more science v religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:38 am

Using the word Truth to mean only that which is ultimately irrefutable is to make the word worthless.
But NO one is using the word 'Truth' to mean only 'that', which is ultimately irrefutable.

'What' IS ultimately irrefutable is expressed through and by the 'Truth' word.

Can you spot and SEE 'the DIFFERENCE'?
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:38 am There will never be a time when we have all available evidence about anything, and therefore the word Truth could not be applied to anything we know, of any level of certainty.
1. WHY do you just keep going over the EXACT SAME 'stuff' when I have ALREADY explained how 'that stuff' is UNNECESSARY or is UNWORKABLE? 'Evidence' on a lot of occasions is absolutely worthless. Whereas, 'proof' IS IRREFUTABLE.

2. Can you REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION here? Starting a sentence with the words, "There will NEVER be a time when ...", is CLAIMING that 'you', "yourself", have and hold 'that', which is ultimately IRREFUTABLE. Which you then go on to CLAIM that you REALLY can NOT know.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:10 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm Ah, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.
I'm sorry that "mind" does not meet with your approval.
What a completely stupid and useless claim here.

I have NEVER even thought, let alone suggested ANYWHERE, that 'mind' does not meet with my approval.

I suggest reading the ACTUAL words that I use, and ONLY them.

Do you have an IRREFUTABLE definition for the 'mind' word?

If yes, then what is 'it'?

But if no, then I suggest you refrain from using that word until you obtain one.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:10 pm Happily, in this case, it's role is peripheral, at best. "Mind-independently" is a common abbreviation used in such discussions as these, to describe how Objective Truth is independent of the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and opinions of any human (or any other intelligent being).
OF COURSE the 'mind' word when added with the 'independently' word is used to describe what you expressed here. Just like the 'closed-mindedness' words together are used to describe just how CLOSED one is to thee ACTUAL Truth of things. But, using the 'mind' word in that way does NOT mean that ANYONE is using the 'mind' word CORRECTLY.

Words NEED to be used together in a way that FITS IN, PERFECTLY, with what IS IRREFUTABLY ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, otherwise the Incorrect usage of words just leads to CONFUSION, as evidenced and PROVED True over the last few thousand years of human history, hitherto when this is being written.

Now, considering EACH and EVERY discussion about Objective Truth is done through thought, ideas, beliefs, or opinions, then it could be said and argued that if the definition of Objective Truth is 'that', which is 'independent-of-mind', then whatever is 'independent-of-mind' could, literally, NOT be discussed. Therefore, leading to ABSURDNESS, in the EXTREME.

It is just pure ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to think or believe that one could have a discussion about 'that', which is meant to be independent of 'mind', discussion, or thought.

The STUPIDITY of 'discussing' what is independent of discussion, speaks for itself.

If one wants to discuss about and refer to things that existed prior to when human beings were created, through evolution, like the Universe, the sun, and the earth, or things that could and do exist without human beings, then so be it. But 'trying to' discuss what is claimed to be independent of thought and discussion is just IDIOTIC. Well from my perspective anyway.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am But I did NOT want to say 'that'.

WHY did you ASSUME that 'that' is what I wanted to say?
I'm sorry if I erred. I wasn't assuming anything, but only trying to understand your words and your position. My best guess as to your intended meaning was as I described. Happily, you are here to correct my misapprehensions.[/quote]

INSTEAD of making guesses, which are just more or less ASSUMPTIONS anyway, why do you not just ask me questions FIRST, to obtain CLARITY?

Instead of 'best guessing' what I mean\ I suggest you just ask me what I mean.

Now, to me 'Truth' just refers to 'that', which is IRREFUTABLE, or Objective, which, by the way, has NOTHING AT ALL necessarily to do with 'that', which is independent of thought.

To me, Objectivity is reached and achieved through a certain or particular process.

To me, Objectivity is NOT some 'thing', which is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:10 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am And, if you REALLY WANTED to KNOW what I meant by A, or ANY, word, then why not just pose a question, for clarification. Like, for example;
When you use the 'Truth' word, then what do you mean, or are referring to, EXACTLY?
I thought I had done exactly that...?
You may well have. But when I answered your question, you THEN made a guess, or assumption.

