Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Athias
HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.Why not? Why does the veracity of one's own mind not extend to one's thoughts?
The Mind is a logical necessity. HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.
All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.
Created:
-->
@blanks
I'm sure it's fully capable of revealing itself to meIt never has, though.There isn’t any liable evidence that proves that there is an existing god, so it can be assumed that there is no god.
Other than the logical necessity (NOUMENON) legendary (religious) gods are indistinguishable from non-existent gods.
My appeal to personal revelation is an argument against people trying to convert others to belief in their favorite fairy tale.
(IFF) your gods are so great and love me so much (THEN) they can speak to me directly.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.Seem is not an argument; it would be more like my saying, QUALIA = TRUTH; where as you're stating "non-pure" qualia and quanta = truth.
Pretty close. I'd say, Qualified Qualia = TRUTH.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?One can say only "true just for me."
Thanks for clearing that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You need more substantiation than that. You haven't necessarily created a sufficient explanation as to how belief excludes choice.
Can you stop believing in air?
Can you stop believing in water?
Can you "choose" to believe in Santa Claus?
Can you "choose" to believe in unicorns?
Can you "choose" to believe in space-aliens?
You're either CONVINCED or NOT.
Created:
-->
@blanks
If no living person has ever seen “god”, then there is no undeniable proof that it exists.
(IFF) The "YHWH" was able to send a personal message via a talking donkey (THEN) I'm sure it's fully capable of revealing itself to me, personally, if it wanted me to do (or not do) any particular thing.
You can't know if "no living person has ever seen gods".
What you CAN know is that you've never seen one for yourself.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
In other words,
(IFF) your claim is not provably-TRUE (AND) not provably-FALSE (THEN) it must necessarily be indistinguishable from (unfalsifiable) OPINION.
Three categories, (1) provably-TRUE, (2) provably-FALSE, and (3) unverifiable-unfalsifiable-OPINION.
Category (3) dwarfs the other two.
Created:
-->
@Athias
...because the mind exist with 100% certainty, thoughts by extension exist with 100% certainty.
Correct.
HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.
Some thoughts are "non-true", you know, like dreams and magic and make-believe and fairy-tales and religious-experiences.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Truth is determined by the subject; the subject is the primary agent in one's own experience; experience is shaped by perception.
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
What is truth, is all the remains after all that is false has been eliminated.
No.
If you only eliminate what is PROVABLY-FALSE, you end up with a giant pile of unfalsifiable OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
Belief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice".
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or NOT-do some particular thing.
You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
I can't stop believing in air.
I can't stop believing in water.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
For example,
I can't "choose" to believe in space-aliens.
I don't believe in any particular space-aliens (gods).
I do believe that some, non-specific space-aliens (gods) MIGHT be discovered at some point in the future.
If you ask me "is this or that specific space-alien (gods) logically possible?" - YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Belief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice"....it is you who choose not to believe God
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or not do some particular thing.
You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
I can't stop believing in air.
I can't stop believing in water.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
PFOA = a TEFLON byproduct
Finally DuPont reported its findings about PFOA to the EPA in 1991. By then, it had been in the water stream for decades. As Tennant predicted, DuPont had used a field near his property as a PFOA dumping ground since the ‘80s.
If PFOA so severely damaged Tennant’s cows, what was it doing to the local West Virginia population? How far had the PFOA traveled in the water supply? (Spoiler: Very far.) Scientists believe PFOA is likely contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, across multiple states.
PFOA contamination is now a global problem, as well. Though PFOA is no longer manufactured in the United States, China produces thousands of pounds of PFOA daily. Cases are sprouting in Australia. But there’s been a breakthrough. In May 2019, 180 countries agreed to ban the production and use of PFOA. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Athias
Thought itself exists as a logical necessity (NOUMENON).Your contention against the posit that the mind is self-evident is that it can't be tested with "100%" veracity.
This is 100% undeniable truth.
Now, you seem to be conflating mind-thought-truth-certainty.
Just because the mind exists with 100% certainty, DOES NOT mean that every single thought (perception) is true.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Are you suggesting you don't see the value of distinguishing truth from un-truth?I don't see "truth" as you do.
That seems important.
How do you see "truth"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.So are you saying an adult can't choose something for themselves that is not based on a childhood choice? I think this is a hasty generalization, thus pure fallacy.
