gotten right that isn't patently obvious, something that it hypothesized and was later prove to be correct, then you'd have a point. Until then science is not only one of the only reliable methods of obtaining knowledge but it is hands down the best method available, bar none.

Besides, I did say "methods that are wrong..." not "method" meaning that I acknowledge that there are plenty of methods out there that claim to help us gain knowledge. It's just that none of them actually work as any method can be right by chance, and such methods have a track record that is well below what one would expect by chance.

 

of ourselves , true

true

true

true

 

Dualism is wrong. It has been shown that consciousness arises from nervous tissue.

See reasonable to me.

 

Sounds like the voice of experience. Oh yeah, Philosophy Dept. Go figure.

 

So: by your own logic, you never acquired any of the requisite knowledge to weigh in on this subject, whereas, the rest of us who dwelt in the real world--surrounded by methods of attaining knowledge--have at least passed the minimum qualification to weigh in?

Can you prove that nobody knows anything? I thought the topic was "Objective Truth", not "Objective Deceit".

 

wynn

Yes, perfection of knowledge is impossible, by any method, on any subject.

Nor any other method either, there can be no absolute knowledge about the Divine either.

...he says as he types on the fruits of a method of gaining knowledge that actually works. THE ONLY METHOD THAT ACTUALLY WORKS.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was reminded of Plato's idea about how people chained inside a cave and seeing only shadows will form a bogus world view, until at last they are freed and have a chance to observe reality.

I like this:

http://www.constitution.org/pla/repub_07.htm

 

Do you mean to impugn DesCartes, Catholicism, or both?

In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, and Descartes abandoned plans to publish Treatise on the World...In 1663, the Pope placed his works on the Index of Prohibited Books.​

You mean--like:

?
:huh:

 

I wasn't stating a theory. I was explicitly defining truth; however, the definition does fall under correspondence theories of truth if you are interested (which are the only set that compare against reality itself).

There are obviously many theories of truth. What non-correspondence theories fail to do is compare against objective reality. Because of this, the statement "If you put your bare hand in a red hot stove for 30 seconds then you will not get burned at all" can be made true under all non-correspondence theories. Obviously if you put that statement to the test using your hand and a red hot stove then you will quickly discover the statement was incorrect; thus, reality always has the final say on truth and correspondence theories are the only correct ones.

 

You have wrongly attributed that quote to me.

 

I said -

I am not limited by your dualisms.

I used the word "dualisms" - plural.

Obviously, I wasn't referring to the kind of dualism that you are referring to.

 

@wynn --

No, the word you were actually looking for was "dichotomies", which is funny because I didn't present any. I merely mentioned that of all of the methods that claim to help us gain knowledge, science is the only one that really works. Need proof? Turn on your computer, then turn it off. Then try the same thing without it being plugged in, using the "power of prayer/meditation/whatever the fuck you want to call it" instead. See which one works.

 

Talk about historical revisionism.

At the time he wrote the Mediations, he considered himself a Catholic and has done so for the rest of his life, and he wrote them with the intention to promote the RCC.

MoM referred favorably to Descartes a few times before, this is why I mentioned Descartes here in reply to MoM, as an appeal to MoM.

I'm not going to go into the whole whether Descartes really was a Catholic and what sime church officials thought of him.

 

A dichotomy is a dualism.

:shrug:

You have, by presenting two options, considering them mutually exclusive (not to mention that you were grossly putting words into my mouth):

So per you, there are only two kinds of methods:

1. methods that actually work
and
2. methods that are wrong ninety nine times out of a hundred

I am still not limited by your dualisms.

If you think that religion is all about wishing/praying/thinking that something would be different than it currently is, then you are operating with a patently idotic notion of religion.