I suggest NEVER making ANY assumptions/guesses EVER, and instead just ask questions, for clarity, until CLARIFICATION is made.

That way you will NEVER make ANY misapprehensions, which would need to be corrected.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:39 am To me, anyway, it is VERY MISLEADING to describe your best guesses, assumptions, and/or theories as being 'true' or being 'the truth'.

There is ONLY One Truth, and that is the One, which is IRREFUTABLE. ALL other so-called 'truths' are just what 'you', human beings, think, assume, or believe is true.

And, if what is claimed could be REFUTED, one day, then WHY even bother expressing 'it' as being 'true' or 'a truth'?
So we are in agreement, on this point, at least. 👍 [Except, perhaps, for your concept of the "One Truth", which I am still unclear about. 🤔]
'One Truth' does NOT mean that there is, literally, ONLY one Truth, ALONE.

The phrase or term 'One Truth' just refers to the Fact that there could NOT be MANY DIFFERENT 'Truths' about One 'thing'.

Sure there could be MANY DIFFERENT versions, or 'truths', about One 'thing', but they ALL could NOT be thee One and ONLY actual IRREFUTABLE Truth.

For example, during a game of tennis a tennis ball is struck, which lands on a court that has painted lines on it. Now, if there is a crowd of people watching this, the ball might have APPEARED to land on the line, inside of the line, or outside of the line. MANY DIFFERENT people might then have and exclaim MANY DIFFERENT 'versions' of 'what happened'. With some saying, 'It is 'true', the ball landed inside of the line', 'It is 'true', the ball landed on the line', or "others" saying, 'It is 'true', the ball landed outside of the line'. Now, to EACH and EVERY one of these people, they are expressing what is 'true', to them, and/or 'from their perspective'. But, OBVIOUSLY, the ball could only have landed on One spot. There is, REALLY, ONLY One Truth. And, what that 'Truth' IS, EXACTLY, could be and would be IRREFUTABLE, FOREVER MORE.

Now, HOW thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things can be and IS obtained, is just another matter.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:17 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:33 am What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.
Oo, goody! 🙂 Many philosophers have been puzzled, over the millennia, about what Objective Truth is,
Why do you say here that MANY people, who are labeled as "philosophers", have been puzzled, over the millennia about what 'Objective Truth' is, yet above 'you' TOLD us what 'Objective Truth' is?

You said,
Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?

(Which, by the way, is ANOTHER example of 'a truth' and NOT necessarily 'the Truth'.)

So, WHY do you claim to KNOW what 'Objective Truth' is, yet also inform us that "Many philosophers have been puzzled as to what Objective Truth is"?
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:17 pm and now you have discovered it.
But you also 'discovered it', correct? After all you DID TELL us what 'Objective Truth' is.

Also, you wrote this as though discovering, or more correctly 'uncovering' what 'Objective Truth' REALLY IS, is AN IMPOSSIBILITY
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:17 pm Please tell us what it is, and how we might know that it is true, according to the criterion of Objectivity? Thanks.
1. What 'it' is, is ALWAYS dependent upon the one with the view, of 'it'.

2. This is NOT about how we MIGHT know that 'it' is true, but about HOW KNOWING, IRREFUTABLY FOR SURE, that 'it' IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

3. The criterion of Objectivity would have to be first KNOWN.

But anyway,

'Objective Truth' is just 'that', which is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one.

How 'Objective Truth' is obtained is just by KNOWING that EVERY one could agree with and accept 'that', which is being perceived/experienced, discussed, or thought about.

Now, BEFORE ANY one goes to use the "That is the ad populum fallacy" response, please go and look up what the 'ad populum fallacy' IS, EXACTLY.

Or, BEFORE ANY one wants to reply with, "But everyone could agree on something that is not true", please put more thought into that response.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:10 pm I'm sorry that "mind" does not meet with your approval.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:03 am What a completely stupid and useless claim here.

