Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

I already did, and we've already had this discussion.  Obviously, repeating myself won't stop you from repeating yourself..or you'd have stopped repeating yourself by now. You realize that your reponse above is simply another form of the same fallacy I just described..right? It will never be anything else, it will never turn into a "good argument" no matter how many different ways you say it, no matter how many times you say it...it will forever remain the failure it was at the outset.

Is it so hard to remind me the page where it was answered, or a link? Your venting is unnececary

Further, it wouldn't matter if it -were- true, because no amount of someone else being wrong will make you right. That's just not how it works.

I understand this, that's not the position i'm comming from. I'm suggesting all world views boil down to either two options. Two completely different and contradictory ways to view the world. They both can't co exist. So if this is to be true, one has to be right, the other wrong. Wether or not you disagree is fine, but don't blur my position. If you took me seriously you would understand my side at least.

If a naturalist -doesn't- have an explanation for something, that doesn't mean that the "correct" answer defaults to your own. You have to make your own case.

Epistemology isn't a mish mash of a bunch of different beliefs, it's structured. Just like arguments, they start with axioms, and then go from there. You can't have 2 contradictory beliefs.

Your entire line of "reasoning" is fundamentally unproductive, and uninformative.

[The Grand Nudger]

Suggest that all world views boil down to two options all you like, but I've already commented on that as well.  It's a false dichotomy.  You can pile fallacy atop fallacy until you have a mountain of them...and then erect a shrine to your god at the top....... and it's -still- not an argument.

You want to sharpen your shit? I'm offering you the whetstone. Take it?

[Soldat Du Christ]

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.

I was actually going to include the part in bold in my reply but decided not to, which was a mistake on my part. Regardless, I'm glad that I've understood you for the most part. 

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

I'm afraid not, sir. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond to me and to understand me.  I hope that you feel that I've extended the same courtesy to you, sir.

Of course! Maybe a little too formal calling me sir alot, lol, but still refreshing. If you are okay with it i still have questions and propositions. Just can't tell if you are done or not so feel free to ignore me or call it quits.

So i'm curious to know what you mean when you imply something other than human sense making, as being a possible alternitive.

And rythm made me realise somthing i havn't been direct about, and that is, i see worldviews, and epistemology as being structured. While the contrary it's more of a mish mash of beliefs and facts, and you are just attempting to connect all the dots is that correct? Like a big puzzle piece of life? In that light, i comprehend alot more about the points you where making before.

Now if this is correct or mostly correct, could you could give me your synopsis on the idea of these different ways to visualise a world view. (Negate the supernaturalism vs naturalism atm)

---

"Suggest that all world views boil down to two options all you like, but I've already commented on that as well.  It's a false dichotomy.  You can pile fallacy atop fallacy until you have a mountain of them...and then erect a shrine to your god at the top....... and it's -still- not an argument."

Like i said, if you want to reference me to any supporting arguments you made, i'll go check them out. You obviously have the time and the talk for it, maybe you just don't want to?

[The Grand Nudger]

No one -has- to offer you an argument, that's not how it works.  Either you acknowledge the mistake and correct your argument or you don't.  That's entirely up to you. A fallacious argument resting atop fallacious propositions does not become a good argument just because no one agues against it....and I already explained that as well, not but a few posts ago.

IMO, you're more motivated to defend your rationalizations by demanding things of others than you are to form a valid and coherent argument. I know, I know..you didn't ask for my opinion...but we can't -have- a rational discussion unless we both agree to the rules of the game...so what's left?

[Soldat Du Christ]

No one -has- to offer you an argument, that's not how it works.  Either you acknowledge the mistake and correct your argument or you don't.  That's entirely up to you. A fallacious argument resting atop fallacious propositions does not become a good argument just because no one agues against it....and I already explained that as well, not but a few posts ago.

IMO, you're more motivated to defend your rationalizations by demanding things of others than you are to form a valid and coherent argument. I know, I know..you didn't ask for my opinion...but we can't -have- a rational discussion unless we both agree to the rules of the game...so what's left?

I can't tell if you're just venting or what, lol. Sorry if i havn't been paying much attention to any points you've been trying to make. I have my priorities straight, i can't waste time running in circles with people like you. When it's much more productive to associate with calm, collected, rational individuals. Thanks for all the proof reads on logical fallacies though, i'll remember those at least.

