How can you believe yourself if you don't believe we can know absolute truth?
Why would we need to believe if we could know absolutely?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Nothing I said goes against that. Nothing I said goes for that either, it simply was not something I made a comment about. Whether or not we are finding that animals are closer to humans than we thought does not impose some sort of limitation on the potential for God's plan. Were you arguing with me just to argue?
I guess my question for you would be whether or not you need to believe that to feel special yourself. What if this wasn't the case. What if God either didn't have special plans for us or that he equally had plans for other life (and simply didn't share it with us). Would that offend you, insult you, make you feel worse, make you feel insignificant? Do you have to feel we are the center of the universe to be significant? If so then maybe you should be deriving your significance another way.
I don't agree I misquoted or misrepresented your statements. I certainly did not intend to do that.
You may not have intended it but you did. You left out the important word "absolute." Without that word my sentence is in fact misquoted (well mis represented since you failed to actually quote me at all, that is typically the reason you quote someone and then respond).
Based on your own philosophy you should logically distrust my words and your own words.
No, just yours Anyone who claims an absolute truth with the inability to confirm it is a questionable source. I don't make those claims, I never once said I know X as an absolute truth.
The point I'm making is that you claim we can not know absolute truth and then make categorical statements about what you believe to be true. How can you believe yourself if you don't believe we can know absolute truth?
Why play word games. The only categorical error is yours. You imply that I said I knew an absolute truth. Where did I ever use the description of anything I claimed as absolute. I didn't, hence me coming back to the important distinction between a truth and an absolute truth. You keep making the categorical error of blending the two. These are two different things with very different distinctions. I believe that we can't have an absolute truth as a human is a truth though far from absolute. I am open to that being incorrect. That's the difference between a truth and an absolute one. I can be pretty darn sure of a truth but I am not absolutely sure of it. Why? Because I cannot confirm it. Just like none of us can confirm the supernatural. So if we hold anything supernatural as an absolute truth it is arrogance and/or naivety since we cannot actually confirm it. It may in fact be an absolute truth though it may also just as likely not be since our information is so limited.
If you say your belief is less then absolute (which seems to be your position) then how much less?
Umm yes less, as in not absolute. All it has to be to be a truth and not an absolute truth is not something I hold absolutely. So it does not matter how much less because if it is less then it is not absolute. Whats with the word games, this seems more than obvious.
If you can not qualify your level of belief in truth then your belief is arbitrary and capricious.
lol, well give me the scale in which to qualify. I personally set a simple scale of absolute truth vs. truth. If you want to be more specific, like a 1-10 scale or something then go for it, I have never seen a universal scale like this used before so you would be inventing it.
If you can qualify your level of belief then there is no reason to believe we can not qualify some truths to the point of true knowledge - absolutely.
qualifying a level of believe by definition is simply setting the level. Just because you choose to set the level to absolute does not make it actually true. Many people have held absolute truths that were in fact incorrect. This is especially true for the supernatural (which is our context). Like someone else said, if it's an absolute truth then why would you need to believe it. Those are opposing ideas.
Note, this does not mean we can know all truth absolutely, but it does suggest there exists truth that we can know (and know we know) absolutely.
Just because you say it suggests so it doesn't make it so. In the supernatural realm there is no way we can confirm an absolute truth, period. If so then show me
For example, in the natural world we know absolutely that gravity exists under certain conditions in the universe. Pretending it does not exist will cause severe and possibly irreversible trauma to any philosophical purist who acts otherwise. No rational or sane person would deny this. Making a vacuous epistemological point about whether we "really" know this to be true is mental silliness. Their actions speak louder then their philosophy.
Right, wait... except people used to not know gravity existed and were just fine? Ohh yeah they had a different explanation for it Heck in our modern world view we didn't know what Gravity was until Einstein explained it. So before Einstein no one know what the truth of gravity was. If we then learn another detail that changes the "truth" of gravity then that will become our new truth. In any case you cannot confirm that our current view is the entire picture. We may even find that gravity is not what Einstein thought, even if it is shows the signs that Einstein predicted.
Just like people used to believe objects came to a point of rest because they wanted to, physics and gravity can explain the same situation in a different way.
Knowing our observations and details is not the same as knowing the absolute truth
In the world of the supernatural it is different, agreed, the warrant we have in some of these beliefs ultimately requires faith because we are biological entities.