I have NEVER even thought, let alone suggested ANYWHERE, that 'mind' does not meet with my approval.
Then why did you write this:
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.
🤔🤔🤔


Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:03 am I suggest reading the ACTUAL words that I use, and ONLY them.
I'm autistic, my friend. What you describe is the way I use language to communicate, eschewing the lies and deceptions commonly employed by neurotypical people. You are preaching to the converted here. 😉
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:33 am What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:17 pm Oo, goody! 🙂 Many philosophers have been puzzled, over the millennia, about what Objective Truth is,
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:35 am Why do you say here that MANY people, who are labeled as "philosophers", have been puzzled, over the millennia about what 'Objective Truth' is, yet above 'you' TOLD us what 'Objective Truth' is?

You said,
Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?
I hope, when I wrote that, that I also pointed out the inaccessibility of Objective Reality — and thereby Objective Truth — to humans? The one and only Objective Truth that any human can knowingly possess is that Objective Reality exists, and that they are all or part of it. Beyond that, no knowledge of 'that which actually is' is possible, for a human.

If I did not express this clearly before, I apologise.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:17 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:10 pm I'm sorry that "mind" does not meet with your approval.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:03 am What a completely stupid and useless claim here.

I have NEVER even thought, let alone suggested ANYWHERE, that 'mind' does not meet with my approval.
Then why did you write this:
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:05 am If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.
🤔🤔🤔
I wrote 'this', and the 'previous', because they are TWO VERY COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY things, with TWO VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

See, one refers to 'the definition' of 'mind', while the other just refers to 'mind', ONLY.

SO, I have NEVER even once thought, let alone once suggested absolutely ANYWHERE, that 'mind', itself, does not meet with my approval.

But I found that 'the definition' of 'mind', which is used by 'you', human beings, does NOT fit in with what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True.

Also, and by the way, as for 'my approval' or not, this has absolutely NO bearing on absolutely ANY thing here.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:17 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:03 am I suggest reading the ACTUAL words that I use, and ONLY them.
I'm autistic, my friend. What you describe is the way I use language to communicate, eschewing the lies and deceptions commonly employed by neurotypical people. You are preaching to the converted here. 😉
From my perspective there is NO ACTUAL 'neurotypical' as EVERY human being is 'autistic' in some degree or another.

And, from what i have observed in this forum, with my complete lack of ability to be understood, i still appear to be the MOST autistic one here.

What I ACTUALLY say and write seems to get OVERLOOKED, and instead some judgement or assumption seems to get usually made, instead.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

I just read this link fully "pattern-chaser". Was this from your own words?

This is the closest explanation, so far, I have seen for my lack of communicating, properly, with 'you', human beings.

Thank you for providing this link. This will come in extremely helpful, later on.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:26 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:33 am What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:17 pm Oo, goody! 🙂 Many philosophers have been puzzled, over the millennia, about what Objective Truth is,
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:35 am Why do you say here that MANY people, who are labeled as "philosophers", have been puzzled, over the millennia about what 'Objective Truth' is, yet above 'you' TOLD us what 'Objective Truth' is?

You said,
Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?
I hope, when I wrote that, that I also pointed out the inaccessibility of Objective Reality — and thereby Objective Truth — to humans?
Yes you have.

Which, by the way, was expressed and pointed out as though 'it', itself, was an Objective Truth.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:26 pm The one and only Objective Truth that any human can knowingly possess is that Objective Reality exists, and that they are all or part of it. Beyond that, no knowledge of 'that which actually is' is possible, for a human.
Here, AGAIN, is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER view being expressed as though it is an IRREFUTABLE True. Which, some might claim, is also Objectively True, or an Objective Truth.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:26 pm If I did not express this clearly before, I apologise.
You made this VERY CLEAR, before.

AND, I have, if this is NOT YET CLEAR, ALREADY POINTED OUT the CONTRADICTORY nature of that claim. When one 'tries' to' CLAIM that thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, or Objective Truth, of things can NEVER be known, they do not seem to NOTICE that 'this', itself, is a CLAIM made as though 'it', itself, is thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, or is the Objective Truth.

