Is there objective Truth?

[Arkilogue]

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

No it can't.  A perfect circle consists of a line composed of an infinite set of dimensionless points.  There is no such thing in the real world.  Do you realize how big soap molecules are?  It approximates a sphere, nothing more.  You are constructing the sphere by imagining that the molecules in a particular layer are connected, forming the sphere.   They aren't.  They are just molecules arranged on a circular pattern.  That you can't understand how there are no actual circles or spheres in the world does not bode well for the credibility of your 'theories'.

Is this a circle and a square?

All good points, thanks

[brewer]

It depends on how much emperical testing you demand to be convinced. Looking at a bubble, and a ripple in the water is enough for me, it's obviously all calculated under the hood. I think is actualy unreasonable to demand emperical evidence for everything, in much the same way i think it is insane to live purely by emperical evidence.

But of cource, if you have faith that we came from soup, it only follows to question your own rationality.

bold mine

Peek a Boo still baffles you?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Btw, kernal, that's where your approach is lacking, lol. It gives hope to fuckers regardless of how plainly and simply wrong their claims may be...and that hope is -all- they need to persist in idiocy. 20 more p[ages and you're not going to come to an understanding, these arguments will not be improved. The subject will just keep on keepin on. Wink

I agree that any attempt to fully understand objective truth will end in more questions being asked.  Nevertheless, I appreciate the heads up, Rhythm.


 

Okay so you understand this already, the difference is you don't see supernaturalism as a better justification then the brain justifying the brain is that it? And to answer your question, i think it's clear it has to be one or the other. Now i asked you earlier:
"There are only two possible answers to this problem. Either matter made mind, or mind made matter. Supernatural cause, or natural cause. All theory will fall into either of these catagories would you agree?"

First off, thanks for your response, Soldat Du Christ; I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

With that said, my answer is that I do not agree.  The reason for my disagreement is due to the following questions, which I asked earlier:

Does reality operate in strict accordance with a humanistic mindset? Could there be other ways to make sense of reality that we just haven't stumbled upon yet?

 
 IMO, concluding that there is either a supernatural or natural cause, isn’t fully addressing my inquiries: you have proposed two and only two possible ways to find objective truth, but why must it only be these two? Suppose these two methods of interpreting reality are only a few incredibly small subsets (or even microscopic elements) that are part of a humongous set comprised of various ways of interpreting reality.  Since supernaturalism and naturalism have not unraveled the objective truth of reality, then perhaps there are other subsets which could better explain and unravel it. Perhaps we haven't even uncovered the subset that we are a part of.  What are your thoughts, sir? Am I making any sense?

As always, thanks for your polite conduct and your time and attention, sir.

[Soldat Du Christ]

"IMO, concluding that there is either a supernatural or natural cause, isn’t fully addressing my inquiries: you have proposed two and only two possible ways to find objective truth, but why must it only be these two? Suppose these two methods of interpreting reality are only a few incredibly small subsets (or even microscopic elements) that are part of a humongous set comprised of various ways of interpreting reality.  Since supernaturalism and naturalism have not unraveled the objective truth of reality, then perhaps there are other subsets which could better explain and unravel it. Perhaps we haven't even uncovered the subset that we are a part of.  What are your thoughts, sir? Am I making any sense?"

If i could use a diagram as an example, the point i'm trying to make is that this choice is the first axiom from which we build our beliefs, knowledge, and interpretations off of. And that no matter what "new" ways you discover to aproach lifes problems, it will always begin with this question.

Naturalism > Athiesm > militant athiesm
> reserved athiesm
> Gnosticism
> Solipsism
> Humanism

Super Naturalism > Christianity > Catholic
> orthodox
> Islam
> buudhism

If epistemolgy is a tree, this decision makes up the trunk. One could also think they have discovered a new epistemlogy, but still can be boiled down to reveal the ultimate axiom at the core of there reasoning. It's all about pointing out hidden assumptions. For example, athiests will general assume naturalism, but don't even realise how that decition dictates there following ability to reason, considering the absence of objectivity.

If you disagree please elaborate

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gnosticism seems misplaced. It has a very mystical outlook. And...

LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

[The Grand Nudger]

Repeatedly claiming things like "naturalists have no basis for objectivity" despite any and every explanation to the contrary is what's know as an argument ad naus.  Don't worry, you'll get it eventually.

[bennyboy]

LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

Fuck, yeah!

[Soldat Du Christ]

Gnosticism seems misplaced. It has a very mystical outlook. And...

LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

Sorry m8, i'm sure it's a pain, i know people will read what i have to say regardless so i get lazy. I'll work on that

And i can see what you mean about gnosticism, however they subscribe to the idea that you can't prove anything empericaly, so we'll never know. Just another form of empericism. Unless i got it confused with Agnosticism

---

Repeatedly claiming things like "naturalists have no basis for objectivity" despite any and every explanation to the contrary is what's know as an argument ad naus.  Don't worry, you'll get it eventually.

If you're claiming to do what nobody else has been able to do, please enlighten me

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

If i could use a diagram as an example, the point i'm trying to make is that this choice is the first axiom from which we build our beliefs, knowledge, and interpretations off of. And that no matter what "new" ways you discover to aproach lifes problems, it will always begin with this question.
 
Naturalism > Athiesm > militant athiesm
> reserved athiesm
> Gnosticism
> Solipsism
> Humanism
 
Super Naturalism > Christianity > Catholic
> orthodox
> Islam
> buudhism
 
If epistemolgy is a tree, this decision makes up the trunk. One could also think they have discovered a new epistemlogy, but still can be boiled down to reveal the ultimate axiom at the core of there reasoning. It's all about pointing out hidden assumptions. For example, athiests will general assume naturalism, but don't even realise how that decision dictates there following ability to reason, considering the absence of objectivity.
 
If you disagree please elaborate.

Thanks for your response, Soldat Du Christ.  I do not agree with you, sir.  IMO, I’m afraid we may have hit a barrier.
 
If I’m understanding you correctly, then any new discovery that enhances our ability to approach life’s problems will ultimately fall into two main categories: supernaturalism and naturalism.  From a supernatural point of view, you have been given truth finding tools by your creator, which provides you with an objective basis for truth seeking.  In addition, non-theists also possess these same truth finding tools; however, from your perspective, this approach to truth seeking lacks an objective basis.  Therefore, supernaturalism is the better approach toward finding objective truth.  Is this correct? Have I understood you, sir?
 
In regards to my disagreement with you, the main thing I’m trying to get at is that the truth seeking approaches of supernaturalism and naturalism make use of humanistic sense-making processes to understand and interpret reality.  However, can reality only be interpreted via humanistic sense-making processes; does reality conform to the way we think?  IMO, it seems somewhat premature to conclude that finding objective truth ultimately boils down to two truth seeking approaches. Hence, given our inability to explain and find objective truth via these two approaches, is it not plausible to conclude that they are tiny parts to some broader way of understanding reality that we have not tapped into yet? Or to put it another way, perhaps attempting to interpret reality beyond these two approaches would overload our circuits, because human imagination is still too limited to explore the other possibilities existing beyond these two approaches.  Does this make sense?

Thank you for your time and attention, Soldat Du Christ.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Aah okay i see what you are trying to say now. I think. And yes you are 99% there, for the sake of clarity i will nitpick your words. And i expect the same from you so i can also better understand.

So you are all correct up until
"from your perspective, this approach to truth seeking lacks an objective basis. Therefore, supernaturalism is the better approach toward finding objective truth."

Naturalism lacks a justification for the use of objectivity. They can count, but cannot account for there counting. So are just as capable of finding truth. The issue with not having a reason to comform to objectivity, it makes you free to bend and twist the truth according to your prefrence. Morality is a perfect example of this effect, and you can see it's negetive effects on society. But that may be straying off topic, you pretty much got it.

Now, as far as "human sense making" goes, would you agree that this decition is the ultimate axiom? Can we agree on that much?