Well at least we'll agree on that part lol. It is definitely magnified in the supernatural since we have no conclusive means for testing and/or confirming the supernatural. If we cannot confirm then an absolute truth would be ridiculously arrogant and naive. That'd be like me saying gravity was in fact because an object liked the Earth's smell and decided to get closer to it... no way to confirm it but I'll call it an absolute truth. (again we cannot even confirm all of our present ideas of gravity, but of course this is closer to an absolute truth than anything supernatural).
This does not mean we can not build soundly reasoned cases for our belief in absolute truth. Logically sound and plausible arguments can be made for the supernatural world - existence of God for example.
Not in absolute truth. Absolute truth in this case is a dellusion. It simply is as truth we see strong evidence for (based on what we are looking at). Absolute implies there is no other way, so you better be able to conclusively confirm it or you are being self delluded.
Will everyone believe, no, but that is irrelevant. Someone will be wrong and someone will be right regarding these fundamental truths.
More realistically both will be wrong and both will be right in different ways
Each of us has used reason and faith to believe in these positions. People do in fact bet there eternal lives on these beliefs. Again, actions speak louder then philosophy.
lol people are stupid and act stupid. We see this all the time. People do stupid thing based on beliefs over and over. Such as mass suicides... or all of the messiah cults we have these days. Just because people do something is never a good reason to believe they can confirm an absolute truth
Why would we need to believe if we could know absolutely?
We all hold many beliefs. Some claims we believe to be true. Other claims(this set is always much, much larger) we believe to be false. When the term belief is used a degree of confidence is implied. This degree of confidence, sometimes called the warrant, for a belief differs. A belief is knowledge, i.e. we know it, when our confidence reaches some level. This trigger level differs not because of some fundamental unknowablility. It is philosophical silliness to believe all things are unknowable. It differs because we differ in our biases and abilities. Just because, for example, someone may not understand a complex mathematical truth does not mean that someone else who does understand it does not know it to be true.
Nothing I said goes against that. Nothing I said goes for that either, it simply was not something I made a comment about. Whether or not we are finding that animals are closer to humans than we thought does not impose some sort of limitation on the potential for God's plan. Were you arguing with me just to argue?
Originally Posted by MattLangley
My point seemed pretty obvious, the more we study animals, the more of the traits we thought were human only are observed. Our arrogant line between us and animals is slowly blurring the more we learn.
Nothing I said implied any limitation on God's plan. You seem to think humans are arrogant for distinguishing between humans and chimps. It appears you were focusing on the similarities between humans and animals, and I was pointing out that there are still unambiguous and blaring differences. These differences do have theological and moral implications. This does not imply any arrogance on humanities part. The flow of the conversation on this point is clear and there for everyone to see.
I guess my question for you would be whether or not you need to believe that to feel special yourself. What if this wasn't the case. What if God either didn't have special plans for us or that he equally had plans for other life (and simply didn't share it with us). Would that offend you, insult you, make you feel worse, make you feel insignificant? Do you have to feel we are the center of the universe to be significant? If so then maybe you should be deriving your significance another way.
I don't understand why you would ask these questions. This is not the case so why does it matter. Ultimately my meaning and significance are derived from God. Why would you want to speculate? Are you seeking to argue about the implications?
You may not have intended it but you did. You left out the important word "absolute." Without that word my sentence is in fact misquoted (well mis represented since you failed to actually quote me at all, that is typically the reason you quote someone and then respond).
No, just yours Anyone who claims an absolute truth with the inability to confirm it is a questionable source. I don't make those claims, I never once said I know X as an absolute truth.
Why play word games. The only categorical error is yours. You imply that I said I knew an absolute truth. Where did I ever use the description of anything I claimed as absolute. I didn't, hence me coming back to the important distinction between a truth and an absolute truth. You keep making the categorical error of blending the two. These are two different things with very different distinctions. I believe that we can't have an absolute truth as a human is a truth though far from absolute. I am open to that being incorrect. That's the difference between a truth and an absolute one. I can be pretty darn sure of a truth but I am not absolutely sure of it. Why? Because I cannot confirm it. Just like none of us can confirm the supernatural. So if we hold anything supernatural as an absolute truth it is arrogance and/or naivety since we cannot actually confirm it. It may in fact be an absolute truth though it may also just as likely not be since our information is so limited.
...
