What is the truth?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

What is the truth?

Post #1

Post by Blastcat »

Hello, KingandPriest.

Our topic is generally about the definition of the truth.

I have often challenged Christians if they value their beliefs more than the truth of their beliefs.

I very often ask them... how do you know your beliefs are true?

So, first of all, I will give my standard definition for truth, which I take from online dictionaries... And that is.. Truth is what comports to reality or facts.

By "epistemology" I mean the method we use to acquire knowledge. A secular method would be by evidence, for example, and a Christian epistemology might be by way of "faith". I will allow my Christian opponent to define what he means by "faith", in case he needs to.

I also urge my esteemed opponent to make sure that I know what he means the terms he wants to use.

Ok, I will start the debate.

1. I believe that a secular epistemology is vastly superior to a Christian epistemology.
2. When I want to know if something is true.. I have to check the facts. I demand evidence that the claim is true, or else, I just don't believe that it is true.
3. I don't demand ABSOLUTE truth.. but I need to have enough evidence so that I can say with at least SOME assurance that the claim comports to reality....and is most likely a fact. Otherwise, I just don't believe that the claim has been demonstrated to be true.
4. I would want to know what a Christian epistemology is, and how it can be useful to know the truth of a claim.
5. One criticism that I have about how Christians seem to form their beliefs is that they often tell me that if they BELIEVE something ( have faith in ) it's true. I can't accept that at all.. People believe in things that are false all the time.

I think that's enough to start us off....
I await KingandPriest's reply.

Good luck and lets have fun....

:)

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: What is Truth? Christian definition

Post #11

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 10 by KingandPriest]

Hello, KingandPriest.

If anyone doubted the seriousness of your intent here... I think we have proof for them that you are. I was a bit shocked at how many questions I had for you, and I really do applaud you for taking the time to answer each and every one of them.

I truly do not get enough of that in here... And I thank you for it.

Having said that, I can't seem to agree with almost ANYTHING you answered. It either doesn't make any sense to me at all, or it's just plain factually WRONG or completely unsupported.

So, although I DO applaud your efforts and honesty, I can't say the same about your reasoning.

I will explain why below.

By the way:

I thought it would be fun to count the number of times I thought that your answers got us further along or if I thought they stalled us more.

I gave a WIN for moving us along and a FAIL for bogging us down.

We can have fun counting those.

So... here we go... get some popcorn people, ... it's a long one:


"1. Why are you hesitant to describe your epistemic method for acquiring the truth?"
KingandPriest wrote:
1. I am not hesitant in describing my epistemic method for acquiring truth. To be sure, I will sum up my thought process. I stated that (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth are all options a person can use to acquire truth.

Oh, I see, you think you have offered epistemic methods. I'm sorry, but those aren't.

FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
After defining each method, I then described the flaws of subjective and relative truth. When a person is using subjective reasoning, they use the method of their mind to acquire truth.

The "method of their mind".


What method do you think is better.. the method of their FEET?
I have NO idea how you even BEGIN to imagine that using our MINDS to figure out what is true or not DOESN'T work.

To me, that statement is GIBBERISH.

Fail.

KingandPriest wrote:
When a person is using relative reasoning, they use relationships, circumstances or some other evidence to acquire truth.
I have NO idea what that means, either.
Again, to me, gibberish.

And I am NOT trying to be difficult.
I literally do not understand the statement AT ALL.

Fail.

KingandPriest wrote:
Both of these methods, subjectivism and relativism can help a person arrive certain level of truth, but there will always be a “grey� area these two methods cannot fully explain with certainty. Its just like you said
truth is a statement of probability, always. I would like to TRY for 100%
If you agree with that.. then ALL "truth" claims are statements of probabilities. All truth claims.. even your "absolute" truth claims. This kind of thinking goes round and round... Your CLAIM to having any absolute truth is your SUBJECTIVE evaluation of the PROBABILITY of a proposition having the truth value of 100%

You seem to CALL something "absolutely true".. and that's IT.

Well, it might be IT for you, but it might not be IT for others...

So, when you say some proposition is "absolutely true" you really mean that in YOUR OPINION, it's absolutely true. But that's an expression of your OPINION, and not of any external reality. You don't seem to understand that your opinion about reality might not MATCH with reality. Like it or not.. when you call something "absolutely true", you are just making a subjective opinion about it.

And that makes NO sense to me at all....
NONE.

And not making sense gets you a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
I agree that truth is a statement of probability, and therefore seek out the method or epistemology which can arrive at 100%.
You imagine that you have found it.
Well, you haven't. What you have found are theories about knowledge, and not epistemic methods.

Keep searching, my friend.

Until you find it:
FAIL

KingandPriest wrote:
Since subjectivism and relativism admittedly fall short based on definition alone, I am left with absolutism. Absolutism on the other hand says “truth is ______, accept it or reject it�. I then find that absolutism demands that truth be all or nothing.
ALL OR NOTHING.

Let us know when you find out ALL there is to know or NOTHING that there is to know. Until then... your statement is MEANINGLESS.

Count this as another
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
In order for a statement of truth to be absolute, it must be 100% true despite changes to circumstances, new data, or other variable. The method for acquiring truth is simply the method which promises the most accurate probability of truth.
"The most accurate probability"

And that isn't ALWAYS 100%, IS IT? But you SAY that the truth NEEDS to be 100% true, or it's NOT true. All or nothing is the way you put it.

You don't seem to have thought this through very much.
You don't make SENSE right now.

( If I tried to explain how you don't make sense, more than what I already have, I would make this post WAY TOO LONG, so I'm keeping it short by just letting you know where I disagree. And unfortunately, I'm having a heck of a time agreeing with almost ANYTHING in your last post.

At least the parts that I can actually understand.
You are trying.
I give you that.

For trying real hard you get a
WIN

For not making sense
FAIL.


"2. How are (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth "
KingandPriest wrote:
2. It may have been the semantics I used when describing epistemology. Subjective truth = subjectivism. Relative truth = relativism. Absolute truth = Absolutism. Since you held that truth can be subjective or relative in your definition and epistemology, I did not think I had to redefine how subjective, relative or absolute could be methods for knowing truth.
Well, that didn't help at all.
Now you have to explain how SUBJECTIVISM, RELATIVISM and ABSOLUTISM are epistemic methods. You just switched the words, you didn't EXPLAIN anything.

You will have to try again and for that you get a
Fail


"3. What circumstance doesn't change?"
KingandPriest wrote:
3. Circumstances do change, and vary from person to person. This is exactly why I concluded subjective and relative methods for determining truth are inadequate and absolute truth is the only viable method to identify truth.
Does EVERY circumstance change?.. so what are you EVALUATING?
PLEASE name one thing you don't think will ever change.

Until then, we should conclude that ALL or mostly all of our truth statements should be open to change. What's the use of holding on to FALSEHOODS?

I don't think that falsehoods are what you mean by "truth".

I'm so confused right now, that I have to give you another
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Since you state you are a stickler for grammar,
Well, I am that.. but I sure do make a lot of grammar mistakes. BUT to be precise, I am a stickler for clear and sound REASONING... So, if, lets say, some grammar is mangled, ( I do that a LOT ) it MIGHT lead to being misunderstood. Sometimes, to my utter dismay, I notice that the way I put something made it sound like the COMPLETE opposite.. a typo sometimes... Like when I type "ISN'T" when I really meant to type "IS"... So, when we are writing about philosophical issues, clear use of language, including grammar is CRUCIAL.

You clarified so that's an instant
WIN.

KingandPriest wrote:
I will correct that statement to reflect
absolute truth is the most viable method to identify truth


Thanks for that, but your new definition for "absolute truth" STILL doesn't make sense to me.
Sorry.

For clarification
WIN.

When we say that something "IS THE MOST", it does NOT imply at all that it "IS PERFECT"

So, by "absolute" you mean... "The best we can do at the time."

But I don't think that's what you really mean by "absolute", is it?

Again... what you write seems to be CONTRADICTORY.... IN any case, I can't make heads or tales of it.

It's back to the blackboard for you, so that's a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
This should clarify that I am not saying subjectivism and relativism cannot be used to acquire truth.
But it does NOT clarify it. It muddies it up MORE.
Sorry.

Try again because that's a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Only that these methods will always result in a less than perfect ‘truth’.
Now, remember what you just said about absolute truth.. you just SAID that absolute truth is the MOST viable method to identify truth.

And I reminded you that the most viable method doesn't imply the perfect method.
So, even IF you really had a method, and I say that you do NOT have one, and for the sake of the argument, even IF you had demonstrated that it was the most reliable method, ( which you have NOT done so far ) the ONLY conclusion we can draw from your reasoning is that what you call "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" will always result in a less than PERFECT TRUTH.

So... doesn't matter how you CALL a truth .. it's going to ALWAYS be a less than perfect truth. If that's what you call ABSOLUTE truth.. I'm confused. I think you are contradicting yourself in a most SPECTACULAR way.

I like spectacles.
So, bravo for that.

Cant give you a win though...
Ok, why not?

WIN.
( I'm such a rebel )
KingandPriest wrote:
Truthfulness is a measure of how much truth is contained in a statement.
And "redness" is a measure of how much red is contained in an object. I hardly see the point of your tautology. Waste of words, to me.

Utter
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
By definition of truthfulness
1The fact of being true; truth
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... uthfulness
This definition seems to demand absolute truth, or 100% truth.
Yeah, well by now, I really get that you think truth DEMANDS to be 100%

The truth is so DEMANDING that way.... ( a bit of a nag, if you ask me )

Except, that AGAIN... you have not at all even attempted to demonstrate why your statement makes any SENSE or is true. You offer us NO LINK between premise

1. That truthfulness is the fact of being true.

And your conclusion

2. That the definition demands 100% truth.

You have a PREMISE.. that is merely a tautology, and then you have a CONCLUSION.. but you offer us NO REASONING in between.

And that's a GAP.. not allowed in logic.
Sorry, that's a
FAIL.


"4. How are you NOT defining truth as you see fit? You said that was wrong. "
KingandPriest wrote:
4. I am only making an observation of what truth is and what it demands. Since subjectivism only requires something to be mostly true, and relativism bases truth on circumstances, these do not fulfil the requirements for acceptable epistemologies.
"


Do you mean that these other so called "METHODS" do not fulfill the requirements that you SEE as acceptable? How is that NOT you seeing it fit?

You said that calling something true as you see fit is a bad epistemic method.. but aren't you describing truth as you see fit? Aren't you insisting on a certain kind of epistemic method ( again, so called ) as YOU SEE FIT?

You contradict yourself AGAIN...
If you don't understand something ask, because it doesn't seem to me that you understand the point, yet.

Contradicting yourself gets you a
FAIL.


5. Do you think that what we call truth should NOT change even though we get new data?
"
KingandPriest wrote:
5. My point is we can call something true but that doesn’t mean it is true.
Well great. We agree.
WIN.

And that also means that we can call something ABSOLUTELY true but that doesn't mean that it IS. And you have STILL have not offered to us OR TO YOURSELF, a mechanism by which we can tell WHICH IS WHICH.

You don't seem to know how to say if something is true or not. NEVER MIND if it's "absolutely true". Sorry, but you really do seem unprepared for this.

FAIL.
KingandPriest wrote:
Making a statement is easy. If we are searching for truth however, our opinion should not matter.
I agree.
WIN.

Here is a great place to explain to you why I think your definitions so far are useless. I read your comment and then I try to figure out what kind of truth you are talking about. What KIND of truth value does the statement represent.

Is that statement above, true, absolutely true, subjectively true, relatively true or absolutely true, and how do you KNOW that it is true? Is that statement merely an OPINION? Is the statement just plain WRONG?.... I can't tell. Not at all. I have to ASK YOU.....

Your definitions are useless to me...


How can YOU tell.. what is your METHOD?

I've been asking you for your epistemic method... you don't seem to have one.

Sorry.

That's a big
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
There is a different between what is true vs what we have learned to date.
I have NO idea what that means. What we call true... IS what we have learned to date... what else CAN it be?

Do you MEAN to say that what you call "true" is going to be something that you HAVEN'T learned to date?

What we have learned to date is all WRONG?... it's not TRUE in any way at all?

Come on now.... try a bit harder than that. So, it's going to have to be a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
If I make a statement about the universe and say it is true, it should stand the test of time.
What TIME are you talking about... eternity? How could we hope to verify THAT?
Doesn't make sense, sorry.

We just don't know the future, but we can expect to know MORE in the future than we do NOW. What we may call "true" now may change. Call it absolute or not... change is still change.

Vagueness :
FAIL.

Unjustified claim:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
On the other hand, if I make a statement and say it is accurate as far as I know or as far as what we have learned to date, this statement can easily be revised. The key difference is the second statement is not proclaimed to be true, only verified up to the current record.
Do you think we can do anything ELSE?

1. You can't adequately DEFINE what you mean by the term.
2. You have no FACTS, just your own opinions.

FAIL.


"6. Could you explain how what you take as true is not RELATIVE to something else? "
KingandPriest wrote:
6. The truth or true statements should stand even when circumstances or events change.
Name ONE of those truths, please.

Unsupported claim:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Thermodynamics has a very well-known example of an absolute truth.
Ok, so you CLAIM.. now prove it.

Unitil you do, that's a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. This statement or truth is independent of any event which may take place in the known universe.
Well, maybe it's not true in the UNKNOWN part of the universe... Do we know everything about the universe? Do you?

Does anyone?

You claim that it's an absolute truth, you claim that it can never change, and you don't prove a THING. Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe you can give me some data concerning that... I'm not a scientist. So, facts are important...

GIMME GIMME facts. ( a link or two would be nice )

So, that's a NICE CLAIM....
And it's completely unjustified.

Can you DO something about that?

Until you do, you have another
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
It is this type of absolute truth which allows scientist to build models, make hypothesis’ and test other claims.
Maybe you should talk to a physicist about how he uses an "absolute truth" and see what he or she has to say about it.

BEFORE you next lecture us on physics...

You might want to ask them about

1. Hypothesis
2. Fact
3. Theory
4. Law

You might want to ask them if they know anything is absolutely true.

Unsupported claim:
FAIL.


