On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

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

And in doing so, my focus was entirely on Ed's hypocrisy and arrogance in the presumption that he needed to speak "truth" to someone else when his own reasoning is contradictory.  It never occurred to me that Ms. Moxie's defense was something that needed rushing to.  So, no, there is no "they."  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Is your number example objectively true or subjectively true?

 

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

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

Although it is unlikely that Ed will answer you directly, Walt (based on historical data), he has offered an answer indirectly here.  He has indicated that the example can be misunderstood, with the implication that a certain level of intelligence is required for proper understanding.  If this claim sounds familiar, it's likely because similar claims are constantly being made by christians concerning the bible, for example, among many other doctrinal and theological "mysteries" which only seem contradictory and illogical to those not intelligent enough to receive the special, divine revelation required for proper understanding. 

 

If the example cannot be properly understood without a certain level of intelligence (that level being determined by Ed, alone), then obviously the example cannot be an objective truth.  Were it objective, one would assume it would be relatively simple to understand by people of all intelligence levels, as is the objective truth that the sun rises in the morning.  Even Little Ms. Professorette,  at 8 months old, has already started to grasp the concept of the sun in relation to wakey-wakey time.

 

Therefore, Ed's example must be considered a subjective truth.  The difficulty I have with this assessment, however, is that 100 1s really does equal 100; and would do so for an accountant in Iceland the same as it would a mathematician in Shanghai.  So it seems like it should be an objective truth; but apparently Ed doesn't think it is.  Apparently, Ed believes that mathematics is subjective as well.  Perhaps 2+2=... whatever the individual interprets it as equaling; and 4 is merely a placeholder until divine revelation provides the Absolute Truth. 

 

Consider the source, I reckon...

 

 

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Although it is unlikely that Ed will answer you directly, Walt (based on historical data), he has offered an answer indirectly here.  He has indicated that the example can be misunderstood, with the implication that a certain level of intelligence is required for proper understanding.  If this claim sounds familiar, it's likely because similar claims are constantly being made by christians concerning the bible, for example, among many other doctrinal and theological "mysteries" which only seem contradictory and illogical to those not intelligent enough to receive the special, divine revelation required for proper understanding. 

 

If the example cannot be properly understood without a certain level of intelligence (that level being determined by Ed, alone), then obviously the example cannot be an objective truth.  Were it objective, one would assume it would be relatively simple to understand by people of all intelligence levels, as is the objective truth that the sun rises in the morning.  Even Little Ms. Professorette,  at 8 months old, has already started to grasp the concept of the sun in relation to wakey-wakey time.

 

Therefore, Ed's example must be considered a subjective truth.  The difficulty I have with this assessment, however, is that 100 1s really does equal 100; and would do so for an accountant in Iceland the same as it would a mathematician in Shanghai.  So it seems like it should be an objective truth; but apparently Ed doesn't think it is.  Apparently, Ed believes that mathematics is subjective as well.  Perhaps 2+2=... whatever the individual interprets it as equaling; and 4 is merely a placeholder until divine revelation provides the Absolute Truth. 

 

Consider the source, I reckon...

 

 

You could just address the example..... to express it another way....the set of all numbers vs. an individual number.  The singular belongs to all numbers but is still unique in itself.  How do you explain that given you said that both truths can't exist.

 

Edit:  to answer Walter....the set of all numbers appears to be objective while the singular appears subjective to the objective set.  I don't know how to classify those really, but that's the way it appears to me...

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

9 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.

I'd love to tell you why I FEEL badly toward christianity as well as why I think basically xtians are predators, looking for others to manipulate through their emotions and basically entirely self-centered (as you accused me of being), insincere and misled.  I think I will so I'm working on a testimonial. 

Meanwhile, please don't spoil my time here with these folks or my time. I use a social budget, meaning I don't waste time arguing with a lost cause (meaning someone I don't want to be friends with until I know them better, like maybe you). One of my worst gripes about xtians is that they never leave you alone! So please respect this request. 

By the way, I deeply appreciate the 'defense', which I didn't need especially but it's the first time in my life I've had a chance to do this. You wouldn't interfere with anyone who was getting christian counseling, would you? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You could just address the example..... to express it another way....the set of all numbers vs. an individual number.  The singular belongs to all numbers but is still unique in itself.  How do you explain that given you said that both truths can't exist.

I already addressed the example and explained why it is irrelevant to the discussion.  The question you pose here demonstrates that you still do not understand the basic premise of Excluded Third, which only applies to exact opposites (such as Absolute versus Subjective).  1 and 100 are not opposites.  Your example would fall under the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction (A equals A; A does not equal B.)