[The Grand Nudger]

That ones called poisoning the well, lol. If you want to stop running in circles, stop arguing in them, eh? You're leading this dance. I understand that I;m frustrating, I really do. You had to be prepared for that, though, coming here? If you aren't....what do you think you're going to achieve?

Here, let me help you help yourself...to deal with me. If you're looking for some high ground. Take it. I'm an asshole. Now, even an asshole can be right...so since we've established that you have the high ground, that I'm an asshole, and acknowledged that even an asshole can be right...can we just omit this sort of positioning in any future discourse between us?

[Mister Agenda]

"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."

I hoped you would give me a justification, you havn't. Still want to have a go at it?

A justification for what, exactly? Not accepting your unsupported assertion?

OK, here it goes: You haven't supported your assertion so there's no particular reason to believe it.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Of course! Maybe a little too formal calling me sir alot, lol, but still refreshing. If you are okay with it i still have questions and propositions. Just can't tell if you are done or not so feel free to ignore me or call it quits.

So i'm curious to know what you mean when you imply something other than human sense making, as being a possible alternitive.

And rythm made me realise somthing i havn't been direct about, and that is, i see worldviews, and epistemology as being structured. While the contrary it's more of a mish mash of beliefs and facts, and you are just attempting to connect all the dots is that correct? Like a big puzzle piece of life? In that light, i comprehend alot more about the points you where making before.

Thanks for your response, Soldat Du Christ.  I think you are starting to understand my inquiries.  I like your "big puzzle piece of life" phrase. 

Now if this is correct or mostly correct, could you could give me your synopsis on the idea of these different ways to visualise a world view. (Negate the supernaturalism vs naturalism atm)

Unfortunately, my position is one of uncertainty. As a result, I do not think I'm capable of giving a meaningful and original response to your inquiry.  However, IMO, if theists and non-theists were to suspend their judgement of one another and be open to what each one has to bring to the table, then perhaps a new way of thinking can emerge, which will aid humanity in their quest to find objective truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< I've tried to enjoy what theism brings to the table...theists just won't stop telling me that I'm wrong about it, and that their god really did torture a jew for their many ineffable sins.  

Don't even get me started on what they say about what pagans bring to the table.  

This -particular- theist, well, I;ve seen him start more than one thread whose only purpose seems to be the reassertion of his beliefs and calling anyone who disagrees a litany of things he thinks will marginalize them. Take his schtick away by calling -yourself- whatever name he wants to call you and it's crickets, nothing left. All under the pretense of rational arguments which have, so far, not been forthcoming. Par for the course.

[Aractus]

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.

No, that's just describing it using maths. It can be described using language as well. We discover things in the meta-structures of both maths and language. Also, a circle can't exist in "all possible worlds" or in fact any worlds that are not two dimensional, and we don't have any two dimensional worlds - a circle is a theoretical shape. You can't build anything two dimensional, but you can use two dimensional shapes when designing real-world three dimensional objects. On that you might say then there's a ratio of a sphere's circumference to its radius - that's true, but spheres don't exist in nature either. We have to build things using particles, let's say you want to make a small spherical diamond using 6.022*1023 atoms. I won't do the calculation, but there's a finite number of atoms on the circumference, thus meaning there are many many many tiny sides to what appears to you to be a "sphere", but a sphere is a perfect geometric shape with no tiny sides that does not exist in the real world. Pi provides a shortcut to calculate the volume as if it were a sphere.

"Case in point - why not consider one of the most famous assassinations in the history of the world: the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Most classicists think that Pilate snuffed him out for becoming unruly at the Jerusalem temple where he may have also become violent. That's deduced from an understanding of the ancient world that looks beyond what his followers passed on about the ordeal. So, facts only tell you so much."

How is a crucifixion an assassination? Sources please.

I used that word purposefully. Of course Jesus was assassinated by the State, there's no doubt about that. Assassinations take many forms, you can be poisoned, shot, drowned, beaten to death. What would you call it? The appropriate application of Roman law perhaps? The Romans had a policy at the time to snuff out people who they perceived as a threat to their rule or as a threat to communal peace. That's a textbook example of an assignation.

And a perfect example of how perception frames a "fact".