Right, wait... except people used to not know gravity existed and were just fine? Ohh yeah they had a different explanation for it Heck in our modern world view we didn't know what Gravity was until Einstein explained it. So before Einstein no one know what the truth of gravity was. If we then learn another detail that changes the "truth" of gravity then that will become our new truth. In any case you cannot confirm that our current view is the entire picture. We may even find that gravity is not what Einstein thought, even if it is shows the signs that Einstein predicted.
No, I don't think I did misrepresent what you said. I think the problem is that you have not thought completely through the implications of your statements or what truth is. You hinge everything on what you seem to think is some profound difference between "truth" and "absolute truth". I will explain your errors, again.
Here is your reasoning
1) Absolute truth is a truth with absolute evidence.
2) Absolute evidence is not accessible to our minds.
3) Absolute truth can not be known by human minds.
First error, as I've pointed out many times, is that you are depending on the absolute truth that no absolute evidence can be known by humans in order to draw your conclusion. If 2) is true then we as humans can not conclude 3).
Second error, you define away the qualifier absolute by just claiming the bald premise(2) that we can not know things absolutely. You provide no evidence or reasoning for this universal qualification. We are just supposed to accept this based on your reasoning which we just showed was flawed.
Third error, you seem to lump all truth into the category of empirically detectable truth. This is an important category, for sure, but there are other truths which are simply logically absolutely true. The statement that either there is life after death or there is not is absolutely true. It is absolutely true that either an atheist is correct or not regarding the existence of the supernatural.
Fourth error, there are simple and easy counter examples to the claim we can not know absolute truth. There are self evident facts that are absolutely true, such as the fact that I can see I'm typing on this computer. This is an absolute truth. I know it to be the case.
Regarding absolute truths of the natural world, I will reiterate ...
Empirically testable truths such as gravity are 1) absolute truths, and 2) absolutely knowable by us via experimentation. It makes no difference if we did not know about it yesterday. It does not matter if we can not mathematically describe gravity at all times and in all conditions in the universe (such as at the singularity). These are red herrings when it comes to knowing here and now. Any attempt at claiming that we do not "absolutely" know gravity exists is a silly philosophical game. Our behavior belies our true knowledge here.
Regarding absolute truths of the supernatural world, I will reiterate ...
Our belief in these truths are not whimsical, unreasoned or irrational. They do not depend on floating or moving contexts. Ultimately supernatural absolute truths require faith, but we can be lead by reason and logic (experimentation is not available) to these truths. We as humans can be further strengthened by the Holy Spirit and Divine intervention.
Umm yes less, as in not absolute. All it has to be to be a truth and not an absolute truth is not something I hold absolutely. So it does not matter how much less because if it is less then it is not absolute. Whats with the word games, this seems more than obvious.
lol, well give me the scale in which to qualify. I personally set a simple scale of absolute truth vs. truth. If you want to be more specific, like a 1-10 scale or something then go for it, I have never seen a universal scale like this used before so you would be inventing it.
qualifying a level of believe by definition is simply setting the level. Just because you choose to set the level to absolute does not make it actually true. Many people have held absolute truths that were in fact incorrect. This is especially true for the supernatural (which is our context). Like someone else said, if it's an absolute truth then why would you need to believe it. Those are opposing ideas.
As I have pointed out, what matters is if we can know something to be true. It does not matter what the scale is. It does not matter that you have arbitrarily determined that you are the ultimate skeptic and therefore you self proclaim that no one can know absolute truth because you can't.
Just because you say it suggests so it doesn't make it so. In the supernatural realm there is no way we can confirm an absolute truth, period. If so then show me
Just because you make the absolute bald claim that I can not know something absolutely does not make it true either.
Just like people used to believe objects came to a point of rest because they wanted to, physics and gravity can explain the same situation in a different way.
No offense, but your statement does not make sense. We all still know the absolute truth called gravity.
Knowing our observations and details is not the same as knowing the absolute truth
How does it differ in the case of gravity?
Well at least we'll agree on that part lol. It is definitely magnified in the supernatural since we have no conclusive means for testing and/or confirming the supernatural. If we cannot confirm then an absolute truth would be ridiculously arrogant and naive. That'd be like me saying gravity was in fact because an object liked the Earth's smell and decided to get closer to it... no way to confirm it but I'll call it an absolute truth. (again we cannot even confirm all of our present ideas of gravity, but of course this is closer to an absolute truth than anything supernatural).
