On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

If you had the entire truth

Nope.  You've contradicted yourself, Ed.  If truth is subjective and relative to the individual, how could there ever exist an entire truth, as entire would denote a perfect Absolute--an impossibility for a subjective, relative concept.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nope.  You've contradicted yourself, Ed.  If truth is subjective and relative to the individual, how could there ever exist an entire truth, as entire would denote a perfect Absolute--an impossibility for a subjective, relative concept.

Who cares.  She's asking for one or the other.  I told her neither, and she still has all the answers.  Hence my question.  What would her intentions be if she had "all" the information.  Sounds like she'd still be self-centered......which is definitely a choice, just not the one I'd pick....  Oh well, such is youth..

[walterpthefirst]

Can you see the contradiction in your beliefs, Ed?

 

 

As a Christian you believe that it is objectively true that Jesus died for your sins

 

Yet you also believe that truth is subjective.

 

Which means that for you it is NOT objectively true that Jesus died for your sins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Can you see the contradiction in your beliefs, Ed?

 

 

As a Christian you believe that it is objectively true that Jesus died for your sins

 

Yet you also believe that truth is subjective.

 

Which means that for you it is NOT objectively true that Jesus died for your sins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you are able to define faith either way Walter, you let us all know....thx.

[pantheory]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

When you are able to define faith either way Walter, you let us all know....thx.

 

Ed, I'll define faith for me. I have faith and trust in few institutions, generally  individuals that do what they say they're going to do, act friendly, and usually who I have known for  a while or for years.  Often they have become my friends. I follow the creed: believe nothing of what you hear, very little of what you read, and only half of what you see.

 

I've said this before Ed, as far as a spiritual world of some kind is concerned, if an angel, Jesus, God, etc. came down to me personally, explained their existence, showed me miracles, and explained everything to me about things nobody else would know except me,  I would be very courteous, please, thank you so much, write everything down,, then thank them again upon their departure, peace, love, etc. 

 

Within a week or so thereafter I would check myself into a mental institution with all my notes for evaluation, while believing little or nothing of what I heard or saw, even if I knew I hadn't been taking drugs

[walterpthefirst]

The bible defines faith for you, Ed.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

 

 

Therefore, as a Christian you confidently hope that Jesus died for your sins and you are assured about that, even though you did not see any evidence that he did.

 

In the same way, you believe that truth is subjective, even though you have seen no evidence that it is.

 

 

So, why do you persist in believing in things that you've seen no evidence for?

 

[Edgarcito]

28 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Ed, I'll define faith for me. I have faith and trust in few institutions, generally  individuals that do what they say they're going to do, act friendly, and usually who I have known for  a while or for years.  Often they have become my friends. I follow the creed: believe nothing of what you hear, very little of what you read, and only half of what you see.

 

I've said this before Ed, as far as a spiritual world of some kind is concerned, if an angel, Jesus, God, etc. came down to me personally, explained their existence, showed me miracles, and explained everything to me about things nobody else would know except me,  I would be very courteous, please, thank you so much, write everything down,, then thank them again upon their departure, peace, love, etc. 

 

Within a week or so thereafter I would check myself into a mental institution with all my notes for evaluation, while believing little or nothing of what I heard or saw, even if I knew I hadn't been taking drugs

Maybe in that other thread we could discuss the transition between the ZPF to consciousness.  Surely there’s a transition… here we be…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

59 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Who cares.  She's asking for one or the other.  I told her neither, and she still has all the answers.  Hence my question.  What would her intentions be if she had "all" the information.  Sounds like she'd still be self-centered......which is definitely a choice, just not the one I'd pick....  Oh well, such is youth..

Well, Ed, I seem to recall one of your heroes once said something about dealing with the plank in your own eye before worrying about somebody else's speck.  You also want to have it both ways.  You want truth to be subjective and relative so that you can stay within the comfort of your own beliefs.  But you also want to posit the possibility of an Absolute Truth because that's what you imagine god to be. 

 

Truth cannot be both subjective and Absolute.  We know this, at the risk of already having repeated myself ad infinitum, ad nauseum, from the Law of Excluded Third, which states that A and not-A cannot both be true.  They both might be false; but there is simply no way that A can be true if not-A is true and vice-versa. 

