Religion

[ShinyTomato]

Isn't it, though? nice to see you around!

 

In what sense?

Come on phil. How many arguments did I sit back and watch you and Nascha have? It is perfectly possible for two people to look at the same "evidence"and come to completely different conclusions.

[philpot123]

If one person is capable of only seeing in shades of red and one person in shades of green express the apple is the color they see, which is right?

 

From the point of view of the person who can see both, they're both right. But to each, the other is wrong.

 

That's kinda what's up here.

My inability to see the relevant characteristics of the apple doesn't change its nature, does it?

 

Come on phil. How many arguments did I sit back and watch you and Nascha have? It is perfectly possible for two people to look at the same "evidence"and come to completely different conclusions.

Right, obviously. That happens all the time. But I'm saying that the evidence represents an objective truth that doesn't change by virtue of my interpretation (or misinterpretation) of it through my subjective biases. And regardless of subjective biases, two contradictory "truths" STILL cannot both be objectively true.

[ShinyTomato]

And regardless of subjective biases, two contradictory "truths" STILL cannot both be objectively true.

 

Yes they can. Light is both a wave and a particle, something that is contradictory and yet still true.

[Awdz]

My inability to see the relevant characteristics of the apple doesn't change its nature, does it?

Nope, but since none of us are omniscient, how can you be sure anything you adhere to is an absolute truth? We only know relative truths (that we interpret based on what little evidence we have) and go on faith for the rest.

[prairiecrow]

Nope, but since none of us are omniscient, how can you be sure anything you adhere to is an absolute truth? We only know relative truths (that we interpret based on what little evidence we have) and go on faith for the rest.

Heck, look at it this way: If I asked my cat to describe her veterinarian, and then I asked the veterinarian's own dog to describe him, and then I asked random other pet patients to... well, you get the idea: they'd all give different answers, and none of them would pick up on the facts that he was good with numbers, enjoyed playing tennis, and ran an Internet forum or two.

 

Surely whatever Gods might exist are at least as far above us as we are above our companions animals, and if that's the case, then all of us have tiny fragments of the whole but none of us perceives enough (or clearly enough) to put together an accurate picture.

[philpot123]

Yes they can. Light is both a wave and a particle, something that is contradictory and yet still true.

That's a poor analogy to draw on. Light behaves both as a particle and as a wave, but those things are clearly not contradictory, or they could not coexist in the same "thing." Simply because we lack understanding of it doesn't mean it's contradictory.

 

Nope, but since none of us are omniscient, how can you be sure anything you adhere to is an absolute truth? We only know relative truths (that we interpret based on what little evidence we have) and go on faith for the rest.

I can justify absolute knowledge of truth within my worldview, but you and others won't accept the answer we'll just end up in another foundationalism discussion, and I don't recall that ever resolving well the last time I brought it up.

 

Heck, look at it this way: If I asked my cat to describe her veterinarian, and then I asked the veterinarian's own dog to describe him, and then I asked random other pet patients to... well, you get the idea: they'd all give different answers, and none of them would pick up on the facts that he was good with numbers, enjoyed playing tennis, and ran an Internet forum or two.

 

Surely whatever Gods might exist are at least as far above us as we are above our companions animals, and if that's the case, then all of us have tiny fragments of the whole but none of us perceives enough (or clearly enough) to put together an accurate picture.

 

But not having the whole picture does not necessitate contradictions. Everyone seems to be missing that. The fact that random pet patient gives X fact about the vet does not preclude the possibility that he plays tennis as well. The mere fact that we have limited knowledge does not give us license to attempt to justify logical contradictions. When Christians say that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, and it is by him and through him alone that one receives salvation, that either means that everyone who says otherwise is wrong, or that we are. There is no room for differing interpretations, views, and perspectives here. My statement either accurately reflects the nature of the supernatural or it does not.

[ShinyTomato]

That's a poor analogy to draw on. Light behaves both as a particle and as a wave, but those things are clearly not contradictory, or they could not coexist in the same "thing." Simply because we lack understanding of it doesn't mean it's contradictory.