See, that CLAIM is EITHER:

An Objective Truth. Or,

Just ones OWN thoughts, views, beliefs, or opinions.

So, according to and following your OWN "logic" here, which one is it, EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, you appear to have completely and utterly MISSED the WHOLE POINT that I was making in that quoted part above.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:32 pm From my perspective there is NO ACTUAL 'neurotypical' as EVERY human being is 'autistic' in some degree or another.

And, from what i have observed in this forum, with my complete lack of ability to be understood, i still appear to be the MOST autistic one here.
Please stop there, and don't start again. You obviously have no idea of what autism is, and this is not the right topic, or maybe forum, to enlighten you. Thank you. 👍
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:41 pm I just read this link fully "pattern-chaser". Was this from your own words?
It wasn't plagiarised from someone else, no. The words are mine alone.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:32 pm From my perspective there is NO ACTUAL 'neurotypical' as EVERY human being is 'autistic' in some degree or another.

And, from what i have observed in this forum, with my complete lack of ability to be understood, i still appear to be the MOST autistic one here.
Please stop there, and don't start again.
Do NOT tell me what to do or what NOT to do.

What does the word 'neurotypical' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, name one human being who is so-called 'neurotypical', if you ABLE TO, that is.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm You obviously have no idea of what autism is,
Okay.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm and this is not the right topic, or maybe forum, to enlighten you. Thank you. 👍
Or, maybe you are just NOT ABLE TO, and are now just 'trying to' DEFLECT.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:57 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:41 pm I just read this link fully "pattern-chaser". Was this from your own words?
It wasn't plagiarised from someone else, no. The words are mine alone.
Okay, they are good, and, as I was saying, the closest I have seen, so far.

Now, would you like to get back to explaining how it could even be a POSSIBILITY that a human being could 'LOGICALLY' make the CLAIM, for example, that the Truth could NEVER be known by ANY human being, forever more?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Obviously 'you' MUST ALREADY HAVE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for this CLAIM correct?

If no, then WHY make A CLAIM, which you are NOT even ABLE TO back up and support, in the beginning?
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:32 pm From my perspective there is NO ACTUAL 'neurotypical' as EVERY human being is 'autistic' in some degree or another.

And, from what i have observed in this forum, with my complete lack of ability to be understood, i still appear to be the MOST autistic one here.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm Please stop there, and don't start again.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:54 am Do NOT tell me what to do or what NOT to do.
A request is customarily begun with "Please"; an instruction takes an imperative form.



As to your "complete lack of ability to be understood" here, I think there are more obvious possibilities. Let's bear in mind that I'm a new arrival here, and really don't know you at all. But, from our brief conversation here, several possibilities occur to me:
  • You SHOUT a lot, instead of emphasising your words, strongly or more gently.
  • Sometimes your non-standard punctuation and capitalisation combine to make your intended meaning less clear.
  • You seem to rant, accuse and assert, with little courtesy, discussion, or inquiry.
  • You seem to demand absolute and all-embracing definitions, when such precision is impossible, and maybe inappropriate or unnecessary.
I offer these suggestions in response to your complaint; I assert nothing. Like I said, I barely know you, and could be completely mistaken.


Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm You obviously have no idea of what autism is, and this is not the right topic, or maybe forum, to enlighten you. Thank you. 👍
Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:54 am Or, maybe you are just NOT ABLE TO, and are now just 'trying to' DEFLECT.
If you like to think so, then perhaps it is so. Autism is very difficult to describe in a meaningful and useful way, so perhaps you're right.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:58 am Now, would you like to get back to explaining how it could even be a POSSIBILITY that a human being could 'LOGICALLY' make the CLAIM, for example, that the Truth could NEVER be known by ANY human being, forever more?
Just as we cannot fly (under our own power) because we don't have wings, so knowing access to Objective Reality is denied to us because our senses/perception/etc are insufficient to that need. Until we grow wings, and gain 'Gods-eye-view' perception, both of these things will remain true. I think that will be "forever more".
Post Reply