(1) Do the "choices" you make as a child, affect the "choices" you make as an adult? (Y/N)
(2) Do the "choices" of care-takers affect the "choices" of their children? (Y/N)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not arguing for freedom of the will,
Ok, so no-free-will. Case closed.
I'm arguing that even though our wills are in bondage to sin,
Bondaged-will, I agree.
...in bondage to doing things that God has said is wrong, we CHOOSE to do them anyway.
We "choose" to be shackled? Do all prisoners "choose" to be shackled, or is this some sort of "special case"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
God or chance happenstance. That is our dividing line.
Does god have free-will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
History is replete with examples of where one people conquer another and when that happens the laws of the land change.
Exactly.
How do you declare this is unjust in some cases, but 100% justified in other cases? For example, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".Where is this the case, other than some dictator doing it and where the International Criminal Court condemns the dictator's actions as wrong?
Try this, [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Athias
If we can't make conclusions with 100% veracity then what exactly are we "verifying"? Our confidence?
Yes. SIGMA is a measure of justifiable confidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That is Piso's justice. Verbally right, but morally wrong. Seneca tells us that Piso condemned a man on circumstancial evidence for murder; but when the suspect was at the place of execution, the man supposed to have been murdered exclaimed, “Hold, hold! I am the man supposed to have been killed.” The centurion sent back the prisoner to Piso, and explained the case to him; whereupon Piso condemned all three to death, saying, “Fiat justitia.” The man condemned is to be executed because sentence of death has been passed upon him, and fiat justitia; the centurion is to be executed because he has disobeyed orders, and fiat justitia; the man supposed to have been murdered is to be executed because he has been the cause of death to two innocent men, and fiat justitia etsi coelum ruat.
Source: Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1894 [LINK]
Thanks for the link!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The mind-reader fallacy.To make this place as corrupt as DDO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Are you suggesting the death penalty is always justified?
Are you suggesting that war is always justified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".I explained some of the similarities and differences between the Ten Commandments and the man-made laws of the land.
But you neglected to specify an "objective" punishment.
Can you name a nation that does not have a law against murder?
Murder has been defined zillions of different ways throughout history.
Revenge killing was often not considered "murder".
Duels to the death were (until relatively recently) not considered "murder".
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".
Created:
-->
@Athias
The "significance" is that some things are (intersubjectively) verifiable (REAL-TRUE-FACTS) and the rest is PURE QUALIA.So the significance in the distinction is the distinction itself? What does the distinction produce?
Are you suggesting you don't see the value of distinguishing truth from un-truth?
Created:
-->
@Athias
And what does one gain from the practical application of "truth"?
Escape from delusion.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That is a reasonable, INDUCTIVE conclusion that is untestable (unfalsifiable) and NOT a REAL-TRUE-FACT.Perhaps, but it's no less inductive than stating that every person who can think has a brain.
Hypothetical time-travel =/= neuroscience.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Please explain where I can find this "Physical Interpretation"....the Physical Interpretation (Quantum Entanglement, Non-Locality, and Coherence.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Good thing you don't have any of those pesky "objective moral principles"!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
wow this means nothing, another empty post!
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful critique!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Look, if you want to accuse someone, actually present the evidence.
[Or better yet, send them a private message.]
Claiming you have "indisputable evidence" without actually presenting any of it is, by definition, an appeal to ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.Why can't actions be based on both conditioned responses such as some feelings and desires that create pleasure [AND PAIN] as well as [*]choices[*] that lead to conditioned responses?
Every "choice" you make runs just like a perfectly logical computer program that god wrote when you were created with all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES at the beginning of time.
You can only make a "free" "choice" if you remove all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
And what evidence do you have of this happening?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.No, I gave examples yet I did not list the punishment of every nation for such crimes.
You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for another one of your naked appeals to ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
If I told you I knew the secret to the meaning of life and ultimate truth, but I refused to tell you exactly what it was, WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME?
Oh yeah, I know it.
TOTALLY.
Just trust me.
And if you don't believe me, YOU MUST BE A DIRTY COMMIE CANNIBAL!!
You can't go around telling people you "follow supercoolawesome objective eternal principles" and then REFUSE to provide a LIST.
How can you "follow" something if you don't know exactly what it is or exactly where it is?
The whole point of "objective principles" is to provide PRACTICAL REAL-WORLD-GUIDELINES that are NOT subject to OPINION.