 

Given the nature of the multiverse, it's technically impossible to say anything is contradictory. Which is my point.

 

But not having the whole picture does not necessitate contradictions. Everyone seems to be missing that. The fact that random pet patient gives X fact about the vet does not preclude the possibility that he plays tennis as well. The mere fact that we have limited knowledge does not give us license to attempt to justify logical contradictions. When Christians say that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, and it is by him and through him alone that one receives salvation, that either means that everyone who says otherwise is wrong, or that we are. There is no room for differing interpretations, views, and perspectives here. My statement either accurately reflects the nature of the supernatural or it does not.

 

Not really. That might be true for them, but it may not be true for someone else. If I say it's raining and you say it isn't doesn't mean both aren't true.

Edited October 19, 2013 by ShinyTomato

[Kestra15]

Having pondered on the last few pages, I kinda wanted to throw in a quick two cents worth.

 

I think 'truth' and 'fact' are two different aspects; a 'fact' is entirely objective, provable and tangible, which can be empirically proven. A 'truth' is a subjective world-view that is open to interpretation. Hence why we have the red/green apple; the subjective world-views of those two people are true in that the person on the red side can only see the red apple, and the person on the green side can only see the green apple, so their 'truths' are the apple is red and green respectively. The fact is that the apple is both.

 

And the apple analogy is a lovely, simple way of describing my view on God; God is so vast, so beyond understanding, that we as simple humans can only ever understand or see a single facet at a time. Hence why we all have faith in the same deity but come to different conclusions as to how to live our life; we have seen different facets.

[HeatherMarie]

philphot, you keep using the word "contradictory" to mean that if something is contradictory it CANNOT coexist and they both CANNOT be true.

 

dictionary.com:

contradictory

con·tra·dic·to·ry

[kon-truh-dik-tuh-ree] adjective, noun, plural con·tra·dic·to·ries.

adjective

1.

asserting the contrary or opposite; contradicting; inconsistent; logically opposite: contradictory statements.

2.

tending or inclined to contradict.

noun

3.

Logic. a proposition so related to a second that it is impossible for both to be true or both to be false.

 

Notice what I have bolded. Just because something *sounds* "inconsistent" or "logically opposite" or "contrary" to YOU, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS UNABLE TO BE TRUE.

 

ie, "Contradictory" DOES NOT equal "false" or "literally unable to coexist".

[ShinyTomato]

Okay doing this again to make it easier!

 

7 x 7 = 49

 

7 x 7 = 61

 

Both equations are factual and true. Go.

[philpot123]

Given the nature of the multiverse, it's technically impossible to say anything is contradictory. Which is my point.

 

 

 

Not really. That might be true for them, but it may not be true for someone else. If I say it's raining and you say it isn't doesn't mean both aren't true.

Multiverse? Really?

 

 

That's because the statement "it is raining" has an implied "it is raining in my current location." It is not an absolute universal statement.

 

And the apple analogy is a lovely, simple way of describing my view on God; God is so vast, so beyond understanding, that we as simple humans can only ever understand or see a single facet at a time. Hence why we all have faith in the same deity but come to different conclusions as to how to live our life; we have seen different facets.

That assumes a discontinuity of being within the deity, doesn't it?

 

ETA: That is to say, the apple can be both red and green because those things do not conflict, and can exist in the same fruit. But can your vast, transcendent deity be both just and unjust, faithful and unfaithful, good and evil, etc? Can opposing character traits exist in the same divine person?

 

I suppose that depends on what your conception/perception of the divine nature is, but the God I believe to be true is consistent and never differs from Himself. We know things to be true of Him, and though we do not know Him exhaustively because of our finitude, we know that His attributes are such that He cannot be other than what He is. That which we do not know of Him cannot contradict that which we do not know of Him.

Notice what I have bolded. Just because something *sounds* "inconsistent" or "logically opposite" or "contrary" to YOU, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS UNABLE TO BE TRUE.

You have entirely missed what I'm saying if you think that I'm saying things are untrue because they sound untrue to me.