"7. Could you explain how your definition of absolute isn't a SUBJECTIVE decision? "
KingandPriest wrote:
7. Absolute isn’t subjective because it is not dependent on my ability or lack thereof to interpret. Absolute truth remains unaffected by my acceptance or rejection.
But you missed the point of the question, sorry. I will try to rephrase:

1. You have a definition of "absolute truth".
2. How is that definition "absolute" in any way...isn't it just your opinion?
3. Or do you actually have a MECHANISM to find out which "truths" are subjective, objective, relative, analytical, theoretical, pragmatic, coherent, correspondent, or as you say, "absolute"?

You have defined "truth" three ways.. fine. But you seem to think that a definition is a method. And it's just not. You seem to be telling us that in your OPINION, you like that truths be "absolute" more than other kinds.

How is that NOT subjective?
It seems to be COMPLETELY subject to your acceptance and rejection.

But since you didn't actually address the question asked...
We got a non-answer, so far.

FAIL


"8. Do you think that science relies on ABSOLUTE truths or relative truths?

KingandPriest wrote:
8. Some aspects of science rely on absolute truths, see #6. Any branch of science which uses math to support its positions, uses the tautology of mathematics as its basis for truth.
I guess you are REALLY impressed by tautologies?
You think it's extraordinary to say that A is the same thing as A?

I don't.

But if anything approaches what I would describe as "absolutely true" I guess tautologies ( like math tautologies ) get the gold medal.

But do we REALLY know that these tautologies are ABSOLUTELY true?... You would say yes, I suppose.

I really like this quote from a math forum ....

"Terry is absolutely right when he says that the truth of "4 + 4 = 8" depends on the truth of the axioms that define the terms occurring in that sentence (say Peano's Axioms, which will suffice for those particular terms). He's also right to say that those axioms are not absolute (because there are models that don't satisfy them).

From these facts he correctly concludes that: since the axioms are not absolute, the truth of arithmetical statements (such as "4 + 4 = 8") will also be relative (that is, true if the axioms are satisfied)."

https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth

I'm not too sure if that's a fail or not, frankly.. how about... I call that a
WIN.

KingandPriest wrote:
The universal truth of tautology makes it absolute.
Why is that? Did you actually GO everywhere in the universe to check that out?
Did you actually investigate EVERYTHING in the universe to check that out?

Do you know EVERYTHING... do you know the whole UNIVERSE?
How can you say that you have a UNIVERSAL truth?

Don't you mean.. a truth as we know so far?

Vagueness:
FAIL.

Unsupported claim:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Other branches of science only need a relative amount of truth to be deemed acceptable. Natural sciences such as biology or geology will rely more heavily on relative truth and subjective truth.
You said earlier that when it comes to truth, it's all or nothing. It's absolute or its not true. So, are you calling all of these other branches of science NOT TRUE?

You don't make any sense here, either.

FAIL.


"9. Why do you think that truth has to be 100% ?"

KingandPriest wrote:
9. Is a partial truth (some truth and some falsehood) the truth at all? The answer would have to be no.
Then you must not believe that there is much truth to BE known, do you?
I guess the ONLY thing you can possibly believe true is GOD?

I'm guessing now.
I actually don't know what you mean again.. ( unless by some luck.. I got it right. )

If I say that X, Y, and Z are a part of the group T and that X, Y and Z are TRUE.. and Z turns out to NOT BE TRUE.. does it mean that X and Y are falsified? Does it mean that T is falsified?

But I'm still just guessing as to your meaning..
You can clarify it if you like.

For making me guess
FAIL.

For not bothering to say why the answer to your question would "have to be no".
FAIL.

Any unsupported claim gets an immediate fail ( this one doesn't count ) .
You have got to at least try.

KingandPriest wrote:
The truth is either wholly true, or wholly false.
Well, X is either X or it's not X. I say X is pretty much X.

Tautologies seem to fascinate you.
I really like the WORD "tautology" it took me a while to really know what it meant.

But they don't impress me much. I think they just RESTATE the extremely obvious.

A cat is a cat is a cat is a cat is a cat is a cat.
Big deal.

What IS a cat?

What IS absolute truth?

What IS your epistemic method?

But more to the point, you don't accept that we only know things IN PART?.. You don't accept that we can ONLY know what we know.. and that's not COMPLETE knowledge, but only PARTIAL knowledge? Are you really a knowledge skeptic who thinks that we can't know ANYTHING?

Because, by your reasoning, if we don't know ABSOLUTELY everything about something, we know NOTHING about it.

If we don't know the ABSOLUTE COMPLETE TRUTH, we don't know ANYTHING is true.. is that your position?

Let us know.

Until then, this answer is a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
The two (truth and falsehood) are mutually exclusive.
Another USELESS tautology.

Yes, A = ¬ (¬ A)

And

2 = - (-2)

How does making a tautology advance our discussion?
FAIL.
KingandPriest wrote:
When a Christian is asked how do they know what they believe is true, no one is seeking a subjective or relative answer. On the contrary, the answer/evidence given must be absolute. Why is it ok to only demand 100% truth when it comes to faith, but in every other area of life, a lower standard is acceptable?
First of all, it would really shock me to find out that you aren't a Christian. If you are NOT one of those.. please tell me now.

If you are.. please speak for yourself... I don't take you for Christianity's representative here. Even if you AREN'T a Christian, speak for yourself even MORE... don't presume to tell us what ALL Christians think.

You are now seemingly talking about all ATHEISTS, too. So, don't do that, either for the very same reasons.

What you are talking about might happen in SOME cases.. but I don't like it when people over-generalize to make a point.

You claim that Christians sometimes get asked for absolute truth.
Well, those questions are weird.

So what about them?

Next time that happens to you, ( if it ever does ) ask them what they MEAN by "absolute truth".

I really can't help what other people do.
So, it's no use complaining to me about it.

FAIL.


"10. How can you know something in an absolute way.. are you perfect? "
KingandPriest wrote:
10. The only way to know something in an absolute way is by faith.
FINALLY !!!!

You have finally answered my question as to epistemic method. Thank you, thank you.

This is very important.

You say that the ONLY WAY to know something in an absolute way is by the method you call "faith".

Bravo.

Now, all you have to do is describe what you MEAN by faith and how it works to know anything at all.

This is your biggest ever
WIN.

KingandPriest wrote:
(I know you will reject this, but it is the simplest way I could articulate it)
Well, I don't exactly know what you mean by "faith", so I am not rejecting it right now.

So, it's going to be REAL important for you to answer these three questions:

1. What exactly, do you MEAN by the word "faith" in this context?
2. HOW do you use faith to know if something is true?
3. How do you use faith to know if something is ABSOLUTELY true?

Im going to say... Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a
WIN.

KingandPriest wrote:
As I’ve said before, an absolute truth just is.
ha ha.. just IS....Sorry, but I just think that's funny.

No... you have to do better than claiming your idea JUST IS true, my friend.

Because I can end this debate right now, by saying that you JUST ARE wrong.
And that my victory JUST IS.

You don't GET to proclaim something that you want to prove JUST IS.
Not in here, you don't.

Never use that "just is" defense again.
It's HORRIBLE.

"Just is"
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
It doesn’t matter if I accept it or not, it just is, and it will always be.
"So there... I don't care WHAT you think, it just is. "

Well golly.. good for you then !

Never try that again.. it's a ridiculous losing tactic.

And just to make sure that you don't misunderstand, I am NOT saying that "it just isn't". I am saying that putting a "just is" in support of a claim is MEANINGLESS.

Your statement "just is" wrong.
So there. You gotta "just is" and I gotta "just is".

We are all of us seeking "just is".
I say "JUST IS to all."

I "just is" correct, and you "just is" wrong, and that's all there IS to it.

"Just So Story"
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
I can either choose to accept it or reject it.
You can choose what you call true.. and you can choose what you call blue.. and you can choose what you call me... You are free to choose what you choose to choose, you can even choose your blue suede shoes.

We CHOOSE what we call "true".
I agree...

And that, my friend, gets you a
WIN.

( but I'm being generous here.. )

KingandPriest wrote:
In a similar way, when scientist state energy can neither be created or destroyed, my understanding, acceptance or rejection of this truth is insignificant. IF a person chooses to accept this absolute truth, they can go on to other discoveries and learn more about their environment.
You're calling a theory "absolutely true".
You can call it anything you like, I suppose.

I really don't see how your choice of labels proves anything.

Trying to explain something by way of a label:
FAIL


"11. Could you explain what you mean by "This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth."?"
KingandPriest wrote:
11. You stated you agree that
When a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true.
Yes, I like that definition very much.

I still agree with it.
Where did you get it, by the way?

WIN WIN WIN.. that' just one WIN repeated three times. Ok, maybe four.

KingandPriest wrote:
Is it not logical to presume the irrational components of the human experience will impact the probability statement of truth.
That's why it's important to have a good epistemic method.

Like science... or logic, or math... critical thinking is another good one.
What's yours.. faith you said.

I really want to know how faith works as an epistemic method... and how it would be BETTER than any of those above...

I can hardly wait, in fact.
I hope you get to that ASAP....

Not explaining your rational epistemic method:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Once we introduce imperfect minds and faculties, the truth will get degraded and loose its pure state.
What "pure state" are you talking about?
Don't understand that.

Also.. how do you think something is true without using a mind? ...

Also... do you think that ANY human's mind is "perfect"?
Is yours?

One answer that generates three problems:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
The same is true of relativism. Both erode away a component of truth. Any statement that is not 100% true is a total falsehood.
Sorry, but that a ridiculous statement.
I explained why above.

"All or nothing thinking" is most likely WRONG.

Most likely, that's a
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
After all, the definition of false and falsehood is anything that is not true. No matter how small, if it is 1% not true, it is 100% false.
I don't know.. in MY math 100-1 = 99 and NOT 0.

Give me an example of something ELSE than God that you know is 100% true.

I have asked you before if you were perfect.. I'm asking you now if you know everything. I think you said that math and science are sometimes 100% true.

I don't see any reason to think so.
How can you POSSIBLY demonstrate that you know something, ANYTHING.. absolutely?

You aren't a god, after all.. are you?

Math :
FAIL.

Claim to absolute knowledge:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Subjective and relative reasoning allow for less than 100% truth. Absolute truth only allows truth to be 100%, all or none.
Well then, to my mind, you just proved that truth CANNOT be absolute.
Sorry.

Your "all or nothing" thinking just lost your case.

By YOUR reasoning, if you don't know ALL, you know NOTHING. And that is RIDICULOUS. If you don't know ANYTHING AT ALL.. you don't know what "absolute truth" is EITHER. If you can't resolve this issue, you lost the "absolute truth" part of our debate.

And that my friend, would be a big honking
FAIL.


"12. Do you believe that people can be WRONG about what they consider to be true?"
KingandPriest wrote:
12. Using the word wrong instead of false is just a play on words to mitigate the emotional response of an individual.
Say WHAT?

Are you accusing me of playing on words?
WELL THEN... I don't want to be accused of THAT.

Let me rephrase so that you are happier:

"12. Do you believe that people can have false ideas about what they consider to be true?"

Hows that?
Better?

For avoiding the question due to an objection to the word "wrong" vs "false".
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
When a person considers something to be true, it will either be proven true or false.
OR NOT.. some things are IMPOSSIBLE for us to know.

But maybe in the FUTURE... it might be proven true or false. Who knows, right?
I don't have a time machine, do you?

Making an unverifiable prediction:
Fail.

KingandPriest wrote:
We say right or wrong to validate an amount of political correctness, but this discussion is about the core truths man chooses to accept or reject. Right and wrong are subjective words to describe decisions made by individuals. It doesn’t really have a place in the conversation of truth and falsehood. A statement can be the truth; does that make it right or wrong or neither? Once again, the truth stands independent of even right and wrong.

We have found another stickler.. FINE.. I will try to stick to "true" or "false".
WIN.

Now, answer the question.
With your zeal for correct terms, you forgot about that one.

Utterly forgetting the question while focusing on a triviality:
Fail.


"13. What is the epistemic method by which one "deems" something to be independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data.?"
KingandPriest wrote:
13. The method one uses to determine if something is independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data, is simply to test it. Place the statement or truth through a myriad of tests and see if it remains unaffected. If something is independent, it will not be moved by circumstances.
TEST IT HOW?

Using a banana?
Using a roll of the DICE?
Crystal Ball?
Haruspication?
Science?
Ouija board?
Logic?
Eeny meany miny moe?
Flip a coin?

HOW?

How do you test if something is independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data ?

You say you have a method ( faith, presumably ) and don't mention how you use it:
Fail.


"14. What does X ( let's say you meant God ) being true have anything to do with the claim that Y is true ( where Y represents ANY truth claim ) ?"
KingandPriest wrote:
14. At first glance nothing.
Take another look then.
KingandPriest wrote:
Where the connection comes into play is that any absolute statement or thing will always be unchangeable.

ALWAYS BE UNCHANGEABLE


And how do you PROPOSE to test for that?
Any ideas at all?

I don't.
I don't have a CLUE what you are talking about.
AGAIN...

Do you REALLY think that a human ( in this case it seems to be YOU ) can know ANYTHING that will ALWAYS ( and that means forever, for eternity... infinity here... absolute knowledge claim here... kinda godlike, if you ask me here... ) be true?

Unjustified claim:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
This unchangeable nature points to perfection.
Except that you haven't explained how or that truth HAS an unchangeable nature.

No reason, no facts.
What you present is only a claim so far.

And we all know... claims are quite easy to make.

Do more than make unjustified claims next time.
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
I only make the connection, that X (God) is perfect, and Y (absolute truth) needs perfection to exist. So I postulate that Y found its source in X, or Y comes from X.
Now, you have even MORE to prove, don't you?

1. You have to prove God exists IN ANY WAY AT ALL... perfect OR imperfect.
2. You have to prove that God happens to BE perfect the way that you say.
3. You have to prove that your definition of "absolute truth" matches in some way with REALITY, and so far, all you have proved is that it matches with your opinion.
4. You have to prove that absolute truth NEEDS some perfection to exist.

When you make a lot of claims, you give yourself a LOT to prove. It's a one to one ratio.... Make a claim PROVE it. Make another claim, prove THAT too... and so on.

But let me be REALLY generous and stretch my imagination and my credulity in order to preserve your argument, and let's just look at the logic, and see if at least your reasoning makes sense.

You say that:

1. X (God) is perfect, and
2. Y (absolute truth) needs perfection to exist.

Were taking all of those statements as true for now... and your conclusion is:

3. So I postulate that Y found its source in X, or Y comes from X.

Oh, you also claim that "absolute truth" found it's source in God.... I see.
So, those are three unsupported claims that I am agreeing with for the sake of your argument. It seems that I have to take all of your claims as true for your argument to be called "sound".