 

Here's a thought for you: what if "god" is a subjective truth that is relative to each individual?  Could you then let others, including Ms. Moxie, live in the comfort of their own beliefs?

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Well, Ed, I seem to recall one of your heroes once said something about dealing with the plank in your own eye before worrying about somebody else's speck.  You also want to have it both ways.  You want truth to be subjective and relative so that you can stay within the comfort of your own beliefs.  But you also want to posit the possibility of an Absolute Truth because that's what you imagine god to be. 

 

Truth cannot be both subjective and Absolute.  We know this, at the risk of already having repeated myself ad infinitum, ad nauseum, from the Law of Excluded Third, which states that A and not-A cannot both be true.  They both might be false; but there is simply no way that A can be true if not-A is true and vice-versa. 

 

Here's a thought for you: what if "god" is a subjective truth that is relative to each individual?  Could you then let others, including Ms. Moxie, live in the comfort of their own beliefs?

She asked the question in the sub forum where we get to discuss…

[Edgarcito]

Well 1 is not 100 but 100 1’s equals 100…. ??

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

She asked the question in the sub forum where we get to discuss…

 

Ok then, on the basis of what Hebrews 11 : 1 says, she should trust knowledge over belief.

 

According to scripture faith (belief) is based on no evidence that the believing person has seen.

 

Whereas knowledge is, by definition, only based upon evidence that can be seen.

 

 

Therefore, knowledge wins over faith (belief) every time.

 

Why?  Because things believed by faith and without evidence cannot be tested, checked or confirmed in any way.

 

Whereas things known by evidence are readily open to testing, checking and confirming.

 

 

Discussion over.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

She asked the question in the sub forum where we get to discuss…

Indeed.  But continuing to focus on the speck in someone else's eye hardly addresses my point.  To put it more bluntly, Ed, there's enough wrong with your own self to keep you occupied for the rest of your life; so there's no need for you to focus your attention on anything you think is wrong with anybody else. 

 

You stand at cross-purposes with your beliefs.  You simultaneously believe that truth is both subjective and absolute.  One of these things must be false.

 

Which is it?

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe in that other thread we could discuss the transition between the ZPF to consciousness.  Surely there’s a transition… here we be…

 

Your probably are addressing this answer to Walter, but sure. we could talk about consciousness in your  thread but by definition it is an animal trait, although many humans think of it as being a purely human trait -- but by definition it has nothing to do with the ZPF.

[Edgarcito]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Indeed.  But continuing to focus on the speck in someone else's eye hardly addresses my point.  To put it more bluntly, Ed, there's enough wrong with your own self to keep you occupied for the rest of your life; so there's no need for you to focus your attention on anything you think is wrong with anybody else. 

 

You stand at cross-purposes with your beliefs.  You simultaneously believe that truth is both subjective and absolute.  One of these things must be false.

 

Which is it?

Did you overlook my number example 

[walterpthefirst]

Here's another one for you, Ed.

 

 

John 20 : 30 & 31

 

 

³⁰ Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

 

See that?   To receive eternal life you have to believe the things that are written in scripture.

 

Things you didn't see with your own eyes.

 

Things which you cannot test, check or confirm for yourself.

 

Things which you are asked to believe on the basis of no objective evidence.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Did you overlook my number example 

 

Is your number example objectively true or subjectively true?

[walterpthefirst]

It's getting late here and I'm off to bed soon.

 

But before I go I'd just like to outline the dilemma Ed's caught in.

 

 

If he says that his number example is objectively true, this contradicts what he said about truth being subjective.

 

But if he says that his number example is subjectively true, then what's the point of him presenting it to us?

 

It will only be true for him and not for any of us.

 

His number example will fail to persuade anyone else but himself.

 

His example will fail to support anything he has said because it will only be true for him.

 

 

This is the sting of subjectivity.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Did you overlook my number example 

No, I merely discounted it since it is not a case of Excluded Third.  Let me explain.  Excluded Third applies between A and the exact opposite of A (not-A).  100 is not the exact opposite of 1; and that is your first mistake here. 

 

But your confusion obviously runs deeper, so let me offer a deeper explanation.  If there is a *Third* option, and the Third is not *Excluded* then Excluded Third is not applicable. 