Any "objective principle" would necessarily be OBVIOUS and easily identifiable to everyone everywhere. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Adding "church" to the forum description seems extremely "christiancentric".
I'd prefer something like "formal and informal world religions and cults (also including, but not limited to, animism, gnosticism, and atheism)".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
But no specific punishments for specific crimes?The specific crimes revolve around the Ten Commandments and our interactions with humanity and with God.
I got that part.
You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The native tribes within the land (the New World) were judged by Thog to be unholy and sinful and a bad influence on the European immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sure, children do all of these things.Does not the little child make a picture for their parents because it is thinking of them and wants to please them?
BUT DO THEY "CHOOSE" WHO THEY LOVE?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Isn't there some sort of "feeling" that you experience at some point BEFORE you actually "choose" to "sacrifice yourself" that may lead you to make that "choice"?Maybe. Remorse, guilt, or love, the feeling or conviction that the other person deserves your best.
(IFF) your actions are based on your feelings-and-desires (AND) you don't "choose" your feelings-and-desires (THEN) you don't "choose" your actions (you are a feelings-and-desires puppet).
Created:
-->
@Athias
Only RETROACTIVELY. How could you determine if it was "true" if you lived 10,000 years ago?But it doesn't change anything even when analyzed retrospectively. If I rely on my methods, logic, and "empirical verification" to determine the rules of "reality," then independent observation cannot determine truth.
Scientific verification determines REAL-TRUE-FACTS TAUTOLOGICALLY (by definition).
The consistency and reliability I posit the use logic of possesses is supposed to be transient and transcend chronological metrics. That is, no matter the time, the application of the my reliable standards would yield an identical result.
That is a reasonable, INDUCTIVE conclusion that is untestable (unfalsifiable) and NOT a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this "truth" has no value unless its observed?
This (and any other) "truth" has no "value" UNLESS it has some PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
Any "truth" that is unverified or unverifiable or unfalsifiable or undiscovered or secret is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FICTION.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
-->
@Athias
At which point, the OPINION instantly evaporates and is transformed into a REAL-TRUE-FACT.Doesn't change that it was an opinion. And if the truth coincides with the statement of opinion then the opinion was true, even in retrospect.
It is important because people often believe that "if someone makes a prediction that turns out to be true, they are more likely to make another prediction that turns out to be true". They tend to conflate that person with "a trusted source".
And this is one of the tactics of a con-artist.
If you don't know exactly HOW the person made a prediction that turned out to be accurate, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that their next guess is going to turn out to be accurate.
For example, in ancient Greece when Democrates demonstrated an ability to predict the weather, people thought he was a god and started asking for all kinds of non-weather related predictions.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It's empirical, but it certainly as of yet has not been "verified." Was it not subject to quite a few interpretations?
By "quite a few" do you mean exactly 2?
Created:
-->
@Athias
How do you know you like some flavors of ice-cream unless you've sampled 100% of all flavors of ice-cream?This analogy does not suffice. I wouldn't claim to like 80% or 90% or even make claims of 100% of all ice cream flavors. "Some" is a nebulous measure with which to begin. I could give you any number and it would suffice.
I'm not claiming 80% or 90% (in absolute terms) either.
Science only makes claims based on samples. Out of 10,000 experiments, 50.32245% of (american penny) coin-flips land tails-up.
This reliability is measured in SIGMA.
Anything less than 2 SIGMA should be considered suspect (for scientific purposes).
Created:
-->
@Athias
Step ONE, Make your AXIOMS explicit.Step TWO, Check your logic for internal coherence.Step THREE, Check your logic for practical efficacy.That's how you know if your AXIOMS are REAL-TRUE-FACTS.What is practical efficacy?
My primary use-case for logic is the ability to identify con-artists.
Created:
-->
@Athias
This argument essentially reduces to "the intrasubjective is not intersubjective; and the intersubjective is not intrasubjective."
100% correct.
Are you suggesting that the significance in creating a distinction between the two are your personal qualifications (e.g. "unintelligible nonsense")?
The "significance" is that some things are (intersubjectively) verifiable (REAL-TRUE-FACTS) and the rest is PURE QUALIA.
It's not "impossible" to communicate PURE QUALIA, but the potential for error (miscommunication/misunderstanding) is extremely high.
Created: