Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Love]

Is relativism a relative truth, an absolute truth, or not a truth at all?

This is a very good and thought provoking question, although as you have studied epistomology academically, I am sure that you know the best way to answer to it. "Absolute truth" is obviously ruled out immediately. I think with relativism, you can have both "relative truth" and "not a truth at all" depending on your usage and definition of the word "truth".

[Love]

I haven't ignored you, I've simply reminded you that reason cannot be removed from that example. I don't have any problem with empiricism either, I find the two work wonderfully together. Would you lean on empiricism as somehow justifying theism?
(you're repeating yourself after I've explained why what you wrote is unsatisfying to me, so I hardly see what room there would be to bitch about repeating yourself. You could have offered something else)

No, I would not use empiricism to justify my belief in God.

Another example: let's suppose I have purchased a bicycle from a shop. Let's assume that nobody witnessed or has knowledge of me buying or even owning the bicycle. A few years down the line I have lost the receipt of purchase and the company from which I purchased the bicycle dissolved. Suppose in a public setting I lock the bike and lose the key, and there is another person who comes along and makes a convincing reasoned argument and claims that the bike actually belongs to him or her. With absolutely no evidence (documentary, anecdotal or otherwise), how can I possibly prove to somebody that the bike is my property? The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement. For a person who disbelieves me, he or she is perfectly within his or her rights because I have provided absolutely no firm evidence that the bike belongs to me. A person might choose to believe that I am telling the truth based on intuition, in which case reason is trumped by intuition in this instance and does, in fact, lead to the truth of the matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I would not use empiricism to justify my belief in God.

How about reason?

Another example: let's suppose I have purchased a bicycle from a shop. Let's assume that nobody witnessed or has knowledge of me buying or even owning the bicycle. A few years down the line I have lost the receipt of purchase and the company from which I purchased the bicycle dissolved. Suppose in a public setting I lock the bike and lose the key, and there is another person who comes along and makes a convincing reasoned argument and claims that the bike actually belongs to him or her. With absolutely no evidence (documentary, anecdotal or otherwise), how can I possibly prove to somebody that the bike is my property?

How can he prove that it's his? You did just say he had no evidence didn't you? That precludes any -convincing reasoned argument- as he will have been incapable of assigning any measure of veracity to the argument. It would just be two randoms claiming the same bike, I wouldn't cut the bolt for either of you. For all I know neither of you own the bike.

The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement. For a person who disbelieves me, he or she is perfectly within his or her rights because I have provided absolutely no firm evidence that the bike belongs to me. A person might choose to believe that I am telling the truth based on intuition, in which case reason is trumped by intuition in this instance and does, in fact, lead to the truth of the matter.

All you've presented is a case where someone -might- get the answer right for the wrong reasons (ignoring that they could also "intuit" that you're a liar and the bike belongs to the other claimant just as easily). I'm thoroughly unimpressed. We're back to not slapping our brother because it makes pixies cry. Reason trumped by intuition in this example? Not even close.

[Love]

How about reason?

How about "shut the hell up"!

I think our debate is proving to be futile as we're just going round in circles. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

What would we be agreeing to disagree on, I still haven't heard what sort of supplemental you're leveraging. I'd rather not go round in circles, personally - and I'm not the one at the wheel here....so.....

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Is relativism a relative truth, an absolute truth, or not a truth at all?

This is a very good and thought provoking question, although as you have studied epistomology academically, I am sure that you know the best way to answer to it. "Absolute truth" is obviously ruled out immediately. I think with relativism, you can have both "relative truth" and "not a truth at all" depending on your usage and definition of the word "truth".

What is truth? asked the doubting Pilate and turned before he could receive an answer.

Of course they were alone at the time so what would it matter to us? But then how do we know the question was asked?

[Fruity]

(enters room feeling shitty, since she has a cold. Looks around. Reads a little. Exits room feeling shitty, since she has a bad case of annoyed.)

(Proceeds to the "I hate..." thread, since this "Love" one is not interesting at all.)

[Love]

(enters room feeling shitty, since she has a cold. Looks around. Reads a little. Exits room feeling shitty, since she has a bad case of annoyed.)

(Proceeds to the "I hate..." thread, since this "Love" one is not interesting at all.)

I apologise for the lack of entertainment. I think most people would think that these topics are dull and futile. I am clearly in the minority because I find them exceedingly interesting.

I really like your signature by the way; very funny!

Get well soon.

[Aractus]

Well, I view the crucifixion from a historical perspective. The Roman Empire used this method of execution regularly during the period in which Jesus was tortured.

Well it seems we have little disagreement here. Plenty of people over the years have cited the lack of physical evidence for the massive number of crucifixions talked about in ancient literiture, and what's interesting is that these are the same arguments that get made against things like the Exodus and other Biblical events for which there is "little physical evidence". I'm pleased to see you don't defult your position to neo-sceptisism.