 

Given that your example is irrelevant to this discussion, I will not address it further; but I do encourage you to study and understand the basic laws of logic.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

I'd love to tell you why I FEEL badly toward christianity as well as why I think basically xtians are predators, looking for others to manipulate through their emotions and basically entirely self-centered (as you accused me of being), insincere and misled.  I think I will so I'm working on a testimonial. 

Meanwhile, please don't spoil my time here with these folks or my time. I use a social budget, meaning I don't waste time arguing with a lost cause (meaning someone I don't want to be friends with until I know them better, like maybe you). One of my worst gripes about xtians is that they never leave you alone! So please respect this request. 

By the way, I deeply appreciate the 'defense', which I didn't need especially but it's the first time in my life I've had a chance to do this. You wouldn't interfere with anyone who was getting christian counseling, would you? 

I understand.  Hope this site helps.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I already addressed the example and explained why it is irrelevant to the discussion.  The question you pose here demonstrates that you still do not understand the basic premise of Excluded Third, which only applies to exact opposites (such as Absolute versus Subjective).  1 and 100 are not opposites.  Your example would fall under the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction (A equals A; A does not equal

 

Given that your example is irrelevant to this discussion, I will not address it further; but I do encourage you to study and understand the basic laws of logic.

Fine, your explanation seems irrelevant as well....

[walterpthefirst]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You could just address the example..... to express it another way....the set of all numbers vs. an individual number.  The singular belongs to all numbers but is still unique in itself.  How do you explain that given you said that both truths can't exist.

 

Edit:  to answer Walter....the set of all numbers appears to be objective while the singular appears subjective to the objective set.  I don't know how to classify those really, but that's the way it appears to me...

 

But what about the sting of subjectivity, Ed?

 

If all truth is subjective then the set of all numbers appears to be objective ONLY TO YOU. 

 

It won't appear to be that way to us.  Only you.

 

And the singular appears subjective only to you..

 

So any examples you can cite are relevant only to you.

 

Because all truth is subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But what about the sting of subjectivity, Ed?

 

If all truth is subjective then the set of all numbers appears to be objective ONLY TO YOU. 

 

It won't appear to be that way to us.  Only you.

 

And the singular appears subjective only to you..

 

So any examples you can cite are relevant only to you.

 

Because all truth is subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see a way around it at the moment, but darn sure am not going to exclude an absolute.

 

Thanks.

 

[TABA]

34 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Meanwhile, please don't spoil my time here with these folks or my time. I use a social budget, meaning I don't waste time arguing with a lost cause (meaning someone I don't want to be friends with until I know them better, like maybe you). One of my worst gripes about xtians is that they never leave you alone! So please respect this request. 

Hey @moxieflux66, you may not have realized that by starting this topic in the Lions Den, you unintentionally allowed Christians to argue with you.  The Den is the one section where Christians are allowed to proselytize or otherwise promote Christianity (all the better for heathens to debunk their claims).  So if you don’t want to get in such exchanges with believers, posting in any other section is recommended.  

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

7 minutes ago, TABA said:

Hey @moxieflux66, you may not have realized that by starting this topic in the Lions Den, you unintentionally allowed Christians to argue with you.  The Den is the one section where Christians are allowed to proselytize or otherwise promote Christianity (all the better for heathens to debunk their claims).  So if you don’t want to get in such exchanges with believers, posting in any other section is recommended.  

Hey TABA, no really I did know. In fact, this is extremely good for me. Perhaps it's time for me to confront all my demons (so to speak) at once. And you are right. I am working on a testimony today so your support, as I believe it was intended, is very well received and I cherish it. I have not ever done this and my greatest hope here is to bring healing where I've found none before. My most sincere gratitude to you all, even Edgarcito. 

[walterpthefirst]

37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't see a way around it at the moment, but darn sure am not going to exclude an absolute.

 

Thanks.

 

 

There is no way around it if all truth is subjective, Ed.

 

And no matter where you look or how hard you look you won't find a way around it.

 

You've been looking for a long time and you've been in this mess before.

 

Emotions - Page 2 - The Lion's Den - Ex-Christian.Net

Posted January 2

 

  On 1/1/2023 at 11:56 PM, Edgarcito said:

 

I don’t see it matters.  The action of the truth on the subject would still be universal.  Our ability to understand the deviation on each system would be the rub.  I don't see that totally excludes all systems.  With the experiment, it’s just less complex…

 

Walter replied...

You are the one who has consistently argued that everyone has their own unique experience of reality, Ed.