But let's not focus on the soundness of your argument, because you will have to prove that all of your premises are TRUE later.

You want to get to 3, by way of 1 and 2.

And for me... I see a gap between (1 and 2) and 3 right now.
Sorry.

Just because God is perfect, and that TRUTH needs perfection, it doesn't mean that truth "found the source" ... I don't even know what it would MEAN for "truth finding a source". Was it LOOKING for a source?

Maybe God IS perfect, and the truth has nothing to DO with God, OR his perfection.

God can be perfect, truth can need perfection, and the two might NOT be connected. What is the connection here?... What I see is that YOU make the connection. But there doesn't HAVE to be a connection, and you have not demonstrated that there has to be a connection. Maybe GOD needs truth ( not perfect truth ) to be perfect... who knows, right?

GAPS.. logic doesn't like those..... Fill up the gaps.
Right now.. you have yourself a "truth of the gaps" argument.

FAIL.

1. Do you really KNOW anything about perfection?
2. Do you really KNOW anything about God?
3. Do you really KNOW anything absolutely?
4. Do you really KNOW that truth has to be absolute?

Well, I for one am skeptical that you DO know.
What I see you doing is making a lot of CLAIMS about knowing.

But that's about it.
Claims are not facts.

You don't seem to know many facts, but boy oh boy, do you ever know a lot about your opinions.


"15. How do you know when the truth of a proposition is ABSOLUTE ?"
KingandPriest wrote:
15. I don’t. I have to test it.
WE ALL KNOW YOU HAVE TO TEST IT... I want to know HOW you test.. DESCRIBE your test...

You said that already, but what you FAIL to mention is HOW do you test for that?
HOW .. HOW... not what...

HOW DO YOU TEST ....

A method is a HOW... not a what...
A hammer is not a method... a hammer is a tool.
I want to know how you use your tool? A tool is a THING, a method is a PROCESS.

You've already said your tool is "faith".
I want to know how that works.

Yeah, in philosophy, even words like "how" and "what" get confusing.

Try to focus on how you know what you claim to know and we will be fine.


Avoiding or not comprehending the question.
FAIL


"16. What method do you use to KNOW that "Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God" ?"
KingandPriest wrote:
16. See #14
Well that answer didn't help at all then, and it's of no use now, either.
Can you try again?

Because that answer was a
FAIL.


"17. Prove that truth IS absolute in the way that you define it. "
KingandPriest wrote:
17. See #11. The truth cannot be partially true and partially false. This is both illogical and full of errors.
Let me try to rephrase that for you, since you seem to have completely missed what I meant:

I was asking how you know that your claim about absolute truth is a fact, and not just your subjective opinion.

A failure of comprehension.. I think we can be both take responsibility for that.


"18. Prove that a god is the cause of that..."
KingandPriest wrote:
18. I never said God caused truth. Just that truth comes from God.
Didn't you accuse me of playing on words a bit earlier?

I'd LIKE to know how you define "CAUSE" to NOT mean "COMES FROM".
As far as I know.. they are IDENTICAL in meaning.

Playing on words needlessly:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
There is a difference between causation and correlation. I cannot tell you what causes something to be true. I contend instead that the truth is, plain and simple. In the same way energy is accepted as just ‘being’, truth just is.
But you just said that truth "Comes from GOD".
I have NO idea what you mean by that then.

NONE.

And I tried to explain to you that saying that something JUST IS... wont do.
It just IS unacceptable in here.

I can quote you the rule.
I seem to be quoting that often these days.

"5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Contradiction, vagueness and irrelevance.
FAIL.


"19. Prove the god is the Christian god specifically."
KingandPriest wrote:
19. The characteristics of truth line up with God.
LINE UP WITH GOD

You just contradicted yourself AGAIN.

You said that correlation isn't causation.
Just because you have the opinion that two things LINE UP it does not prove that they are IDENTICAL.

I can fully accept that you believe what you believe.
I can't accept that your opinions are "JUST SO."

Your biggest error so far is that you confuse your opinion for fact.

In any case, as to this question:
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
See #14. The bible basically tells its readers God is. Readers are not told how, why but are just confronted with a truth right away.
Confronted by a truth, or a CLAIM?
Confusing claim with truth:

FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God…�. Later we find God telling us that he is impervious to change, Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I change not�. Many times we are told that God is perfect and his “ways� are perfect. John 4:24 “For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth� Notice it says in spirit and in truth, and not in spirit and the truth. This communicates the permanence and absoluteness of truth which can only come from God. Since it comes from Him, it shares some of His characteristics.
CORRECTION:

The Bible statement CLAIMS something.. and so what?
It's really EASY to make all sorts of nice sounding claims.

You confuse a claim for a fact.

And you call that a "truth" and you say that it's also "absolutely true".

Well, those are lots of claims.
Now, you have the burden to prove them all.

That's why you won't find me making too many claims.
I make them.. because it's a hard habit to get rid of.

I found that when I make a CLAIM... I'm oh so often wrong.
Egg on MY face.

But that kind of thing doesn't seem to disturb apologists AT ALL.. and in this debate, my friend, you are acting in the role of apologist, sorry to say. Make as MANY claims as you like... but don't be surprised if I CHALLENGE some of them.

You say that "Since it comes from Him, it shares some of His characteristics."

PROVE the claim.
And you better prove all of your claims.

Hope you have a lot of time on your hands. In any case that was a
FAIL.


"20. Could you explain how you get from "truth is the opposite of falsehood" TO "truth demands to be absolute"? I don't see any link between the two propositions, and I don't see any data at all to support the second premise. "
KingandPriest wrote:
20. See #11 and #17
Getting tired?
I don't blame you.

But that's not really an answer, is it?
Not even close.

Question 11 and 17 are not the same as question 20.
Not even CLOSE.

You would have been better off with an "I don't know".
So, although I can understand that this is getting EXTREMELY long, your answer is another abysmal
FAIL.


"21. And I have NO IDEA what you were trying to prove by that shinning sun anecdote, except that person A should not be bothered with. Could you explain that please?"
KingandPriest wrote:
21. Just because you have an opinion on the type of conversation does not make Person A’s statement false. You have a subjective opinion on whether Peron A should be “bothered with.� What does this have to do with the truth. My question is was the statement made by Person A truthful?
Person A was playing on words.
I hate that kind of thing, and I told you so.

The statement made by person A was STUPID.

It was both true and false at the very same time.. jokes that play on the meaning of words are like that.

I already explained that person A was either making a JOKE or being obnoxious.

Or.. maybe he was making an obnoxious joke.
In any case, your anecdote didn't work.

Think them through a bit more next time.

That's another
FAIL.


"22. Why do you conflate the word ABSOLUTE with the word IMMUTABLE?"
KingandPriest wrote:
22. Absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; total http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/absolute
Immutable: Unchanging over time or unable to be changed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /immutable

If something is absolute, it cannot be diminished (changed) in any way.
This would mean overtime it would be unchanged or unable to be changed. If something is immutable, is will remain unchanged (cannot be diminished). Thus by definition alone, it is a safe argument to make that absolute and immutable can be conflated into a single position.
Hmmm ok.. Absolute can be conflated with immutable after all... Maybe.. I'm confused a bit. I thought "no" for a while... but lets just give you a
Win.


"23. Why do you consider it a bad thing that reality changes? Don't you like a bit of change? "
KingandPriest wrote:
23. I do not consider it a bad thing that reality changes.
Cool.
Some changes are for the better, and some changes are for the worse.

Some religious people just HATE when what they believe has to change. ( and it does, sorry for them ) Look at all the fuss about gay marriage, for example. That's going to go away.. but not before a lot of Christians make a WHOLE lot of noise. But the noise is dying down, and those Christians will just have to change along with the rest of us.

So, you don't mind change.
Great.

WIN.

KingandPriest wrote:
I consider it flawed to make one’s basis for truth on something that is known to constantly changes.
Like reality?

You don't mind the FACT that reality changes, but you don't like to base your "truth" on what changes.

So, you really don't want to base your truth on reality. Because it changes.

You don't mind change, but you also mind it very much. You say you think it's "flawed" to base what YOU call the truth on something that changes. YUK.. it's changing.. so better not base the truth on THAT now.

YUK basing truth on what changes is YUK YUK YUK... but you didn't say WHY it's flawed to base your truth on reality?

Could you do that?

Fail.

KingandPriest wrote:
For example, if you wanted to invest in a low risk stock, you would not invest in a stock known to have constant volatility.
IF you ever hear of a stock like that, let me KNOW right away.

Buy low.. sell HIGH.. that's what "volatility" means.
Just stay on the phone.

Ohhhh but you meant if I wanted to invest in a LOW risk stock.. sorry. Yeah, I would invest in a low risk stock if I wanted to invest in a low risk stock.

You SURE DO love your tautologies, don't you?


I don't what POINT you are trying to make by it.
Once again, you anecdote CONFOUNDS me.

You seem to equate evaluating the truth with speculating on the stock market...
But speculating on the stock market is GAMBLING.. remember roll of the dice not good method?

To me, that story was utterly contradictory and meaningless.

You seem to like indulging in tautologies and contradictions. I don't see at all how they move us along.

FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
As stated in my opening, the question what is truth is the greatest question any human being can ask themselves or someone else. It would then follow to use the most conservative and accurate method available for acquiring truth and not select something as volatile subjectivism or relativism.
And you call that method "FAITH".

So, all you have to do NOW is to explain how faith is the most "conservative" and "accurate" method available for acquiring truth.

You have two jobs to do there:

1. DEFINE please please please define what you mean by "faith".
2. Tell us how you use faith to reliably know if something is true or not. ( secular examples would be appreciated )

So, until you do that, you have a
FAIL.


"24. Are you to be who arbitrates what is truth and what is not for the rest of us? "
KingandPriest wrote:

24. No. All I can do is explain how I arrived at what is truth.
Good, because I don't like to be told what to think. But as for the EXPLANATION...
I can't wait for it.

I hope to see that in your very next entry.

Until you do that
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
I can express what I believe, what I know and what I understand.
Well, I can agree that you CAN indeed express what you believe IN PART... but only in part. There are terms that you have NOT defined yet. Like "God" , for example.

What IS that thing?
How do you even know it's REAL?

But the next part... where you say that you KNOW AND UNDERSTAND... ahem.

That's a claim to knowing and a claim to understanding. You have merely claimed to know that truth is absolute.. you have merely claimed that God is perfect and so on. You have made many many claims. You have YET to demonstrate them to be true. And since we haven't yet agreed what "TRUTH" means, or how best to GET IT, you have a long long way to go before you can prove that what YOU believe is true.

For now, I would say that what I know about you is that you believe AND that you have some kind of justification that baffles me.

____________________

The three levels of belief:

Level 1. Belief.
Level 2. Justified belief.
Level 3. True justified belief.

_____________________

So, from what I can see is that you have demonstrated Level ONE belief. Christians trying to debate usually do that A LOT. They LOVE to testify what they happen to believe.

You have tried ( and in my mind have really failed miserably ) to have Level TWO belief.

What you are FAR FAR away from is any facts or sound reasoning that would lend support for Level THREE. And that, my friend, is what you want.

Even if I GRANT you Level 2, you have to get to Level 3, and I think.. wow.. Bit of a snag there.

Good luck with that.
OH by the way.. did I mention that so far, your Level 2 belief is an utter failure?
Clear that up will you?

Because your answer isn't moving us along, and that means
FAIL.

KingandPriest wrote:
From there it is up to you (meaning each individual) to accept or reject.
Do you mean that the truth is SUBJECTIVE after all? It's all up to us?
I thought you said that it wasn't?

If that's true it's a fail.

A Level two and contradiction
FAIL.


EMBARRASSING NOTE
I had to cut this into another part... I found the text limit.
Last edited by Blastcat on Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: What is Truth? Christian definition

Post #12

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 10 by KingandPriest]

Here is part two.. apparently, I got to a text limit or something... can’t understand why........
KingandPriest wrote:
If absolutism is the best available method for acquiring 100% truth and not a fraudulent knock off, then it must stand alone. Subjective and relative reasoning would be relegated as a means to process information and make decisions, but not to find truth.

IT MUST STAND ALONE.


It must it must it JUST must.

It just IS... It just MUST stand alone..
It just has to, it just has to.

WHY?

Don't ask... it just HAS TO.

Well, if what ever you say "just MUST" be true.. then you won the debate.
Want to quit while you are ahead like that?

I'm ready to concede if you are ready to accept victory on those terms.

You can win by using a phrase like "just must" if you like, you know.
( people don't know that about me.. but it's my magic phrase, just makes me lose )

I'M JOKING....

You got a
FAIL.

So... wow that was a LONG one.

:)

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #13

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 11 by Blastcat]

Reply to response 2

Before I respond to your questions, I would like to make sure we are speaking about the same subject matter. Truth is not a physical object like a rock. We interact with truth through language and communication which result in statements/claims. When I speak of testing truth, the only thing which can be tested is the statement/truth. I will assume, this is the same for you, as you rely on facts or reality to measure the statements/claims made by an individual or group of people.

[center]Summary of rationale for absolute truth[/center]

In order to understand what is truth, we have to look at the characteristics of truth. One can pose the question, can the truth contain both truth and falsehoods, and still be true? In other words, can the truth be only partially true? Can half-truths or partial truth be the truth? The answer to all of these questions is no. Half-truths or partial truths are “deceptive statement that includes some element of truth.� (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth) In other words partial truths contain a variable, or statement which is true, but the deceptive variable negates the effect of the true statement. To clarify, let’s use the example you presented
If I say that X, Y, and Z are a part of the group T and that X, Y and Z are TRUE.. and Z turns out to NOT BE TRUE. Does it mean that X and Y are falsified? Does it mean that T is falsified?
T in this case would be the statement/claim we are told is true. When Z is found to be untrue, it falsifies T because the requirement for truth is no longer met. In order for T to be the truth, X, Y and Z must all be true. This is where a logical conclusion can be made that the truth is absolute. Any statement that we told is the truth, must be 100% true. There can be no partial truths within a true statement. If X, Y or Z is diminished in any way, T is no longer true. Remember, absolute is defined as “not qualified or diminished in any way; total.�

When I summed your position on what is truth, I wrote “3. We cannot 'correct the truth’, but we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.� You then agreed to this summation. If a person cannot correct the truth, doesn’t this make the truth absolute. As conceded, absolute and immutable can be conflated into a single position. Since we cannot correct or change the truth, it meets the definition of absolute and immutable.