This is a poor analogy. Our faith does not exist in a vacuum. As I said the supernatural requires faith, but it is not a completely arbitrary faith. The faith can be supported and preceded by logic and reason. All faith based beliefs are not equally sound.
Not in absolute truth. Absolute truth in this case is a dellusion. It simply is as truth we see strong evidence for (based on what we are looking at). Absolute implies there is no other way, so you better be able to conclusively confirm it or you are being self delluded.
All faith based beliefs are not equally sound. For example, belief in a unicorn is irrational and could be classified as a delusion. Belief in a supernatural creator is not irrational and therefore not a delusion. A supernatural creator is an example of an absolute truth.
More realistically both will be wrong and both will be right in different ways
This makes no logical sense in the context of my statement. I think you are twisting my intent. The logical law of non-contradiction requires one of us to be correct.
lol people are stupid and act stupid. We see this all the time. People do stupid thing based on beliefs over and over. Such as mass suicides... or all of the messiah cults we have these days. Just because people do something is never a good reason to believe they can confirm an absolute truth
The existence of stupid people does not mean we can not know absolute truth. There are people who do not believe we landed on the moon. This does not mean we can not know we did land on the moon. Our actions, do in fact belie our philosophy.
We all hold many beliefs. Some claims we believe to be true. Other claims(this set is always much, much larger) we believe to be false. When the term belief is used a degree of confidence is implied. This degree of confidence, sometimes called the warrant, for a belief differs. A belief is knowledge, i.e. we know it, when our confidence reaches some level. This trigger level differs not because of some fundamental unknowablility. It is philosophical silliness to believe all things are unknowable. It differs because we differ in our biases and abilities. Just because, for example, someone may not understand a complex mathematical truth does not mean that someone else who does understand it does not know it to be true.
A degree of confidence that is not "absolute" would mean it's not an absolute truth known but a belief. You yourself are describing why beliefs aren't in reference to absolute truths known, since belief implies a less than absolute confidence towards a truth.
Btw no one has said all things are unknowable. Evaluating whether or not we can actually hold an absolute truth vs. knowing something is very different indeed. Don't blur those lines and put words in my (or other peoples mouth).
A degree of confidence that is not "absolute" would mean it's not an absolute truth known but a belief. You yourself are describing why beliefs aren't in reference to absolute truths known, since belief implies a less than absolute confidence towards a truth.
A known absolute truth is still a belief. The former is a subset of the latter.
Btw no one has said all things are unknowable. Evaluating whether or not we can actually hold an absolute truth vs. knowing something is very different indeed. Don't blur those lines and put words in my (or other peoples mouth).
I'm not putting words in anyones mouth.
Do you believe that no human can know an absolute truth?
When the term belief is used a degree of confidence is implied. This degree of confidence, sometimes called the warrant, for a belief differs. A belief is knowledge, i.e. we know it, when our confidence reaches some level.
I disagree. Knowledge is not belief held with a high level of confidence. No matter how high the level of confidence assigned to a belief, it is still a belief, not knowledge.
To know something requires a direct experience of the object of knowledge, or a demonstration of it based on empirical evidence or proof of it via a valid deduction from known premises.
None of those things demands belief.
My knowledge of something may be less than certain i.e. I can say of some things that they are probably or possibly true rather than certainly true. But I do not need to supplement that uncertainty with belief. I can simply say that I do not know for certain.
My belief in something may be more certain in some cases than knowledge, but my belief is not something I can demonstrate or prove logically. My level of confidence in a belief may be greater than my level of confidence in something I know imperfectly. But imperfect knowledge is still knowledge and confident belief is still belief.
There is no confidence level that transforms belief into knowledge.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
A known absolute truth is still a belief. The former is a subset of the latter.
I think glaudys answered this well, better than I could.
I'm not putting words in anyones mouth.
Well considering you are responding to a claim I never made what would you call it?
Do you believe that no human can know an absolute truth?
I believe no human can know whether or not a truth they hold is in fact an absolute truth. Like I've said (in quite a bit of details) someone can actually hold an absolute truth, it is beyond our ability to absolutely confirm it as an absolute truth though.
Me saying people cannot confirm if something is an absolute truth is not the same as saying people can't know anything. Very different statements.
Anyone who claims an absolute truth with the inability to confirm it is a questionable source. I don't make those claims, I never once said I know X as an absolute truth.
Linear Mode
