Generally I agree with Kal-el...
I have met many people, whom logic is within their grasp, but they avoid it. If I do not call them dumb, then I'd have to call myself smart, which I am reluctant to.

"Stupid is as stupid does" they say, so if one chooses to suspend logic for their belief, then indeed they are dumb for that instance.

You can throw them point after point. Why a certain Scheme (MLM,etc) is false, and they keep repeating "Look at the benefits!" Like as though how grand the "promise"/"claim" has anything to do with it's plausibility.

They are completely rational people, until the topic covers their belief. It happens to everybody, I've learned to struggle with my own beliefs.

I disagree.

Truth is indeed Absolute. As they say, if it is not absolute, then how can you absolutely say it isn't?

It's only our grasp of logic that may be incomplete.

We failed to realise that though our grasp of knowledge (perimeters of logic) is not absolute,
logic is still the best methodology/tool we use in making sense of the very reality we exist in.

We do it in our day to day lives, in our very thought process, not just scientist are doing it, even religious people are doing it, in fact in participating in this forum, we are all using it to convey our ideas, and to determine what ideas are acceptable and what are not.

Logic is the main method/tool we use, and it even encompasses all other methods of understanding. Even in belief we use logic.

Before we believe in someone or some idea, we always question, who they are, what are they claiming, how plausible the idea is. In otherwards, we use logic to differentiate plausible, from BS.

Belief without logic is simply Random choice.

Belief because the opposite is unacceptable, is denial. (Death of loved one, lost of job, etc)

Belief because we wish something to be, is wishful thinking. (Wants to own a private harem)

Belief because we feel strongly about something is delusion. (Thinks one can fly off the roof, if they believe hard enough.)


To say that logic cannot be utilized because we have limited knowledge, is to say 1 + 1 = 3 is acceptable, 1 + 1= 4 is also acceptable, because we have no way of knowing that it is indeed 100% false.

---

Added on October 12, 2010, 4:31 pmWhat about atheism do you object?

You object that people don't believe in God? Then what about the other religions?

You have a false understanding of the word atheism.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 12 2010, 04:35 PM

?? How can you say you're not saying there's no absolute truth, at the same time say, truth is not absolute?

Filling in the blanks for you,
so you're saying there exist some truth which are absolute and some truth which are not absolute?

Ironically, I took that saying from a theist.
Ok, in the scenario I mention, it may be possible.

But I assure you it's not so.

Truth does not change, only the angle that changes. it's like a crossword puzzle. Across, "S" spells super. Down "S" spells stupid. The truth does not change, only the conditions change.

For eg. Ali goes to the dentist, John goes to the dentist. Ali says it's pain, john says it's not.

Does this mean that truth differs? No. The truth is, Ali felt pain because he went for a tooth extraction, and the doctor did not use any relief medication. Whereas John simply went for a check up. It is one truth, one not so simple truth, which answer depends on the premise.

A 100 year old person, is old, depending on the definition of "old".This is the absolute truth. In the definition that Old, as in reaching the last 10% of the average lifespan of homosapiens on planet earth during the year 2010? Then the answer becomes clearer.

Can you think of anything else where truth is not absolute?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 2:56 pmI'm guilty, I bought a deck of tarrots there.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 3:01 pmFair enough,

You sound like a reasonable person.

I understand Kal-el's grief though, his probably frustrated, because most statements from theist get more and more "out of this world" so to speak.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 03:01 PM

Note what I mentioned:
You will have to redefine the statement in that case.

A 100 year old man is considered old, for the average human being, without consideration of the existence of a 1000 year old man. For the freak occurance of a 1000 year old man, 100 years is indeed not old. But for the rest 100 years is considered old.

This is the absolute truth. It's multi dimensional. The only reason we do not understand it, is because we do not know the premise: There is a man who is 1000 years old and the question was the relative age of the man compared to 100 year old man.


Does a 100 year old man, call a 99 year old man, old? Yes, because the premise, is a certain percentage of the average lifespan of human beings within his knowledge. This is the premise he used to answer the question.

As long as the premise remains the same, the truth will forever be the same. It is absolute. The only difference is a lack of knowledge, lack of premise.

A lack of knowledge, a lack of premise, does not change the truth, it only obscures it.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 4:54 pm

People tend to think of Truth as either having 1 answer, or is ever changing. But they are neither.

It is a single tree with numerous branches. Each never changing.

People who see things in black & white tend to think, that in an argument, definately 1 person is wrong.

People who see truth as being relative, accepts both parties in the argument as being true.

A person who sees the truth as being a fix conclusion to a combination of premises, will try to see what premises are missing, and what premises are applicable to our case, in order to make a decision.

Eg.

A goes down the road, and sees that the road is block.
A turns around and goes the otherway, along comes B.

B doesn't believe A and continues to go down the road.

If A and B were ppl who believe that there is only 1 truth, they'd think each other are idiots, and only themselves as being right.

If A and B thought that truth is relative, and let each other be, then heck, they may have missed out on something.

If A and B realise that truth is absolute, and that there is missing information between the 2 of them, then they might start discussing it.

A: I saw a tree fell over, you won't be able to pass.
B: Oh really? I think you mean that banyan tree at the curve?
A: Yes.
B: I guessed it. It was scheduled to be brought down. There is actually a detour, but not many people knows about it, it's down this way too.

Is truth absolute? Or limited to ones perception?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 5:04 pmok, another example with relative truth.

A, wishes to measure his house, he ask for some long measuring tape from his friend B.
B, takes his longest tailor's measuring tape.

A: "That's not long you dipstick."
B: "Yes it is, just look, you can extend it way beyond arms length."

Both of them are right, but the truth is not interchangeable. It is fixed, based on the premise.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 05:04 PM

Correction to your statement: "So in my definition of truth, my definition of absolute truth falls under a subset of my truth.

to which I have to agree, our definitions are different, that is why our conclusion is different.

What I am trying to say is that, truth overall is absolute, it is not 1 Dimensional like how many perceive it. If we do think in that way, then we are damn to think that anything is possible. Alas it is not true, and I see you do agree with me. 1 + 1 will forever remain as 2.

Back into context of our discussion. In my definition: Truth is absolute, therefore, if science explains something to be this way, and we have no other premise to say otherwise, then the most reasonable way to come to a conclusion is to conclude that 1 + 1 =2 and nothing else, until the premise has been updated.

We can't say. God exist relative to.... something.

The prob is, woo believers use "presupposition"

They first come with an answer (the moon is bright) then work their way back to an answer (there must be a moon goddess whose power makes the moon shine). Even though science has adequately explained the phenomena, and holes have been poked into their reasoning, they choose to believe it, and think that truth is subjective.

It is not!

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 18 2010, 09:43 AM

True, we have to question science, but in a scientific manner. And not, because the bible says that we came from Adam and Eve, etc etc.

Look at Galileo, the europeans at that time simply disbelieved and shunned him, simply because his idea (that the earth revolves around the sun) was against church belief.

About TOE, it was disbelieved for so long, but now even the papalcy has acknowledge it's plausibility, so why are people still denying it, based on their belief alone?

p.s. Actually there are still a bunch of people who can until today say that the world is flat, look up the flat earth society. Nothing in this world is certain, but how we derive our information is what ensures we are right most of the time.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 19 2010, 09:41 AM