[center]Summary of how to test a truth statement/claim[/center]
There are several methods to test a statement/claim of truth. You ask
TEST IT HOW?

As I stated in point 13, “Place the statement or truth through a myriad of tests and see if it remains unaffected. If something is independent, it will not be moved by circumstances.� These tests can be in the form of questions or a hypothetical change in circumstances. So the how depends on the statement. For example, if a person makes a statement “The sky is blue� and I am told this statement is the truth, I would test the claim to see if various circumstances would render the statement 100% true in every situation. If the statement is only applicable in certain situations, I would find the statement to be untrue (false) and in need of correction. The statement can be corrected (changed) to make it true by adding details or qualifying the statement. As it stands, the statement “The sky is blue� is not true because a simple test of this claim at night would prove it untrue. If the statement is altered to make it true, qualifiers would specify the claim with such detail, thus making it 100% true. An example of this would be “The sky appears blue during the day.� The word appears is a major qualifier which makes the statement truer. Adding during the day at the end of the statement, specifies the claim, and brings it much closer to being absolutely true (cannot be corrected).
We change what we call truth to match the actual truth. The truth did not change; it was our statements which needed to be corrected to match the truth. Thus, one can conclude the truth is absolute.

[center]Are tautologies, useful or not? [/center]
For some reason, you have an issue with tautologies. When used in rhetoric or grammar, a tautology is usually seen as an error. Tautologies in rhetoric are a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth. Tautologies in grammar is the use of redundant words. In both of these cases, I agree that tautologies can be pointless.

With logic and rules of inference however, tautologies play a different role, and are extremely important. In logic statements, tautologies help express universal truth’s in a formulaic sense. In rules of inference, where axioms can be interchanged, tautologies create a rule of replacement for logical expressions. Without such rules and formulaic expressions, math would be impossible, and our ability to justify facts are also impossible. Without tautologies, how do we separate fact from opinion. It is the rules and expressions of tautologies which serve as the building blocks for what we call facts. You rush to say,
When I want to know if something is true, I have to check the facts.
The facts that you rely on heavily depend on tautological statements. To disregard tautologies in this sense is to disregard facts.

It is tautologies with respect to logic and rules of inference, I have included in my posts. Using the example above, where group T (the statement/claim of truth) is comprised of X, Y and Z, I argue that if X Y or Z is untrue, T automatically becomes untrue. This is a logical expression, not a self-reinforcing rhetorical statement or a grammatical use of redundant words. If I follow your beliefs that all tautologies are meaningless, then all facts supported by tautologies must also be meaningless. All facts supported by mathematical expressions must also be meaningless. To this, any reasonable person would argue against. Rather, they would hold that tautologies are not meaningless, but meaningful in the context of logical arguments and rules of inference.

[center]Summary of how to use the tool of faith[/center]
I would first want to clarify a major point to my entire argument. I do not believe subjective reasoning or relative reasoning should not be used. What I content is that neither of these should be the final arbitrator in determining what is truth alone. As stated in an earlier post’s, subjective reasoning can reject what may actually be true. Relativism can do the same based on circumstances. We both agree that truth is a statement of probability. Both subjectivism and relativism have the potential to create Type I error (the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis).

With that said, lets talk about faith and truth. I want to use the statement “The true shape of the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid� to explain how the truth is absolute and how one would use faith as a tool to identify the truth. As I’ve stated earlier, if this statement is true, I would expect it to remain the same despite changes in circumstances, new information or changes in reality. The earliest known maps dated to the 6th century BC were all based on the circular flat Earth paradigm. Although it was accepted, it was not the truth. The true shape of the earth remained the same, even when people called the shape of the Earth flat. In time, the truth was revealed and understood by men. It is at this point, we came to learn the truth and could accurately articulate a true statement about the shape of the Earth. Pythagoras is credited with being the first person to teach that the Earth was spherical. Based on the facts, knowledge and reality available to him, the only way of knowing or identifying this truth was through faith. You may ask me how can I prove that?
Faith is “trust or confidence in someone or something without evidence�
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/faith
Faith is “belief that is not based on proof�
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith?s=t
Faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.� Hebrews 11:1
All of these definitions share two concepts. 1.Confidence/Trust & 2. Lack of evidence. When Pythagoras and others after him proposed a spherical Earth, they had confidence in their belief with little to no evidence. They relied on physical theory to then form expressions of their belief.
Physical theory the attempt to explain a certain class of physical phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of other phenomena regarded as more primitive and less in need of explanation.
https://www.accessscience.com/content/p ... ory/514200
The longer the truth has remained undiscovered the more faith is required to offset what was previously accepted as true. These more primitive and unknown phenomena may at the time the theory is formulated be undiscovered. In order for the physical theory to be proven correct, the unknown evidence must be assumed or believed by faith. A classic example of this is the kinetic theory of gases, in which the pressure of a gas is explained as arising from the kinetic reactions of colliding molecules, the reality of which was established only later by the discovery of phenomena such as the Brownian fluctuations. Pythagoras couldn’t provide evidence of the truth, but used faith to help us his successors identify the flaws of a flat earth, and point to the absolute truth. Presently unknown phenomena are believed to exists by faith, and thereby support physical theories. Physical theories help us arrive at absolute truth, when used in conjunction with subjective or relative reasoning, and sometimes both. It is the combination of faith as outlined here, with subjective and relative reasoning as appropriate which leads us to the truth.

A lot of what we call true today, is not the truth. In all honesty, I believe we only know a few things to be absolutely true. The remainder are a subjective acceptance of facts as presently known and understood. Accepting a fact is different from accepting a statement of truth. We often sidestep faith because faith will not fit into a predefined box. Faith deals with unknown phenomena that we are to have confidence in without evidence. Throughout history, anytime a truth or natural law is discovered, it has coincided with a certain level of faith on the part of the scientist, philosopher, or other renowned leader. In summary, faith allows us to touch the un-evidenced, unknown areas of our existence. As you have implied, mankind is flawed and lacks the capacity to know anything with 100% conviction using subjective reasoning or relative reasoning. It is only by faith, we can break our limitations and venture into the unknown phenomena of perfection called truth.

You asked:
Do you REALLY think that a human ( in this case it seems to be YOU) can know ANYTHING that will ALWAYS ( and that means forever, for eternity... infinity here... absolute knowledge claim here... kinda godlike, if you ask me here... ) be true?
With subjective and relative reasoning only, the answer is no. Adding faith and the answer becomes yes, because it is with faith, we venture into the “godlike� realm you mentioned. Furthermore, by your implication that to know a statement will ALWAYS be true (meaning forever, for eternity... infinity) is “godlike�, is exactly my point as to why the truth appears to come from a “godlike� figure. Since the truth is absolute, as defined above, it must be perfect in every way. Humans automatically associate anything which is perfect in everyway to be “godlike.�

[center]Reject the unknown[/center]
Throughout your last response, there were several sections you deemed a “FAIL� because you did not understand the point I attempted to explain. I do not understand the wisdom or logic here. This seems to support my claim that subjective reasoning and relative reasoning is inadequate on its own to decipher truth. If a claim is rejected because it is not understood, does that make the claim untrue? An honest and rational person would admit he/she doesn’t have the information to make a decision (WIN or FAIL), and at a minimum ask additional questions before rendering final judgement. For some reason, you seem more intent on keeping your opinion and not seeking to understand what I mean when I say that truth is absolute. Please remember, my definition was twofold. If you don't understand the first portion, you cannot understand the second.

To asses a claim as true or false based only on subjective reasoning and examination of facts will more often than not result in a Type I error. This error will create a statement of truth that needs to be revised at a future date when more information is discovered. Relative reasoning will lead to a Type II error where an individual will incorrectly retain a false statement as true. This is commonly known to be the more egregious error, and doesn’t help move us towards what is truth. For one reason or another, my opponent feels these errors, both Type I and Type II are acceptable when defining what is truth. In contrast, I hold neither of these errors are acceptable when seeking to determine truth.

[center]Christian Truth test[/center]
To ensure I am not making a generalization, when you ask a Christian or any theist, how do they know their claim is true, is subjective reasoning based on facts and reality sufficient?

When you ask a Christian for proof of what they believe, are you asking for subjective evidence, relative evidence or indisputable factual evidence?

If this evidence is indisputable factual evidence, wouldn't it qualify as an absolute truth?

(Reminder an absolute truth is a true statement that is absolute. The statement cannot be corrected, is unchangeable and immutable.)

I venture to say, you would not accept a subjective statement based on facts and reality alone. You would continue to ask questions (testing for a truth that is absolute). If the truth claim has any notion of falsehood, you reject the entire premise of the statement.

This action supports my claim that the truth must be absolute. If you disagree, it is impossible for me to even begin to explain how a truth comes from God.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #14

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 13 by KingandPriest]

!

There's some pretty good stuff in here, IMHO. I stated what statements I agree with or disagree with.

Let's get to it, shall we?



KingandPriest wrote:
Reply to response 2

Before I respond to your questions, I would like to make sure we are speaking about the same subject matter. Truth is not a physical object like a rock.


Good, we can rule that out.
Truth is not an object

AGREED.

KingandPriest wrote:
We interact with truth through language and communication which result in statements/claims.


If the truth is not an OBJECT how can we "interact" with it?... Please explain.
Ambiguous language:

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
When I speak of testing truth, the only thing which can be tested is the statement/truth.


This is not explaining HOW you want to test it.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
I will assume, this is the same for you, as you rely on facts or reality to measure the statements/claims made by an individual or group of people.


But you have still not explained your epistemic method.
You seem to dance around the problem.

You want to test fine, bravo.
How?

Spell it out.
I use critical thinking methods.
What methods do you use?

I think that earlier, you mentioned faith.. is that your method, and if so, how does that work?

Because I have no idea how faith is a method to know anything.

Please be clear.
We can't have a proper debate if you can't be clear.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Summary of rationale for absolute truth[/center]

In order to understand what is truth, we have to look at the characteristics of truth. One can pose the question, can the truth contain both truth and falsehoods, and still be true? In other words, can the truth be only partially true? Can half-truths or partial truth be the truth? The answer to all of these questions is no.


You haven't said why.
Unsupported claims like that are really quite useless.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Any statement that we told is the truth, must be 100% true. There can be no partial truths within a true statement. If X, Y or Z is diminished in any way, T is no longer true. Remember, absolute is defined as “not qualified or diminished in any way; total.�


I'm afraid that your justification fails abysmally. In order for your justification to work it needs us to first accept your claim. And that's a ridiculous requirement.

You might not understand what's going on here.

In a debate:

One makes a claim and if that claim is challenged, one supports that claim with evidence, one doesn't merely repeat the claim. That's what you are doing here. You go from trying to explain what the truth means by way of trying to force us to accept claim about the truth.

So, no, I do not accept the way you define the truth ( this absolute business ) you would have to prove that, and not just assert it. over and over again.

You've done the assertion.. now prove it, or drop it.

KingandPriest wrote:
When I summed your position on what is truth, I wrote “3. We cannot 'correct the truth’, but we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.� You then agreed to this summation. If a person cannot correct the truth, doesn’t this make the truth absolute. As conceded, absolute and immutable can be conflated into a single position. Since we cannot correct or change the truth, it meets the definition of absolute and immutable.


I don't even know what you mean by "correct the truth". To me, that's an incoherent statement. If I have agreed to that before ( and I can't really recall ) , I retract the agreement. Sorry.

You might as well say we can't "un-dog a dog".
It's a meaningless proposition, so, I was wrong to agree with it in the first place.
I should NOT have agreed to a meaningless statement, so that was a mistake.

So, your statement is

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Summary of how to test a truth statement/claim[/center]
There are several methods to test a statement/claim of truth. You ask
TEST IT HOW?



I've asked for your epistemic method since the very beginning.
So.. as far as I'm concerned.. about time.

Thank you.

AGREED.

KingandPriest wrote:
As I stated in point 13, “Place the statement or truth through a myriad of tests and see if it remains unaffected.
Your testing method is to use a myriad of tests..
Great.

But, what are your testing methods? You don't say.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
If something is independent, it will not be moved by circumstances.� These tests can be in the form of questions or a hypothetical change in circumstances. So the how depends on the statement. For example, if a person makes a statement “The sky is blue� and I am told this statement is the truth, I would test the claim to see if various circumstances would render the statement 100% true in every situation.
Yeah, it's all or nothing to you.
How can you test for 100% EVERY situation?

I tried to explain how "all or nothing" is worthless.
That's why science does not demand absolute truth or all or nothing thinking.

Do you think that the scientific method is a good epistemic method?
Because it isn't 100%, you know.

Should we abandon methods like science?
Your statement is

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
If the statement is only applicable in certain situations, I would find the statement to be untrue (false) and in need of correction.
Ok... now what?

What is false isn't true.
But that doesn't explain how to tell the difference.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
The statement can be corrected (changed) to make it true by adding details or qualifying the statement.
We can correct statements.
But how does correcting a statement ( or just changing it, because our correction might not be itself correct ) "make" something true?

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
As it stands, the statement “The sky is blue� is not true because a simple test of this claim at night would prove it untrue.


I'm looking outside right now.. and the sky is blue.. and if you were to tell people that it isn't.. they would look at you strangely.

You are being way too ambiguous.
I can't follow.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
If the statement is altered to make it true, qualifiers would specify the claim with such detail, thus making it 100% true.
By what measure will we know when we have reached 100%?
You don't say how.

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
An example of this would be “The sky appears blue during the day.� The word appears is a major qualifier which makes the statement truer.
"Truer"

If a proposition can be truer.. that means that the truth cannot be absolute.
You said earlier that an absolute cannot change.

You say that the truth is absolute and an absolute cannot change in any way. The way you want to define it cannot POSSIBLY be truer than it already is. You defined the truth as not being able to be less than 100%, so if it's all or nothing like that... truth can't be truer , ever.

WAY too ambiguous. Contradictory.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Adding during the day at the end of the statement, specifies the claim, and brings it much closer to being absolutely true (cannot be corrected).
You seem to be imagining that you would know when something cannot be corrected any more. You seem to also imagine that you have a crystal ball or something that would allow you to look into every future moment for data.