Yes, the action of a truth on one subject (or many subjects) would still be universal, but each person could never know that.  If each person is isolated in their own bubble of uniquely experienced reality, that's all they can know.

 

Just the bubble they're in.

 

They could never know that what they are experiencing is the same as what anyone else is experiencing.

So knowledge of anything universal could never penetrate their bubble of uniqueness.

The only way a universal truth could be known is if everyone experiences it in a common reality.

Which is what Eugene Wigner describes it in his science paper.

 

 

By asserting that all truth is subjective you are locking yourself inside your own personal bubble of subjectivity.

 

None of us can join you in there and you can't leave either.

 

You're ****ed!

 

Or rather, you've ****ed yourself.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Fine, your explanation seems irrelevant as well....

Seems irrelevant to whom?

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Seems irrelevant to whom?

To me.  I don't know what y'all want me to say J.  It's subjective until someone understands the mechanisms and complexity.....which I highly doubt is possible, but I'm not excluding just because it's popular.  Can we let the lady have her thread back now or do y'all want to keep hassling me....

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

To me.  I don't know what y'all want me to say J.  It's subjective until someone understands the mechanisms and complexity.....which I highly doubt is possible, but I'm not excluding just because it's popular.  Can we let the lady have her thread back now or do y'all want to keep hassling me....

Well thanks! But you guys were doing such a good job I thought I'd just sit back and wait. And get to know more about ED

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Just now, moxieflux66 said:

Well thanks! But you guys were doing such a good job I thought I'd just sit back and wait. And get to know more about ED

And don't worry. I have more things to talk about to all you christians out there! Bring your friends! 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To me.  I don't know what y'all want me to say J.  It's subjective until someone understands the mechanisms and complexity.....which I highly doubt is possible, but I'm not excluding just because it's popular.  Can we let the lady have her thread back now or do y'all want to keep hassling me....

Please explain how an explanation of the Law of Excluded Third (A and not-A cannot be simultaneously true) is irrelevant to a discussion on the subject of Absolute Truth versus Subjective Truth. 

 

While you are providing your explanation, please refrain from poor-mouthing yourself.  You are not a victim here and no one is hassling you.  You chose to enter this discussion and you have chosen to remain steadfastly ignorant despite patient explanations from multiple members.  You don't get to cry over milk you intentionally spilled.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Please explain how an explanation of the Law of Excluded Third (A and not-A cannot be simultaneously true) is irrelevant to a discussion on the subject of Absolute Truth versus Subjective Truth. 

 

While you are providing your explanation, please refrain from poor-mouthing yourself.  You are not a victim here and no one is hassling you.  You chose to enter this discussion and you have chosen to remain steadfastly ignorant despite patient explanations from multiple members.  You don't get to cry over milk you intentionally spilled.

I gave you and example.  1 is a number of all numbers.  There are no more numbers than all of them....yet 1 is not all of them.  Explain that sir or hush.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I gave you and example.  1 is a number of all numbers.  There are no more numbers than all of them....yet 1 is not all of them.  Explain that sir or hush.

In other words, you cannot explain how Excluded Third is irrelevant to the discussion.  The best you can do is offer an irrelevant example and then double down when your example is rejected.  Why do you constantly insist on making claims you cannot support?  

[walterpthefirst]

22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I gave you and example.  1 is a number of all numbers.  There are no more numbers than all of them....yet 1 is not all of them.  Explain that sir or hush.

 

All truth is subjective, Ed.

 

So the example you gave about numbers is meaningful and relevant ONLY to you.

 

Until you concede that truth is not subjective you can explain nothing to us.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In other words, you cannot explain how Excluded Third is irrelevant to the discussion.  The best you can do is offer an irrelevant example and then double down when your example is rejected.  Why do you constantly insist on making claims you cannot support?  

 

Prof,

 

So long as Ed asserts that all truth is subjective he has no choice but to make claims he cannot support.

 

That is what across-the-board subjectivity means.

 

A claim is relevant and meaningful ONLY to the claim-maker.

 

Not to anyone else.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Can I start a new topic for you in the Lion's Den here or are you all worn out already? It looks kind of exhausting. 

 

Just an observation, no offense intended. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Can I start a new topic for you in the Lion's Den here or are you all worn out already?

Worn out?  We ain't even got started yet.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Worn out?  We ain't even got started yet.

Oh goody!!! Then let the Games begin!! 

[Edgarcito]

Here's my last question...Prof and Walter: do you agree with Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal"?

 

Just a simple yes or no will suffice.  Thanks.