The Religion Debate Thread

[Meh]

And at the current point it science's quest for order it has proven that all is chaos.

Ironic.

I still don't belive in punchlines as big as that one without an author to go behind it.

[kroner]

@David

Let me phrase my question differently, because the spirit within which I wrote it is not being taken: Is meaningful true objectivity available to us, beyond the basic assumptions required to understand the question of objectivity.

I'd agree with Meh on this one. There's very little that you can really know. Nothing meaningful, besides being able to confirm the general existence of something or other that is your world, whatever it may be.

@the other David

@Der Zauberer - The word "is" represents human pride, the limitation of language, and lazy speech and typing. This will make it easy for others to understand where I'm coming from. If 2 = 2 then 2 is 2. True? No. False. The 2 on the left is NOT the 2 on the right. They are similar but since they exist seperately they are not each other. Most of the time "is" at best means equals. Most of the time it merely means ~ (equivelant). Saying "Sammi has the equivelant of a nice day" is too many words (besides being inaccruate most of the time). In programming there is a difference between = (points to the exact same thing) and == (equals). I think I got that right. Oh well Sho will correct me. Comprehension of realty is only possible via programming concepts.

Der Zauberer was more referring to the intransitive form of to be, i think. When you say "this thing is this other thing.", then you're making a comparison and all that, imposing human interpretation and you lose objectivity, true. but when you say "something is." that's absolute. any statement in that form is either true or not in the most objective sense.

[Meh]

Truth and Falsenesseress or whatever. Those are things we made up and got machines to do really well. All those 1s and 0s are really just mostly more 1 than 0 within a given range of inprecision. This is why it is difficult to getthe analog concepts of the world into digtalness or find truth.

The short: The only Truth is estimatation at best.

"No. You see these are where the experiments were grand in their subtly (sp?). The mice running the wrong way down the maze. Eating the wrong bit of cheese. Suddenly dying of miximitosis. Quite intelligent pan-dimensional creartures these mice. The humans never had a clue that the earth was bought and paid for by the mice. And made here to thier exacting specifications. The destruction of the earth was horbile. The mice were furious. Now we are making the earth mark II. I've been assigned Africa this time. Of course I wanted to do it all in fjords. You know I was an award for fjords. But, no. Fjords are apprently not equatorial enough."

[kroner]

Whether you think it's true or false is an estimation, but your estimation is either right or it's wrong, even if in most cases you will never know which. The truth is out there even if it's usually unattainable.

[Der Zauberer]

@the other David

@Der Zauberer - The word "is" represents human pride, the limitation of language, and lazy speech and typing. This will make it easy for others to understand where I'm coming from. If 2 = 2 then 2 is 2. True? No. False. The 2 on the left is NOT the 2 on the right. They are similar but since they exist seperately they are not each other. Most of the time "is" at best means equals. Most of the time it merely means ~ (equivelant). Saying "Sammi has the equivelant of a nice day" is too many words (besides being inaccruate most of the time). In programming there is a difference between = (points to the exact same thing) and == (equals). I think I got that right. Oh well Sho will correct me. Comprehension of realty is only possible via programming concepts.

Der Zauberer was more referring to the intransitive form of to be, i think. When you say "this thing is this other thing.", then you're making a comparison and all that, imposing human interpretation and you lose objectivity, true. but when you say "something is." that's absolute. any statement in that form is either true or not in the most objective sense.

That's right. I was saying that the very fact of someone's arguing about something's state of existence indicates that the debater, at least, believes in the existence of absolute truth. I don't understand why one should say that absolute truth does not exist, when that very declaration indicates his or her belief in a specific state of existence (or, in this case, nonexistence) for the concept in question.

"There is no Truth"

And with what facts does one support that particular "truth" that can't really be a truth or else it's a lie?

It's actually very closely related to a classical paradox you might have heard of: "I cannot tell the truth," or, "I only lie"
If the person is telling the truth, then he is lying because he says he can't; if he is lying, then he is telling the truth because he is confirming what he said.

Same thing with saying there is no truth:
If there is a truth, then you are simply wrong; if there really is no truth, then you are telling the truth when you say there is no truth. But since there is no truth, you can't be telling it, so what you are saying must be wrong.

That's why the only way to logically deny the existence of Truth when talking about whether it exists or not is to not talk at all.
Which isnt very constructive or interesting

Now, this of course says nothing about whether anyone actually knows the Truth or not. Kroner says it can't be known, and I think much of it can.
But it is fairly clear that it exists independent of our understanding it.

[David]

Then again, things just may be, truth aside.