Unsupported claim:

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
We change what we call truth to match the actual truth.
That almost fits in with our agreed upon definition of "truth" but you state it in a very ambiguous manner.

Allow me to repeat my definition ( which I think you still agree with ) .. because you use the word "truth" here in a very confusing way.

TRUTH: That which we say comports to reality.


So, I agree, we humans evaluate propositions and call them true or false.
That doesn't mean we know anything absolutely.

And I agree that what we call "true" changes from time to time.
I think that's a good thing.. If the changes leads to more knowledge, I call that "progress", which by definition is a good thing. I'm in favor of good changes.

That's why I want to have the best epistemology.
Not something vague and ill defined that doesn't yield reliable results.

Because your statement is hopelessly ambiguous, it's

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
The truth did not change; it was our statements which needed to be corrected to match the truth. Thus, one can conclude the truth is absolute.
Truth is an expression of an evaluation. We have agreed that truth is defined as "what conforms to reality". You already said that the truth wasn't an object. But you seem to treat it that way... IT cannot be changed... we call objects "IT".

Evaluations, however, like "truth" are created by people and can change.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Are tautologies, useful or not? [/center]

For some reason, you have an issue with tautologies.
I gave you the reason. Here it is again:

The way that you use tautologies sometimes adds nothing to your case, and sometimes confuses it more.

I have an issue with your reasoning.. not with the concept of tautologies.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
With logic and rules of inference however, tautologies play a different role, and are extremely important. In logic statements, tautologies help express universal truth’s in a formulaic sense. In rules of inference, where axioms can be interchanged, tautologies create a rule of replacement for logical expressions. Without such rules and formulaic expressions, math would be impossible, and our ability to justify facts are also impossible. Without tautologies, how do we separate fact from opinion. It is the rules and expressions of tautologies which serve as the building blocks for what we call facts. You rush to say,
When I want to know if something is true, I have to check the facts.
The facts that you rely on heavily depend on tautological statements. To disregard tautologies in this sense is to disregard facts.
I don't disregard tautologies.. I disregard how you have used them. I find your method useless when you're trying to prove their constituents are real.

A=B doesn't explain anything about A or B. It certainly doesn't prove that A or B are true.

It's just re-labeling. I don't question the validity of tautologies.. I question their usefulness in this debate.

REJECTED
KingandPriest wrote:
It is tautologies with respect to logic and rules of inference, I have included in my posts. Using the example above, where group T (the statement/claim of truth) is comprised of X, Y and Z, I argue that if X Y or Z is untrue, T automatically becomes untrue. This is a logical expression, not a self-reinforcing rhetorical statement or a grammatical use of redundant words. If I follow your beliefs that all tautologies are meaningless, then all facts supported by tautologies must also be meaningless. All facts supported by mathematical expressions must also be meaningless. To this, any reasonable person would argue against. Rather, they would hold that tautologies are not meaningless, but meaningful in the context of logical arguments and rules of inference.
Yeah.. I am not impressed by "Truth is absolute, so therefore the Truth is absolute."

If that, my friend is the kind of tautology you are making, it doesn't improve your position. Please make an effort to show how your proof is anything but a long series of unsupported claims.

A might equal A OR B.. but that tautology doesn't prove A or B

Your defense of tautologies in general is completely irrelevant. You should have defended how your particular use of your tautologies helped your case. If you do have a tautology that does help your case, be my guest.. use it and try to explain how it does. But for now, all of this side-tracking is

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Summary of how to use the tool of faith[/center]
You did miserably at defining what you meant by "truth".
You complained about my objection to your spurious tautologies.. and now, you will attempt at explaining how faith is an epistemic method.

I am not very optimistic here.
Could you please make sure to tell us just how faith is used as an epistemic method?

KingandPriest wrote:
I would first want to clarify a major point to my entire argument. I do not believe subjective reasoning or relative reasoning should not be used.
Ok, great.
You don't believe it. I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I don't know how it relates in any way.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
What I content is that neither of these should be the final arbitrator in determining what is truth alone.
Ok, great.
You contend it. I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I don't know how it relates in any way. How is that addressing how faith is used as an epistemic method?

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
As stated in an earlier post’s, subjective reasoning can reject what may actually be true. Relativism can do the same based on circumstances. We both agree that truth is a statement of probability. Both subjectivism and relativism have the potential to create Type I error (the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis).
"We both agree that truth is a statement of probability."


IF the truth is a "statement of probability" it just cannot be a statement of an absolute.


You have just destroyed your own case.
Think about that one.
Your reasoning has to be

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
With that said, lets talk about faith and truth. I want to use the statement “The true shape of the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid� to explain how the truth is absolute and how one would use faith as a tool to identify the truth.
That's right, you do, don't you?

ACCEPTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
As I’ve stated earlier, if this statement is true, I would expect it to remain the same despite changes in circumstances, new information or changes in reality.
That's how you define "absolute truth".

ACCEPTED.

I don't really understand how you could ever know how something in an absolute way.. but that is your as yet, unsupported claim.

And I reject unsupported claims.

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
The earliest known maps dated to the 6th century BC were all based on the circular flat Earth paradigm. Although it was accepted, it was not the truth.
You forget that you agreed that what we call "truth" is what we accept as conforming to reality. We keep learning about reality.. we learn new things all the time, so what we call true today might not be what we call true tomorrow.. old maps aren't used as much as new ones.

The new maps are thought of as perhaps "truer" than older maps. New data, new "truth".. if what we call true constantly changes... What we call true cannot be absolute.

Now.. you might want to tell us how you know an absolute truth.... do you have absolutely all the facts about anything at all?

Back then, those good folks accepted that the maps conformed to reality, and therefore, called those maps true. ( some smarter sailors might have said "more probably true than older, less fact filled maps ).

You accept a definition, and then you seem to forget that you accepted it.
Have you changed your mind?

REJECTED

KingandPriest wrote:
The true shape of the earth remained the same, even when people called the shape of the Earth flat.
Finally something that I can agree on.
Notice that my agreements are very rare.

Whatever the shape of the world actually is... is the actual shape of the world. That can change over time. But things are what they are. If that's what you mean:

ACCEPTED.

"The true shape of the earth "

The Earth has a shape. We had all kinds of ideas about that.
People used to think that the Earth was flat and even square.
Then, they thought it was round.
Then, a sphere.
Now, we think of it as an oblate spheroid.

But you say that the truth is absolute.. so you mean the ABSOLUTE TRUE shape of the earth, don't you? Hard to tell, because you aren't careful enough with your terms.

But I think when you use "true" or "truth", you mean "absolutely true" or "absolute truth". Is that correct? Would you mind being clearer about that.. since "truth" the most important terms we want to use in this debate? Don't be ambiguous. It stalls the debate.

IF you imagine that the "absolutely true" shape of the Earth is an oblate spheroid, then you would have to also believe that we will never get any new information about the shape. Is there no new data possible?

Do you actually claim to know the future state of our knowledge?
Do you claim to have that crystal ball?

If so, support that claim.
If not, then how can you claim to know the absolute truth of the shape of the Earth?

I say that you cannot.
You just aren't omniscient like you probably claim your god is. ( at least I would need evidence for that if you claim it )

I think it's safe to say that the Earth's shape didn't really change all that much, but our ideas about it sure have.

Have you proved that we have any absolute truth concerning the shape of the earth? Or have you simply demonstrated that we have frequently changed our ideas about the shape of the earth.. and that we might have to change them again, if or when we get some new information concerning the shape?

I think you are simply confusing what we call that which conforms to reality, and what does. The earth's shape doesn't change very much from day to day, decade to decade.. it changes, but only a little at a time. Generally, as it spins.. as it moves and shifts and speeds though space around and around the sun at stunning speeds. it changes. The shape has changed, as far as we know.

The earth's shape is actually dynamic.. things change over time.
To say that things do not change over time is mostly wrong.

People think about things, have ideas.. some ideas are better than other ideas. Some people take their ideas as true. Some even think their ideas are absolutely true and cannot change, even though they find out new data. Some people have called something absolutely true only to find out later that they were wrong.

We now know that sticking with a belief about the truth of a proposition ( how the earth moves in the sky or how diseases are spread ) can be very unprofitable. And that is why you won't find too many scientists proclaiming some "absolute truth".

We also now know that proclaiming absolutes makes new information harder to accept. That's one of the problems I have with religiously motivated thinking. If one presupposes to have found an absolute truth that can never change... it makes it tougher to consider evidence to the contrary.

People like that tend to value their beliefs more than they value the truth so they might "dig in" instead of "opening up" to new, possibly conflicting evidence.

Consider this:

1. Our ideas, feelings or beliefs about reality does not change reality. ( what is true ) These can only change what we might CALL that which conforms to reality.
2. Our ideas about what conforms to reality changes.
3. The truth is defined as "what conforms to reality".
4. Therefore, by our ACCEPTED definition, what we call "truth" changes.
5. What changes cannot be absolute, by your definition.
6. Therefore, the truth cannot be absolute.

Is the truth absolute by our definitions?
No.

So.. I your definition of absolute truth:

REJECTED.

The usefulness of you epistemic method:

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
In time, the truth was revealed and understood by men.
Do we now have any absolute truth?.. or just relative, conditional, probabilistic truth? Because men ( and women ) have taken things as true that then turned out to be wrong. And if they believed that a falsehood was absolutely true, then they might have been absolutely wrong. I don't know.. just playing with words here. I never use the word "absolutely" seriously, unless I am paraphrasing someone else who is trying to be.

REJECTED

KingandPriest wrote:
It is at this point, we came to learn the truth and could accurately articulate a true statement about the shape of the Earth.
How can you be sure that some new data won't change our idea about that?

You don't say. You just seem to imagine that we have absolute knowledge now.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Pythagoras is credited with being the first person to teach that the Earth was spherical.
Something round isn't necessarily a sphere.
Aristotle gets the nod, not Pythagoras.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta ... ion54.html

So, your statement is

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Based on the facts, knowledge and reality available to him, the only way of knowing or identifying this truth was through faith.
Unjustified claim:

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
You may ask me how can I prove that?
I've been asking you for proof all along.
So, yeah.

AGREED.
KingandPriest wrote:
Faith is “trust or confidence in someone or something without evidence�
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/faith
Faith is “belief that is not based on proof�
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith?s=t
Faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.� Hebrews 11:1
All of these definitions share two concepts. 1.Confidence/Trust & 2. Lack of evidence.

AGREED.


So, my question is how is confidence, trust, and a lack of evidence can tell us the truth of a proposition?

If I ask you to prove that proposition X is true, please show me how your confidence and trust and lack of evidence is going to be able to prove it?

I want your method.
You have not explained yet how faith, confidence, trust, and lack of evidence ARE methods. Faith is a position. Confidence is a position. Trust is a position. Lack of evidence is a fact. As far as I'm concerned, these are not methods.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
When Pythagoras and others after him proposed a spherical Earth, they had confidence in their belief with little to no evidence.
So, how did Pythagoras' confidence and lack of evidence demonstrate that they knew the truth, let alone any absolute non-changing ever-lasting truth?

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
They relied on physical theory to then form expressions of their belief.
You say they formed their belief by relying a physical theory.
That's not using faith to know that something is true.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
The longer the truth has remained undiscovered the more faith is required to offset what was previously accepted as true.
You have to actually demonstrate that requirement, and not just claim it. Unsupported claim.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
These more primitive and unknown phenomena may at the time the theory is formulated be undiscovered.
This is almost incomprehensible. I had to read it three times to even guess. ( let me know if my guess is correct )

So, if I understand you correctly, they had a theory and they might not have been able to test it.

This has nothing to do with how faith is going to be used as a method to know anything.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
In order for the physical theory to be proven correct, the unknown evidence must be assumed or believed by faith.
Unfortunately, I reject relying on "unknown evidence" to prove that anything is correct. And you still have not explained how you use faith to get to knowledge or what you call " absolute truth".

You have not demonstrated how investigations require faith to start or to proceed logically.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
A classic example of this is the kinetic theory of gases, in which the pressure of a gas is explained as arising from the kinetic reactions of colliding molecules, the reality of which was established only later by the discovery of phenomena such as the Brownian fluctuations. Pythagoras couldn’t provide evidence of the truth, but used faith to help us his successors identify the flaws of a flat earth, and point to the absolute truth.
Pythagoras made a lucky untested hypothesis, perhaps, based on sound logic, but no real conclusive evidence. However, you haven't demonstrated how forming a hypothesis requires faith. There are geniuses like that.. Einstein was like that, and so was Newton. But not everything that these gents thought of have proven to be true of reality. We only know if they are true or not by getting some evidence. Proof does not require faith. Hypotheses do not require faith, either.

They both do require evidence and sound reasoning.

But... you were going to explain how proof or evidence somehow requires faith. You were going to explain how faith is used to know if something is true or not. And in fact, since you seem to think that the truth has to be absolute to be true at all.... you will have to demonstrate that absolutely( good luck with that requirement of yours )

You have not demonstrated how faith is an epistemic method, but merely how it can be used to spur some interest.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Presently unknown phenomena are believed to exists by faith, and thereby support physical theories.
You don't say how faith supports physical theories. But people believe all kinds of nonsense because they happen to use bad epistemic methodology. Most people never even consider that a method has to be used. Most people don't care about philosophy or sound reasoning. Most people just hold on to their beliefs for dear life.

Some people think that they will die if they were to let go for a second.
I'm here to tell you that it's OK.

You are perfectly safe.
Many atheists can attest to that.

But if you mean that people are rooting ( rah rah rah ) for some physical theories because of their faith, yeah people sure do support what it is they believe, alright. You are doing that right now. You have a belief in a god and some "absolute truth", and you are trying to promote that belief. However, you are having a bit of trouble with the logic and the data that would support the belief.

I keep having to reject most of your statements.

But coming back to how people believe things by faith in unknown phenomena.
Why is that a good thing?

We know that by way of history that they are most likely going to be wrong if they jump to the conclusion that what they have faith in is also true. Unsupported claims and beliefs are not reliable tests for truth. That's why science relies on facts, not opinion or beliefs.

REJECTED.

They aren't doing any investigations, they are on the sidelines cheering the actual investigators on.

Faith has to be rejected as an epistemic method.
( it might be a reason to cheer investigations on, though. Go team, go )

We get a lot of cheering for gods these days.
Cheering isn't demonstrating anything else than how people LIKE something. Cheering says nothing about the truth of what is being cheered for. People cheered Stalin and Hitler.