 

 

 

 

As a side note to no one in particular, if I supported coerced standardized education, I would make Aristotelian logic a mandatory course to get a high school diploma.

Edited October 19, 2013 by philpot123

[TikindiDragon]

Multiverse? Really?

Scientific field of study in quantum physics as it happens. Allies to String Theory (see M-Theory). So not at all restricted to the realms of fiction, or ineligable as a hypothesis in an informed debate.

[philpot123]

Scientific field of study in quantum physics as it happens. Allies to String Theory (see M-Theory). So not at all restricted to the realms of fiction, or ineligable as a hypothesis in an informed debate.

Yeah, I'm aware of what it is. I just find it amusing that we have to introduce theoretical concepts as a rational justification for why we can be irrational.

[High Lord November]

I think what Phil's saying is that if he specifies that his is the only correct worldview and everyone else's is wrong, going strictly off of that black-and-white view it's either he is right or he is wrong. Like boolean logic? Either all the conditions he specifies exist or it is false.

 

In reality, parts of his view could be right and parts could be wrong, but I guess he's talking about that one instance of his personal view.

Edited October 19, 2013 by High Lord November

[ShinyTomato]

Yeah, I'm aware of what it is. I just find it amusing that we have to introduce theoretical concepts as a rational justification for why we can be irrational.

That's because the statement "it is raining" has an implied "it is raining in my current location." It is not an absolute universal statement.

 

But assumptions get you nowhere. Scientifically, factually, it is impossible to make an absolutely universal statement, hence the equations I offered.

[Alpha1]

Yes they can. Light is both a wave and a particle, something that is contradictory and yet still true.

 

We know from experiments that all matter has “wave-particle duality”, and it’s not contradictory as is evident from this image below. It’s not a wave or a particle; it’s a quantum particle.

 

 

But phil is talking about something that’s actually mutually exclusive, not a paradox.

 

Given the nature of the multiverse, it's technically impossible to say anything is contradictory. Which is my point.

 

In the context of religious discussion, people make a lot of claims. You can’t have both Oneness doctrine and the doctrine of Trinity being true. You can’t reconcile Christianity with a world without free will. Etc.

 

Okay doing this again to make it easier!

 

7 x 7 = 49

 

7 x 7 = 61

 

Both equations are factual and true. Go.

 

And 8 + 8 = 20 !!!

 

But what does that have to do with making claims that can’t be reconciled?

 

But assumptions get you nowhere.

 

If it’s an educated guess, I don’t see why not. Going back to the discussion on light, de Broglie made the assumption that nature didn’t single out light as the only thing with particle and wave-like properties, and he was right.

 

Scientifically, factually, it is impossible to make an absolutely universal statement, hence the equations I offered.

 

You just stated a universal statement ironically. You basically said, “All universal statements are false.”

 

You have entirely missed what I'm saying if you think that I'm saying things are untrue because they sound untrue to me.

 

Hey phil, I get what you’re saying.

 

[HeatherMarie]

That's because the statement "it is raining" has an implied "it is raining in my current location." It is not an absolute universal statement.

Says who? You? Who else? You can't just assume that *everyone* will know that "it is raining" REALLY means "it is raining at my current location". Go tell my 6 year old niece that it's raining. She'll say it's not. Because where *she* is, it's not. And it doesn't matter to her if it's raining where *you* are, your statement is still wrong because "it's raining" is *not* true where she is.

 

But can your vast, transcendent deity be both just and unjust, faithful and unfaithful, good and evil, etc?

 

Actually, yes. As someone actively learning about the Bible right now, I can say yes, whatever-diety CAN be BOTH. Jesus was accused of being a fake, unreal, unfaithful to the 'cause', because he helped people that everyone else scorned. God can be seen as evil for putting the whole thing in motion for his OWN SON to die on the cross.... and yet good because of what Jesus's death meant for mankind as a whole. These are NOT mutually exclusive. Someone CAN be both good and bad, faithful and unfaithful, because HUMANITY IS NOT STATIC. Person A only sees the evil someone has done, Person B only sees the good the person has done. They are *both* right.