Its significance to orthodox Christians is due to its theological interpretation, to which most Christians subscribe because of The Bible. Also, have you never asked yourself the following question? What kind of an omnibenevolent God would use horrendous sacrifice and torture in order to redeem the human situation? There is no getting around it, this would be an extremely "evil" God. Redemptive sacrifice is just an absolutely ridiculous and hideous concept to me.

Often the topic of redemptive sacrifice is insufficiently explained by priests who assert that God is "forced" to punish us contrary to His wish that we instead enter Life.

Nevertheless you still failed to provide the alternative.

I just do not count The Bible as valid historical evidence.

And yet here's where the bias comes in. How can contemporary topics be mythical?

Physics is not an invention of humanity, and whether or not mathematics was invented is still an ongoing discussion in the philosophy of mathematics. Physics, once termed "natural philosophy", is a field of study used by human beings to understand the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental to the scientific method, physicists not only use mathematics, they also formulate hypotheses, make predictions and test whether or not the real world reflects the predictions made in the hypothesis. In essence, the real goal in contemporary science is to try and disprove a theory; if it cannot be disproved, this strengthens the validity of the current theory. For example, biologists have tried to disprove evolution by natural selection hundreds of times, but every attempt has failed thus far.

I think you need to display some humility. It is rather arrogant and pretentious to state that quantum mechanics is "embarrassingly easy to understand", unless, of course, you're an absolute genius in the fields of mathematics and theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics is notoriously difficult to understand, even to Nobel laureates who have/had worked in the field all of their lives, like Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, for example. Are you claiming that you find quantum mechanics easier to understand than these individuals? If so, I think you are delusional.

So we didn't invent physics. The universe really performs calculations - like a computer - to function? That's the only way it can operate according to our "physics". Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of the theorized linear substructure of the universe. It is, as I just said, linear and therefore easy to understand. General Relativity on the other hand isn't linear. GR is far more counter-intuitive. Neither is an accurate description of our actual universe. If you actually believe in wave-particle duality you're an idiot.

Your example of evolution is a poor one. We know that evolution, as we commonly understand it occurs in nature. We also know that life self-starts, this is also evident. We have extremely poor quality theories on abiogenesis to explain it, and the fact is we haven't a clue how it started. We also haven't a clue as to how sexual reproduction evolved - or for that matter why. None of the benefits from it sufficiently offset the "cost" associated with it, it's also counterintuitive to those who follow neo-darwinism and the "selfish gene" theorized by Dawkins. Yet our present theories on Evolution do an embarrassingly poor job of understanding nature, let alone abiogenesis. How do you build a self-replicating organic structure from scratch in such a way that the process is an inevitable part of physics?

[The Reality Salesman01]

[Also, I think due to the extreme complexity of God, it is impossible for him/her/it to be expressed in a single form that can be perceived as exactly the same by everybody, hence my belief that it has to be realised by transcendening sensory experience.

If God can be percieved rationally he is contingent upon certain logical restrictions. If he cannot be percieved logically, it is an irrational, illogical belief.

Example: Seeing my face melt off without causing harm to my body can only be achieved by taking LSD. It doesn't mean it actually happened.

---

Do you need repeatable scientific evidence that you love your parent, partner or child?

Nope, but I have a picture of me holding my son. I watched him laugh this morning as he made my dog chase a light up and down the hall way. When I tucked him in bed last night, he told me he loved me and even showed me in sign language with his hand. He woke me up this morning and told me he didn't want me to go to work because he wanted to stay home and play with me. I didn't wake up one day and all of the sudden begin describing the feelings associated with my actual son and assign them to a character I read in a book.

How do you know that you love them (if you do, of course)? How can you prove these actual subjective feelings mathematically?

If one were so inclined as to confirm that my brain consistantly functions in conjunction what I ascribe to my son, FMRI's can in fact, with comparable experiements and reproducible consistant evidence show which part of my brain is beig stimulated which cause my experience. (At UC Berkeley they have been using FMRIs to actually duplicate thought imagery, its amazing and could be used one day in trials to verify testemony by duplicating what a person saw exactly as the brain recorded it) There are words I use to describe the activity occurring in my brain that are consistant with the activity of other brains describing the same experience. In the end I'll have at least this much...

1) My physical Son (Jack) That's a big one
2) The physical experiences we share that are observable and verifiable to others....another big one
3) My conscious understanding of my existance and his, which allows me to reflect on both him and our interaction. This is the one that produces the "love" word used to convey my assessment of our relationship. It is an adjective describing a state of mind that is purely subjective but can be understood by studying the processes of the brain and comparing them to similar studies rendering the same results.

I would assume that you just "know" that you love them by intuition alone.

This of course is false, and is really equivicating the definition of "knowing" something and the "faith-based-knowing".

That is, you cannot determine this by inference, observation or reason. My conclusion about God is the same.

You have arrived at your conclusion illogically, but your assessment of what was necessary for God to qualify as a conclusion are accurate. It was achieved without inductive inference, verifiable observation, and because there is no logical justification for it, it is in fact unreasonable.