People cheer God, and you seem to be cheering on "absolute truth". But you haven't yet defined it meaningfully, nor have you come close to demonstrating that your pet hypothesis has any merit.

So,

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Physical theories help us arrive at absolute truth, when used in conjunction with subjective or relative reasoning, and sometimes both.
Completely unsupported claim.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
It is the combination of faith as outlined here, with subjective and relative reasoning as appropriate which leads us to the truth.
Completely unsupported claim.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
A lot of what we call true today, is not the truth.
You have not demonstrated a method by which we could tease those apart.
You state an very obvious irrelevance.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
In all honesty, I believe we only know a few things to be absolutely true.
Your honest belief about the absolute truth is not evidence for absolute truth, nor is it explaining how faith is to be used as an epistemic method.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
The remainder are a subjective acceptance of facts as presently known and understood.
Your subjective acceptance of facts is not evidence about reality.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Accepting a fact is different from accepting a statement of truth.
You don't say why. That's what I call an unsupported claim. You seem to be struggling with those words, too. As far as I know, "accepting a fact" is "accepting that something is true". We call "facts" propositions about reality that we think are "true".

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
We often sidestep faith because faith will not fit into a predefined box.
Then define it and tell us how to use it. You haven't.

REJECTED.
KingandPriest wrote:
Faith deals with unknown phenomena that we are to have confidence in without evidence.
"That we are to"

Who is ordering you to do that?
Unsupported, practically meaningless claim.

REJECTED.

"Faith deals with"

HOW does faith "deal" with it? You don't say.

REJECTED.

"Unknown phenomena"

How does one KNOW something that is UNKNOWN? If it's unknown, that's because you don't KNOW it.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Throughout history, anytime a truth or natural law is discovered, it has coincided with a certain level of faith on the part of the scientist, philosopher, or other renowned leader.
Coincidence is not a method.
Correlation is not causation.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
In summary, faith allows us to touch the un-evidenced, unknown areas of our existence.
If you can touch it, you have evidence.
Unsupported claim and contradictory.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
As you have implied, mankind is flawed and lacks the capacity to know anything with 100% conviction using subjective reasoning or relative reasoning. It is only by faith, we can break our limitations and venture into the unknown phenomena of perfection called truth.
It is ONLY by faith? Did you support that hypothesis? NO.
Unsupported claim.

REJECTED.

How can you know that you have "ventured into an unknown phenomenon" ?

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
You asked:
Do you REALLY think that a human ( in this case it seems to be YOU) can know ANYTHING that will ALWAYS ( and that means forever, for eternity... infinity here... absolute knowledge claim here... kinda godlike, if you ask me here... ) be true?
With subjective and relative reasoning only, the answer is no. Adding faith and the answer becomes yes, because it is with faith, we venture into the “godlike� realm you mentioned.
You claim to venture into a godlike realm.
Extremely vague, weird unsupported claim.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Furthermore, by your implication that to know a statement will ALWAYS be true (meaning forever, for eternity... infinity) is “godlike�, is exactly my point as to why the truth appears to come from a “godlike� figure.
What someone thinks might "appear" to be true might NOT be true.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
Since the truth is absolute, as defined above, it must be perfect in every way. Humans automatically associate anything which is perfect in everyway to be “godlike.�
You have NOT demonstrated that the truth is absolute, but merely STATED repeatedly that it is.

REJECTED.

Just because we LABEL a claim does not prove that the claim is true.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Reject the unknown[/center]
Throughout your last response, there were several sections you deemed a “FAIL� because you did not understand the point I attempted to explain.
Yes, that IS a huge problem with your style of writing.
I find it very often impenetrable.

But remember, that in that little exercise, I "failed" a comment for not moving the debate along. If I didn't understand something, I failed the comment.

I had to fail a lot of your comments for that.
Please try to be more clear in the future. Did you expect me to accept something that I don't even understand?

If I don't understand it, I have to reject, because I certainly can't accept it.

It would have been WAY more clear if you had framed your question AS a question concerning my motivation and method, but I was able to decipher your meaning ( I think ) .. if I got it right, that is.

Asking for clarification is

ACCEPTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
I do not understand the wisdom or logic here.
I like debates to move along. I can't have that if my opponent doesn't make himself clear.

Asking for clarification is perfectly acceptable so, that's

ACCEPTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
This seems to support my claim that subjective reasoning and relative reasoning is inadequate on its own to decipher truth.
If a claim is rejected because it is not understood, does that make the claim untrue?
No, of course not, and I would never even hint at that. When I don't understand a proposition, it is useless to me.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
An honest and rational person would admit he/she doesn’t have the information to make a decision (WIN or FAIL), and at a minimum ask additional questions before rendering final judgement.
You can re-read my intro to that post. I explained how and why I would mark it a win or a lose. I just reminded you above.

I won't repeat that exercise in this debate, though.. it was way too much work.
I was half way through doing it when I noticed how much time I had used.

But I thought... in for a penny, in for a pound.
And you did get some wins, you know.

Sometimes, I thought what you wrote moved the debate along.
I want some progress.. not just spinning our wheels.

Progress in a debate is a "win" for me, as I tried to explain before I used the technique.

Hope that clears it up.
Now, you can go back and try to figure out why I thought most of your comments didn't improve the debate.

I really do want to get on with it, you see.
But as you must have noticed by now.. I can't accept almost any of your comments. So, by my standards, this is a completely stalled debate. If you wanted to prove something.. you haven't.

If you wanted to prove that truth is absolute, you haven't.

I'm not even saying that truth isn't absolute ( I am not stuck using your failed definition, you know ) but I am saying that your statements are so unacceptable to me, that I can't begin to figure out how you are going to prove it.

You'd have to start fresh or something.

Get me to agree with your statements. It doesn't get you anywhere if I have to reject most of them.. really. But if I can't convince you, that's fine.
Believe what you will.

I think though that the readers might want to take all of my rejections into consideration when evaluating the merits of your claims.

KingandPriest wrote:
For some reason, you seem more intent on keeping your opinion and not seeking to understand what I mean when I say that truth is absolute.
FLAT OUT REJECTED.

I've tried to be very clear as to when I didn't understand something. Clarity is one of my primary goals. If I cannot be understood in a debate, what is the point of it? So, as soon as I don't fully understand something I ask for clarification.
Or at least I say I don't understand.. kind of an implied question.

But , your opinion on my intent isn't pertinent.
And as far as I know, you aren't a mind-reader, so knock it off.
It doesn't help your case, it hinders it.

And for your information, I am seeking nothing but to understand your poorly worded, poorly structured arguments.

KingandPriest wrote:
Please remember, my definition was twofold. If you don't understand the first portion, you cannot understand the second.
I forgot that those two are, you'd have to remind me.
I can't be hunting around on a post that I've already replied to for what you might or might not have written. It's hard enough right now to write this lengthy tome.

IF I missed something do please tell me what that is, and try to put it into words that are simpler to understand... If I miss what you mean, it's probably because you might not have expressed it in a way that I can understand.

But as I said, I usually indicate what I don't understand.
As I say, too much of your text is nearly impenetrable.. so that's a hint that you may want to rephrase something there. Otherwise, the point is lost.

MAKE YOUR POINTS CLEARLY

KingandPriest wrote:
To asses a claim as true or false based only on subjective reasoning and examination of facts will more often than not result in a Type I error. This error will create a statement of truth that needs to be revised at a future date when more information is discovered. Relative reasoning will lead to a Type II error where an individual will incorrectly retain a false statement as true. This is commonly known to be the more egregious error, and doesn’t help move us towards what is truth. For one reason or another, my opponent feels these errors, both Type I and Type II are acceptable when defining what is truth. In contrast, I hold neither of these errors are acceptable when seeking to determine truth.
I have no idea how that statement is relevant.
You have an opinion about my reasoning.. but you don't even explain how you got it.

Unsupported irrelevancy.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
[center]Christian Truth test[/center]
To ensure I am not making a generalization, when you ask a Christian or any theist, how do they know their claim is true, is subjective reasoning based on facts and reality sufficient?
When you ask a Christian for proof of what they believe, are you asking for subjective evidence, relative evidence or indisputable factual evidence?

I don't care.. I want some kind of reliable, testable evidence.
Give me your method.

You have still not yet done so.
Even though.. you had those section titles.

KingandPriest wrote:
If this evidence is indisputable factual evidence, wouldn't it qualify as an absolute truth?
If?

1. First of all.. YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE.
2. We would have to accept that the evidence IS indisputable factual evidence.
3. I still do not KNOW how to discern what you call "absolute truth".. that's your department. You were trying to PROVE that the truth is "absolute", remember?

Your statement comes close to being

ABSOLUTELY REJECTED.

( that's a joke, by the way, I try to never use the word "absolutely" seriously )

KingandPriest wrote:
(Reminder an absolute truth is a true statement that is absolute. The statement cannot be corrected, is unchangeable and immutable.)
USELESS TAUTOLOGY :

"An absolute truth is a true statement that is absolute."

What information have we gained by your reminder?
That an absolute truth is an absolute truth?

REMINDER REJECTED FOR BEING USELESS


KingandPriest wrote:
I venture to say, you would not accept a subjective statement based on facts and reality alone.
If something comports to reality, why would I reject it?
I don't reject reality.
Your venture is

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
You would continue to ask questions (testing for a truth that is absolute).
I don't demand "absolute" anything. You do.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
If the truth claim has any notion of falsehood, you reject the entire premise of the statement.
Wrong. I don't do that.
You're the one who wants to use "all or nothing" thinking. I do not.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
This action supports my claim that the truth must be absolute.
Well, since I try real hard not to ever engage in that action, it doesn't support it.

REJECTED.

KingandPriest wrote:
If you disagree, it is impossible for me to even begin to explain how a truth comes from God.
ACCEPTED.

I have rejected almost ALL of your unsupported claims. ( I might have missed a few )
So, I can't see how I could possibly just agree with you about them.

I can plainly see how it has been so far almost impossible for you to even begin to explain how a truth comes from God. You haven't demonstrated that truth can be "absolute".. that's just so full of holes.. it's like a sieve. You got reject after reject after reject.

If your task is impossible, now.. then why bother trying?
It seems like you are ready to give up.

You tried your best.

It's funny to me that a proposition that isn't comprehensibly expressed to non believers can be SO easily comprehended by a believer. Must take that "faith" right?
Well, oddly enough... I don't have that faith. Outsiders usually don't.

If you had a rock hard case, I would accept your logic, and if you had facts at all, I could accept your premises as true. You offer opinions as facts, which I cannot accept, and I find holes in almost every bit of reasoning you've offered.

I have to almost completely reject your reasoning so far. Do you have any idea how bad that is?

You are free to believe that the truth is absolute and that it comes from God.
But you have not demonstrated it.

Are you ready to concede that truth has not been demonstrated "absolute" in any way?
Or do you want to carry on?

( if you DO want to carry on, I say focus on what we have agreed upon, and try to build from there )



:)

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #15

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 14 by Blastcat]


Before I begin this final response, I want to point out a possible reason why you may have a difficult time understanding the points I have made thus far. Based on the way you have responded, it appears as though you read each sentence within a paragraph as a totally unique thought or theme. There are paragraphs where I present a claim, and provide evidence in the form of an example. In your response, you highlight the claim, and then suggest I have not provided any supporting evidence. Here is an example
KingandPriest wrote:
In order to understand what is truth, we have to look at the characteristics of truth. One can pose the question, can the truth contain both truth and falsehoods, and still be true? In other words, can the truth be only partially true? Can half-truths or partial truth be the truth? The answer to all of these questions is no.
Blastcat wrote:
You haven't said why.
Unsupported claims like that are really quite useless.
REJECTED.
The full paragraph provided the supporting evidence to show why half-truths or partial truths could not be the truth. Here is the paragraph in totality
In order to understand what is truth, we have to look at the characteristics of truth. One can pose the question, can the truth contain both truth and falsehoods, and still be true? In other words, can the truth be only partially true? Can half-truths or partial truth be the truth? The answer to all of these questions is no. Half-truths or partial truths are “deceptive statement that includes some element of truth.� (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth) In other words partial truths contain a variable, or statement which is true, but the deceptive variable negates the effect of the true statement.
In addition, I provided a clear formulaic example to show why a partial truth (less than 100% true) cannot be accepted as the truth. Components within the statement maybe true, but the overall statement will be false. See
If I say that X, Y, and Z are a part of the group T and that X, Y and Z are TRUE.. and Z turns out to NOT BE TRUE. Does it mean that X and Y are falsified? Does it mean that T is falsified?

T in this case would be the statement/claim we are told is true. When Z is found to be untrue, it falsifies T because the requirement for truth is no longer met. In order for T to be the truth, X, Y and Z must all be true. This is where a logical conclusion can be made that the truth is absolute. Any statement that we told is the truth, must be 100% true. There can be no partial truths within a true statement. If X, Y or Z is diminished in any way, T is no longer true. Remember, absolute is defined as “not qualified or diminished in any way; total.�
Blastcat wrote:In a debate:

One makes a claim and if that claim is challenged, one supports that claim with evidence, one doesn't merely repeat the claim. That's what you are doing here. You go from trying to explain what the truth means by way of trying to force us to accept claim about the truth.

So, no, I do not accept the way you define the truth (this absolute business) you would have to prove that, and not just assert it. over and over again.

You've done the assertion.. now prove it, or drop it.
The formulaic evidence I provided did prove my claim that the truth cannot be diminished in any way. If any falsehood is found within a claim, the entire claim cannot be true. This is proof of my all or nothing claim. I have not just restated the same thing over and over, but have presented logical evidence which appeared to be conveniently ignored. Please remember that sentences within a paragraph work together to communicate the point one is trying to get across. If you arbitrarily select a sentence, and ignore the remaining sentences, you will not understand the points I am trying to make.

--------
Just to confirm that I did not make up your acceptance of "correcting the truth",
KingandPriest wrote:
So far, I think your position on what is truth, has been defined as follows:
1. Truth is based on man's perspective, interpretation and acknowledgment of the facts, reality and data presently available.
2. When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, new data or changing reality we adjust what we call true.
3. We cannot 'correct the truth", but we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.
4. New data which allows us to change what we call the truth, can also falsify an old belief.
5. Truth can be relative, subjective or both, depending on what we are evaluating as true or false.
Blastcat wrote: That's pretty much right.
Nevertheless, you have retracted your acceptance of point #3, and only hold that we can change what we call true.