 

As an example, I have a gallon jug of sweet tea in my refrigerator.  The jug can be full (A), or the jug could be empty (not-A, more precisely, the exact opposite of A).  If the jug is full, it contains 1 US gallon; if it is empty, it contains nothing.  However, the jug cannot be both full and empty at the same time.  There cannot be 1 US gallon of tea in an empty jug.  This is where Excluded Third applies. 

 

That notwithstanding, there could be a half gallon of tea in the jug, couldn't there?  In this case, the jug is neither full nor is it empty.  Both A and not-A are simultaneously false.  This is a case where there is a Third option which is not Excluded.  Because half a gallon is neither full, nor is it empty, nor is it the exact opposite of either.

 

So, as you can see, your example is really just a sad miscomprehension, given that a. 1 is not the opposite of 100 and b. there are several other options which are not excluded.

 

In the case of truth, however, subjective truth and Absolute Truth are not only exact opposites, they are at polar extremes from one another.  Furthermore, there is no middle ground between them.  There can no more be a subjective Absolute than there can be Absolute subjectivity.  Yet you believe in both; and have the audacity to presume to tell someone else the "truth" when your own beliefs are so fundamentally flawed.  It's the arrogance of it all, really.

[Edgarcito]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No, I merely discounted it since it is not a case of Excluded Third.  Let me explain.  Excluded Third applies between A and the exact opposite of A (not-A).  100 is not the exact opposite of 1; and that is your first mistake here. 

 

But your confusion obviously runs deeper, so let me offer a deeper explanation.  If there is a *Third* option, and the Third is not *Excluded* then Excluded Third is not applicable. 

 

As an example, I have a gallon jug of sweet tea in my refrigerator.  The jug can be full (A), or the jug could be empty (not-A, more precisely, the exact opposite of A).  If the jug is full, it contains 1 US gallon; if it is empty, it contains nothing.  However, the jug cannot be both full and empty at the same time.  There cannot be 1 US gallon of tea in an empty jug.  This is where Excluded Third applies. 

 

That notwithstanding, there could be a half gallon of tea in the jug, couldn't there?  In this case, the jug is neither full nor is it empty.  Both A and not-A are simultaneously false.  This is a case where there is a Third option which is not Excluded.  Because half a gallon is neither full, nor is it empty, nor is it the exact opposite of either.

 

So, as you can see, your example is really just a sad miscomprehension, given that a. 1 is not the opposite of 100 and b. there are several other options which are not excluded.

 

In the case of truth, however, subjective truth and Absolute Truth are not only exact opposites, they are at polar extremes from one another.  Furthermore, there is no middle ground between them.  There can no more be a subjective Absolute than there can be Absolute subjectivity.  Yet you believe in both; and have the audacity to presume to tell someone else the "truth" when your own beliefs are so fundamentally flawed.  It's the arrogance of it all, really.

I’m afraid you’re just not bright enough to understand the example… 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Oh well, such is youth.

Oh thank you! I didn't know 65 years old was 'youth'! 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Who cares.  She's asking for one or the other.  I told her neither, and she still has all the answers

Seems to me I made it clear these are my own personal answers, to which you are implying they apply to YOU. You keep insisting I'm saying something I'm not saying. Please stop that. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's a thought for you: what if "god" is a subjective truth that is relative to each individual?  Could you then let others, including Ms. Moxie, live in the comfort of their own beliefs?

THANK YOU! Very well said. Hear that Ed?

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I’m afraid you’re just not bright enough to understand the example… 

What xtians tend to do when they're losing an argument: insult people. 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

THANK YOU! Very well said. Hear that Ed?

It seems apparent that they think you needed help… to be defended.  You’re not listening anyhow bc your bias is too strong.  I’m going to refrain from commenting further.  Carry on.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It seems apparent that they think you needed help… to be defended.  You’re not listening anyhow bc your bias is too strong.  I’m going to refrain from commenting further.  Carry on.

 

This is false.

 

THEY do not think that moxieflux66 needed help.

 

Neither Pantheory, Weezer or myself have suggested that she needed our help.

 

The only person in this thread who has taken issue with your treatment of her is the Prof.

 

So there is no THEY, as you falsely claim, Ed.

 

 

And the point I make in this particular post is an objective truth.

 

It can tested, checked and confirmed by reading the evidence in this thread.

 

Unlike anything believed by faith, without evidence, which cannot.