 

Unless you want to get back into the "no one can contradict my view otherwise they are wrong" argument.

[ShinyTomato]

We know from experiments that all matter has “wave-particle duality”, and it’s not contradictory as is evident from this image below. user posted image It’s not a wave or a particle; it’s a quantum particle.

 

Actually, the nature of "quantum particles" are not completely accepted. Most have issues with the idea, and still consider it a contradictory duality. It's still considered a mystery.

 

You can’t have both Oneness doctrine and the doctrine of Trinity being true. You can’t reconcile Christianity with a world without free will. Etc.

 

You would be surprised. There is such a thing as the triune doctrine in some branches of Christianity, and the Infinite Determinism theology in others.

 

But what does that have to do with making claims that can’t be reconciled?

 

My point was they can't be reconciled from one perspective doesn't mean they cannot be reconciled.

 

You just stated a universal statement ironically. You basically said, “All universal statements are false.”

 

fine, it is currently impossible to scientifically prove any universal statement and to attempt to do so is folly.

 

Yeah, I'm aware of what it is. I just find it amusing that we have to introduce theoretical concepts as a rational justification for why we can be irrational.

 

Just because you think it's irrational doesn't mean everyone thinks it is. Frankly, I think black and white logic is irrational.

[Awdz]

Okay doing this again to make it easier!

 

7 x 7 = 49

 

7 x 7 = 61

 

Both equations are factual and true. Go.

Interesting use of base 8 versus base 10, and clearly exemplifies relative truth.

 

I think I am starting to get what philpot123 is getting at. Regardless of how it is expressed, there is only one number that is the total of seven times seven.

 

That said, none of us fully understands each other's (let alone God's) counting system, so we may be arguing until we are blue in the face about what is "true" and never agree. Those who would express the answer as 110001 might not even relate to the question as it is posed, saying that your premise assumes the impossible because to them seven is 111. Yet, even they would agree that 111 times 111 is greater than 1.

 

Some "universal truths" we are all likely to agree upon:

This world exists.

We are alive.

There's an awful lot that we do not know. ;-)

 

For the religion part, it really does come down to faith.

[MasterWeavile898]

Some "universal truths" we are all likely to agree upon:

This world exists.

We are alive.

There's an awful lot that we do not know. ;-)

Actually, lately I'm not totally convinced about any of these.

[KageSora]

Some "universal truths" we are all likely to agree upon:

This world exists.

We are alive.

What value of "alive" are we using? Same for "exists"?

 

There are those who hold to the idea that we exist in a simulation of sorts--which, if such a theory were true, would mean we're no more alive or existent than Sims.

[Awdz]

Actually, lately I'm not totally convinced about any of these.

You bring to mind the description for my dragon Eggzistenshallhissed (lineage so you can find her).

[MasterWeavile898]

I've actually been wondering lately if I'm dead or in a coma or something. Nothing feels real anymore. Sometimes I wonder if maybe I'm actually a figment in one of you all's dreams. This is added to by a recurring dream I've been having, it almost feels like a memory. It's all quite strange and a bit disconcerting.

[Awdz]

Getting back to the equations example, we each need SOME kind of reference upon which to base our interpretations of what we see. For me, belief in one absolute deity/creator with whom each person is in relationship (albeit some of those relationships may be dysfunctional) is my basis.

 

Heard a wonderful sermon today on the need to pray; without communication with God, how can anyone hope to have a healthy relationship with God? Because of my base of reference, that touched me in a significant way. I sorrow for those that do not know the kind of joy I find in connecting with God. That does not mean they are sad or can not find joy elsewhere, just that I wish for everyone to have the best possible experience and I do not know how they can find it elsewhere. My frame of reference at this point is not all-encompassing.

[Shienvien]

There are many things people can find joy in, let's not forget. I can confidently say that I find more joy in doing something I consider right and good and helpful to someone than I would ever find from a deity of some kind (whereas the existence of a god as often depicted would render everyone's existence quite marginal as I see it).