You asked,
If the truth is not an OBJECT how can we "interact" with it?... Please explain.
I didn't think this was difficult to understand. An idea is not a physical object, yet we interact with ideas all the time with the tool of communication. At a workplace, ideas are passed from person to person (interaction) and eventually manifested via a physical action by an individual. Emotions are also not objects, but we interact with people and their emotions on a daily basis. To interact is to have an effect or be effected by someone or something (feel free to check the definition). Since statements about the truth has an impact on our thought process, we effectively interact with truth.

You ask me what are my testing methods?
I then responded
Place the statement or truth through a myriad of tests and see if it remains unaffected. If something is independent, it will not be moved by circumstances.� These tests can be in the form of questions or a hypothetical change in circumstances. So the how depends on the statement.

Statements about the composition of sand in Hawaii will require different tests than statements about whether God is good. Different statements require different elements to be tested.


You asked
By what measure will we know when we have reached 100%?
We know a statement has reached 100% true when it is so specific that it cannot be altered. In the case of events which are yet to take place in the future, it is difficult to arrive at this absolute level, or 100% confidence. Past events are must easier, because we can articulate a statement with specific detail and make the statement immutable. A change in present circumstances or reality, will not change the truth.


BTW, I never accepted your definition of truth, that which we say comports to facts or reality. I wrote
In my responses, remember I am assuming your definition of what is truth to be correct.
To better understand your logic, I went along with your definition to ensure I at least had a grasp of your position. Rather than understanding my position, you seem to feel as though you have to accept it, before we can move on. I did not accept your definition, but I was able to gain an understanding of how you developed your position. You do not have to accept that truth is absolute, to understand how I arrive at that claim.

All I ask is for you to answer the question, can the truth contain any error at all, and still be true? If the answer is yes, then partial truths and half truths can be wholly accepted. If the answer is no, then my position of absolute truth can be understood, and we can move forward.


You wrote:
Your defense of tautologies in general is completely irrelevant. You should have defended how your particular use of your tautologies helped your case.
I believe I did explain how the use of a tautology with respect to logic helped my case. If you recall I used the example that we are told statement T. We do not know if statement T is true or false. We are told statement T is comprised of variables X, Y and Z. If X, Y and Z are all found to be true, then we can affirm statement T is true. If any variable, X, Y or Z is false, then statement T is false. Lest use an actual statement to verify. Statement T= Tomorrow, the sun will appear to rise in the East, and appear to set in the West. Let X=Tomorrow, Y= sun will appear to rise in the East and Z=appear to set in the West. If any of the variables are false, the entire statement is false. This supports an all or nothing understanding of truth.
We both agree that truth is a statement of probability."

IF the truth is a "statement of probability" it just cannot be a statement of an absolute.

You have just destroyed your own case.
Think about that one.
A statement of probability can be absolute. A probability of 100% is an absolute probability. When something has a 100% probability of occurring, it is by definition absolutely going to take place. Since it is so difficult to be 100% certain about anything, most rely on lower probabilities, but it doesn't mean a probability of 100% is impossible.

You also presented the statements of two middle school teachers to refute and reject the notion that Pythagoras was credited with being the first person to teach that the Earth was spherical.
KingandPriest wrote:



Pythagoras is credited with being the first person to teach that the Earth was spherical.


Something round isn't necessarily a sphere.
Aristotle gets the nod, not Pythagoras.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta ... ion54.html

So, your statement is

REJECTED.

This statement by the way was not my own, but taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras. You reject the statement about Pythagoras and use a website created by two middle school teachers who hold degrees in Veterinary medicine and psychology.
StarChild has been developed primarily by a duo of middle school teachers who generously volunteered their time and talents to making the StarChild site what it is. Here is a little more about them:

Joyce Dejoie (left) - Teaches 6th grade science and gifted math classes at Lakeside Middle School in Evans, GA. She holds a BA in psychology from UCLA and Master and Specialist in Education degrees from Augusta College (now Augusta State University).
Elizabeth "Libby" Truelove (right) - Teaches 8th grade science at Dickerson Middle School in Marietta, GA. She is also a veterinarian. She graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine in 1985. She received her teaching credentials from Paine College in 1998.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/team.html
If this is enough to reject the statement about Pythagoras, then any internet article can refute any statement made by anyone.

You also stated
You seem to be imagining that you would know when something cannot be corrected any more.
If you recall the beginning of my last post, I indicated we can only test statements/claims of truth. What I contend is that we can identify whether a statement can no longer be corrected. If a statement is so specific, it will be difficult if not impossible to correct. When I say correct a statement, I mean make it more accurate, and not just use synonyms or adjectives. If Person A asks Person B, how old are you? Person B can respond in many ways which provide a higher level of accuracy. Person B could respond, 40 years old, 40 years old and 6 months, 40 years old 6 months 2 days and 12 seconds. To make this statement true, Person B would have to either provide an endless statement or ask Person A to specify the question so the truth can be told. Person A can change the question to, how many years has it been since you were born? Now a simple answer can be given, 40 years, which is a completely true statement. It is that specific statement of truth, Person B’s age of 40 years, which is tested to deem whether it can be corrected any further.

Considering this was the final rebuttal before posting our closing arguments, I would like to tackle a segment of your response which I think clarifies why there is such a vast gulf between our positions. You wrote
Get me to agree with your statements. It doesn't get you anywhere if I have to reject most of them.. really. But if I can't convince you, that's fine.
Believe what you will.

I think though that the readers might want to take all of my rejections into consideration when evaluating the merits of your claims.
For one reason or another you equate understanding a claim, with acceptance. Just because you understand a claim or the logic supporting a claim does not mean you have to accept it. You argued that truth is that which comports to facts and reality. You also argued that subjective and or relative reasoning are viable methods for deciphering truth. After asking several questions, I believe I understood your argument and summarized your argument to confirm I understood your position. Just because I was able to understand your rationale does not mean I agreed or accepted your position. On the contrary, I actually found your position faulty and open to errors.

It was never my intent to “get you to agree.� The point of this debate was to present competing definitions of what is truth, and state why we believe our definition is valid. We came into this debate knowing that we disagreed and rejected each other’s definition. By rejecting claims, you did not understand in order to sway the minds of readers is a deceptive tactic. If your position is superior as you presume, it should be able to withstand what I wrote without interference. I argue that truth is absolute. I then argued that the absoluteness of truth appears perfect or unchangeable. This is reminiscent of godlike attributes just like you wrote, which is why I supported my first definition with a statement that truth comes from God. I explained where I found faults in your definition. Your definition is too easily penetrated. To contrast you state my explanation was “nearly impenetrable.� Since my explanation is impenetrable, it must be rejected because it is not subjective or relative. It is either all or nothing, which you reject as a possible definition for truth. Truth or false seems to be all or nothing.

I end here, and look forward to your closing argument to answer the question, what is truth?

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #16

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 15 by KingandPriest]
KingandPriest wrote:
All I ask is for you to answer the question, can the truth contain any error at all, and still be true?
What we CALL the truth usually contains errors.
That's life as a human being.

KingandPriest wrote:
If the answer is yes, then partial truths and half truths can be wholly accepted.
WHOLLY ACCEPT a partial truth?
Bad idea.
You might want to PARTIALLY accept a partial truth.
KingandPriest wrote:
A statement of probability can be absolute. A probability of 100% is an absolute probability.
Do we have 100% or do we PROBABLY have 100% ?

KingandPriest wrote:
but it doesn't mean a probability of 100% is impossible.

Are you changing your position to the truth merely being possibly absolute?

By the way:

Pythagoras, Socrates.. sorry my mistake.
I was tired, and the site said NASA...

KingandPriest wrote:
If a statement is so specific, it will be difficult if not impossible to correct.
The more specific we get about a proposition, the easier the proposition can be falsified.
General propositions are harder to falsify.

KingandPriest wrote:
When I say correct a statement, I mean make it more accurate, and not just use synonyms or adjectives.

More accuracy doesn't necessarily affect the truth value of a proposition.

KingandPriest wrote:
If Person A asks Person B, how old are you? Person B can respond in many ways which provide a higher level of accuracy. Person B could respond, 40 years old, 40 years old and 6 months, 40 years old 6 months 2 days and 12 seconds.
Milli seconds, NANO SECONDS.. and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on .......... and on.............

Ad infinitum, ad NAUSEUM, too.

Then nobody could ever be truthful about their age.. because the time could always be JUST a little more accurate.

All or nothing, right?


KingandPriest wrote:
For one reason or another you equate understanding a claim, with acceptance.

Not even close.

KingandPriest wrote:
I actually found your position faulty and open to errors.
Great.

KingandPriest wrote:
It was never my intent to “get you to agree.�

Great.

KingandPriest wrote:
The point of this debate was to present competing definitions of what is truth, and state why we believe our definition is valid. We came into this debate knowing that we disagreed and rejected each other’s definition.
I didn't.
I came in with an open mind.


KingandPriest wrote:
By rejecting claims, you did not understand in order to sway the minds of readers is a deceptive tactic.

That's silly.
If I don't understand something, I just can't accept it...
I'm not trying to DECEIVE anyone.

KingandPriest wrote:
If your position is superior as you presume, it should be able to withstand what I wrote without interference.
Interference.. ?
Are we playing foozball?

KingandPriest wrote:
I argue that truth is absolute.

You sure do.
Badly.

KingandPriest wrote:
I then argued that the absoluteness of truth appears perfect or unchangeable. This is reminiscent of godlike attributes just like you wrote, which is why I supported my first definition with a statement that truth comes from God.
Your "support" of your claims are nothing but more unsupported claims. It's turtle cards all the way down.

House of turtle cards.. but in your case.. non-existent turtle cards.

KingandPriest wrote:
I explained where I found faults in your definition. Your definition is too easily penetrated.
Oddly, I didn't feel that penetration.
Maybe it was a small one.
KingandPriest wrote:
To contrast you state my explanation was “nearly impenetrable.�
I meant I could hardly understand a word of it.

KingandPriest wrote:
Since my explanation is impenetrable, it must be rejected because it is not subjective or relative.
I can't accept what is incomprehensible to me.

KingandPriest wrote:
It is either all or nothing, which you reject as a possible definition for truth. Truth or false seems to be all or nothing.

I don't use all or nothing thinking. I stated that truth values are statements of probability. You agreed.

KingandPriest wrote:
I end here, and look forward to your closing argument to answer the question, what is truth?

Whatever it is, you haven't demonstrated that it's absolute, that's for sure.

I gave you my definition:



Truth is what conforms to reality.



:)

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #17

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 16 by Blastcat]

Blastcat presented his final argument as follows:
Blastcat wrote:I gave you my definition:

Truth is what conforms to reality.
The reliance on reality as the basis for truth is where Blastcat and I disagree the most. Since humans discern reality with their senses, this would make truth both subjective and relative. Blastcat and I both agree that when a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true. It is because of this, I contend truth must be absolute.

Furthermore, reality changes. Ask yourself, how can something that changes be what I use as the basis for truth? If a statement contains any component that is not true, we call that statement a partial or half-truth. This means, by definition we expect the truth to be 100% true. Lets say a statement is 99% true and 1% false, the 1% falsehood renders the entire statement no longer true, but partially or mostly true. In court, if you are called to the testify and speak a statement that is 75% true and 25% false, you can be arrested for perjury. Why, because you said something that was not true. It does not matter the degree of falsehood. So truth must be absolute.

Both Blastcat and I agree that statements claiming to be the truth are all statements of probability. These statements can range from 0% true (false), 1-99% true (partial truth) and 100% true (the truth). To say that truth does not have to be absolute means that 0-99% statements are completely true, which makes no sense. All components of a statement must be completely true, for the entire statement to be true.

To be 100% true seems to demand perfection. To be absolutely certain about anything one must be able to have the perfect perspective of all data (past, present and future). As Blastcat pointed out, this quality is pretty "godlike." I agree and therefore concluded that only a perfect being such as God could know the truth about anything. Truth needs to be supported in order to remain true. I hold, God is the only being who is not changed by any sequence of events, facts, reality, or circumstances. It is this requirement that makes God capable of substantiating truth.

Most non-theist will reject the second portion of my definition, but if truth is not absolute it is automatically relative and subjective. If truth is subjective, then every person has the right to define truth as they see fit, and anarchy will soon follow.

Though I understand the need to make decisions based on facts and reality, to define truth solely based on reality will result in a constant redefining of truth. I agree with Blastcat that we can change what we call true, but that does not change the actual truth. Either the truth is absolute or at the mercy of human consciousness. If truth is at the mercy of each person to decide, then truth really is in the eye of the beholder, and concepts such as universal truth cannot exist.

I close with my definition: b]Truth is absolute, and, Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God[/b]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #18

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 17 by KingandPriest]
!

[center]Truth has NOT been demonstrated to be "absolute". [/center]

Ok, all of this is going to sound very harsh.
I had to fail every BIT of your reasoning.. and your facts, when you do bother with them, are mostly all WRONG.

We went from debating about "What is the truth" to.." Is the truth absolute or not?"

So the main thrust of your argument was OFF TOPIC.. I just played along with you.. to see where you were going with this.

You didn't get anywhere at all.

We have merely documented your confusion.. I say copy this debate into a word processor.. because in the future, when you get better at debates.. you will be able to see how far you've come.

Because this is pretty much the bottom.
Look on the bright side.. you can only go up from here.

When it came to the actual TOPIC.. you simply agreed with my definition and we could have stopped right there. Then you added something like "Oh, by the way, the truth has got to be absolute or the truth is not true at all."

So, I say, keep trying:

KingandPriest wrote:
Blastcat presented his final argument as follows:
Blastcat wrote:I gave you my definition: Truth is what conforms to reality.
KingandPriest wrote:
The reliance on reality as the basis for truth is where Blastcat and I disagree the most.

When I entered into this debate, i left pretend at the door.
You just shot yourself in the foot again.

KingandPriest wrote:
Since humans discern reality with their senses, this would make truth both subjective and relative. Blastcat and I both agree that when a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true. It is because of this, I contend truth must be absolute.

When we abandon reality, we can pretend that anything we like.

You really don't have a handle on relative/subjective, do you?
You're going to have to tighten that up a bit... it's extremely sloppy.

It's best to either understand how others use philosophical terms, or figure out a way to describe your terms so they make some kind of sense.

I'm sorry, but yet again, your definition for terms just don't make any sense. I didn't mention this before because there was so much error in all of your other posts ... I didn't get around to that one.

I don't really know what you mean by relative or subjective and the way you want to use those words is incomprehensible. Yours talking gibberish. No philosopher could possibly accept your statement. It's LUDICROUSLY nonsensical.

And I really don't have much interest in trying to explain it all to you.
This is way above my pay grade.

The way you use the terms "relative" and "subjective" just seem like something that you want to compare to "absolute", but have NO idea what they are... I'm sorry.

There's nothing there.

Your argument seems to be "Oh, the truth can't be relative or subjective, so it's got to be absolute."

And that's a very poor excuse for an argument.

And it gets worse:

You seem to imagine that when we are discussing relative issues we can't have a relative kind of truth.

You seem to also imagine that when we are evaluating subjective ideas, that we can't arrive at a subjective truth.

But you haven't demonstrated that truth can't be relative or subjective, you just repeat that you don't like the idea of relative or subjective truth.

What if we are trying to evaluate something relative or subjective?
ANY IDEAS?

NO. You have NONE, because you don't know what it is you are trying to talk about.

Well... too bad if you don't like it or if it's not as absolute as you would like it to be... that's just too bad for you, but your likes or dislikes are NOT the issue
KingandPriest wrote:
Furthermore, reality changes.
Yes, reality changes.. it's not absolute. Our ideas about reality should keep up.
But you don't seem to care much about what is real.

You like.. what?
Pretend, instead?

If you don't rely on reality, then what the heck ARE you relying on?
DAYDREAMS?

As soon as someone tells me that he has little concern for reality, I lose INTEREST.
Go dream somewhere else.

I suggest the Holy Huddle portion of this web site.

Reality changes and what we call TRUE about reality also changes if we have a HEAD on our shoulders.

What someone like you calls ABSOLUTELY TRUE changes and that makes NO SENSE.

IF you aren't evaluating something in REALITY, that you ADMITTED changes, then what ARE you evaluating? Things that AREN'T REAL?

You make no sense.
By your own admission, you are evaluating things that aren't real.

I lose interest in pretend.
When someone trots out their pretend to me in a debate, they lost.
Instantly.

Holy Huddle room is your only hope with your argument.
Try it out there.

I bet they will love it.

KingandPriest wrote:
Ask yourself, how can something that changes be what I use as the basis for truth?
I think that it's time that you start asking yourself some questions.

If you insist that the truth can't change, then how can you base the truth on reality?
Reality changes. I change what I call "true" to adjust to the facts.

Meanwhile you probably will keep insisting that the truth cannot change at all in any way.
It's all a pack of lies unless..... you can have that absolute certainty.

Good luck with that.

Facts are facts.
You can base your "truth" on dreams if you insist.

I won't be listening to pretend.

I evaluate propositions that are at least CLAIMED to be real.. if they aren't even that..
Who cares?

I sure don't.

If you want to debate about something that you don't even bother to call REAL?
You wont debate long with a skeptic.

KingandPriest wrote:
If a statement contains any component that is not true, we call that statement a partial or half-truth.
The word "truth" is included in "half-truth" or "partial truth".
It's not "half of NOTHING" .

If you insist on this "all or nothing", you lost the debate.
I can't take you very seriously.

Here is a hint as to why:

ALL or NOTHING.

I can GUARANTEE that you don't know "all". So you must KNOW "nothing".

So, by that ridiculous measure, you know nothing about the truth, either.

And when you continue with this seriously flawed line of reasoning, you will just keep on losing.

By your own admission, UNLESS you know everything that there is to know about the truth, you know NOTHING about it.

And that is a RIDICULOUS idea.
KingandPriest wrote:
This means, by definition we expect the truth to be 100% true.
There is no "WE" in there.
That's you and you alone... "absolutely" alone, if you will.

You might be able to find people who agree with you somewhere else.
I sure don't.

Not ever CLOSE.

KingandPriest wrote:
Lets say a statement is 99% true and 1% false, the 1% falsehood renders the entire statement no longer true, but partially or mostly true.
You don't have to explain endlessly.. you did already, it didn't work, and it still doesn't.
I told you that I rejected the fallacious reasoning, and I still do.

You can't seem to get it through your head that I don't believe the truth to be ABSOLUTE, so it's no use to tell me that if something is only 99% true, that it's not true AT ALL...

Because I find the very idea RIDICULOUS.

KingandPriest wrote:
In court, if you are called to the testify and speak a statement that is 75% true and 25% false, you can be arrested for perjury. Why, because you said something that was not true. It does not matter the degree of falsehood. So truth must be absolute.
It comes to no surprise that you are talking out of your hat about legal requirements for evidence as well.. you get most of your facts completely wrong in this debate, and that is very annoying.

I tried to help you out.
I have lost patience.

So, since we are in COURT now.... let me introduce you to a little legalese:

it's called the concept of "Beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT".

Have you ever HEARD of that expression?
They use it in COURTS.

It does NOT demand 100% or absolute CERTAINTY....

"Generally, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

It would be better next time to do some FACT CHECKING before you write what you clearly don't know about.

It took me 5 seconds with Google to find that.. Oh, and by the way, courts insist on EVIDENCE.. not opinions.
KingandPriest wrote:
Both Blastcat and I agree that statements claiming to be the truth are all statements of probability.

These statements can range from 0% true (false), 1-99% true (partial truth) and 100% true (the truth). To say that truth does not have to be absolute means that 0-99% statements are completely true, which makes no sense. All components of a statement must be completely true, for the entire statement to be true.

Do you imagine that a reasonable person would COME CLOSE to saying that a 1% probability of something being true IS completely true? People usually say that it would be most probably false.

You don't understand the language you want to use NOR the math you want to use.

The higher the NUMBER.. the higher the probability.

99.9999999999 % true isn't PROBABLY true enough for you.
Too bad.

It's enough for me, and for most people.

Anything over 80% is pretty good for me. Ever passed a TEST before with only 80% of the answers correct ? I am NOT the one rejecting anything but 100%, you are. You are alone with your absolutes.

If you had it your way, most students would FAIL... 99.99999% of students would fail.
And that is RIDICULOUS.

Maybe you can try again next year.
This isn't going anywhere.

As to whether the truth has to be absolute, case dismissed.
As to if the truth has been DEMONSTRATED absolutely true. case dismissed for non sufficient evidence.

Your INSISTENCE is NOT evidence.

KingandPriest wrote:
To be 100% true seems to demand perfection.

Your opinion that it "seems to demand perfection" is NOT evidence that it actually does.
If you have no evidence, you have no case.

The only evidence you have is your OPINION.

KingandPriest wrote:
To be absolutely certain about anything one must be able to have the perfect perspective of all data (past, present and future).

You do not give us any reason that you know anything absolutely.
This is nothing but a tedious exercise in making claims without any EVIDENCE.

I AM SURE that you don't know the perfect perspective of all data (past, present and future), so stop claiming that you do.

You KNOW that the truth is absolute? ... Not by that standard, not by an almost INFINITE amount. By your own admission, you don't know ANYTHING about the truth.

Don't pretend now to lecture us on what it MUST BE.

You don't KNOW what it "must be". All YOU know is what you would LIKE it to be.
And I really couldn't be bothered with that.

Believe what you like.
Proving it is another matter altogether.

You didn't prove that your beliefs about the truth are TRUE.

KingandPriest wrote:
As Blastcat pointed out, this quality is pretty "godlike."

Are you imagining that because I call something " pretty godlike" that I have DEMONSTRATED that there is a god? ... If you are.. you are in serious trouble. I was merely agreeing with you that we have a LABEL that matches what you describe. I don't believe in any god... You have not demonstrated any god...

But I would agree that we have the "God" label. That's just a word.
Another word is "absolute". That's just a word, too.

A book or two about epistemology will set you straight.
Maybe some Wittgenstein. You don't seem to know how language works, either.
But your biggest hurdle is going to be how to think better than you do now.

For that.. a course in critical thinking would be VERY helpful to you.

I don't suspect for a minute that you are god, or that we have established that god happens to EXIST. I didn't enter this debate to entertain your fantasies, either.

You can believe anything that your little heart desires.
Proving what you believe is true is a whole other matter, my friend.

You are fooling yourself, perhaps, but not me.
I demand evidence and sound reasoning.

Not your desires, hopes and dreams.

I'm sure your dreams are nice.
I'm also quite certain ( not 100% ) that people in the Holy Huddle will appreciate your kind of ... talk.

I suggest you go huddle.
KingandPriest wrote:
I agree and therefore concluded that only a perfect being such as God could know the truth about anything.
You concluded wrong.
It's one thing to have no data, no evidence for anything, but your reasoning is invalid.

You could not be MORE wrong.

You lost this one very badly.
And I'm rather harsh about it, aren't I?

I'm not too good at cuddling in debates like this.
I'm a Blastcat, after all.

I've heard that Holy Huddlers are nicer.
I'd go there.. honestly, give them a try.

They wont MAKE demands for evidence.. just try it.. they will believe anything you say as long as it sounds Christian enough...

I say "go for it".
Because if you want to actually debate.. you have a lot of work ahead of you.
KingandPriest wrote:
Truth needs to be supported in order to remain true. I hold, God is the only being who is not changed by any sequence of events, facts, reality, or circumstances. It is this requirement that makes God capable of substantiating truth.

What you may "HOLD" isn't evidence.
I don't care what you believe, or hold or what your opinions about what the truth are. I demand evidence and you don't offer any.

You lose again.
AND AGAIN..

This is embarrassing.

KingandPriest wrote:
Most non-theist will reject the second portion of my definition, but if truth is not absolute it is automatically relative and subjective.
What's the point of bringing it up, if you know that non-theists can't accept it?
What a RIDICULOUS waste of time.
Did you FORGET that you were debating with an non-theist?

And by the way, your INCREDIBLY false dichotomy makes you wrong.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white


KingandPriest wrote:
If truth is subjective, then every person has the right to define truth as they see fit, and anarchy will soon follow.
Thanks for your spectacularly useless prediction of anarchy.

You abandon the use of evidence completely and now resort to warning.
And therefore, you don't demonstrate anything but your very own beliefs.

You have beliefs.. great.
But no valid argument.
KingandPriest wrote:
Though I understand the need to make decisions based on facts and reality, to define truth solely based on reality will result in a constant redefining of truth.
And since YOU need the truth to never change, you don't LIKE that what we consider true can change, do you? You want some truth to NEVER change... In fact, you seem to insist on it.

Your likes and dislikes are completely irrelevant to a debate.
I don't care what you believe, it's not evidence for what you want to prove.
You haven't proved ANYTHING about "the truth".

You have a problem with people who want to base their reasoning SOLELY on reality..
And you don't seem to have a problem with that statement.

I really cannot relate to someone who wants to abandon evidence AND reality in order to prove a point. And it might not be so bad if your reasoning wasn't full of logical fallacies.

This is pretty bad, KnP

There's a bright side to this.. at least you know where you stand.
You have two choices... either you start studying how to debate, how to make a sound argument, and the subject that you want to debate about, or you don't try to debate.

It's not for everyone.

KingandPriest wrote:
I agree with Blastcat that we can change what we call true, but that does not change the actual truth.
What a mess.
You don't even know how to use the word in a sentence without conflating two separate meanings of the word. You are UTTERLY confused about how to use terms. ONE SENTENCE, ONE MEANING is the rule.

I suggest that you learn about critical thinking.
You've utterly failed this debate because of your ignorance.

Maybe next time..
I got bored with this. I tried.. and it went nowhere.

But if you stick around, you will seem me explain bits of critical thinking here and there.. I talk about it ALL THE TIME.. and I give details.

But it's not all that hard.. just use Google and you will be flooded with info about it.
And that stuff will make your debates a LOT tougher to handle.

I can guarantee it..

You have not proved anything about the truth, you have merely demonstrated how confused you are about it. But maybe now... you will actually try to learn something about it. It's easily found on the Internet. And there are libraries, too. And schools.
KingandPriest wrote:
Either the truth is absolute or at the mercy of human consciousness. If truth is at the mercy of each person to decide, then truth really is in the eye of the beholder, and concepts such as universal truth cannot exist.
No, it's not either/or like that. You would have to DEMONSTRATE that it's either/or like that.

You are making ANOTHER false dichotomy, AGAIN proof that you really need to learn about critical thinking. You can start off by learning about logical fallacies:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


I urge you to learn about logical fallacies in order to AVOID making them.

Can you imagine the truth being at the mercy of human CONSCIOUSNESS? Where is the truth if it's not a human concept?

What are you talking about?

You're just too confused for me.

I am at my wit's end trying to help you untangle that mess.
I suggest that you read a few books about critical thinking and then if you really want to pursue what is the truth, epistemology.

You really need to.
Right now, you are hopelessly lost.
KingandPriest wrote:
I close with my definition: b]Truth is absolute, and, Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God[/b]

That last statement comes as no a surprise.
Most inept Christian debaters insert their conclusions RIGHT in the premises.

God is perfect, and the truth comes from God, so the truth must be perfect, too.
Well, you might believe it.

Do you also believe that you came close to winning this debate?

If you don't have any EVIDENCE to add, I am done with this.
Case dismissed.

Truth has NOT been demonstrated to be "absolute".

And the debate wasn't even about that.
The debate was supposed to be about what IS the truth..

Not just one characteristic.
But I realize that you are up to debating the nature of truth..
You don't seem to have a grasp of what the word means.

But it MUST be what you believe it to be, right?
It just must.. otherwise you might lose faith in God, and you wouldn't want THAT, now would you?

Starting with a conclusion and going backwards towards premises is doing logic backwards, and it usually ends in stupendously unsupported ad hoc premises.

It sounds to me like this.. "Truth has to be absolute, therefore it is".
I didn't find your reasoning sound at all.. and your language problems were spectacular.


Holy Huddle.. They will believe you.. no questions asked.


:)

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Reply to Response 2 by Blastcat

Post #19

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 18 by Blastcat]

I wont respond to most of your post because I agreed to follow a specific outline that we previously confirmed. Although you claim to not demand absolutes, you are able to "absolutely reject" my statements, and further say truth cannot be absolute. Since it is important for you to have the last word and show emotional discontent with what I wrote, feel free to continue to reject and dismiss what you do not understand.

Post Reply