Reply
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 269
  1. #121
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    That there necessarily need be an ultimate source of truth or knowledge to be used as a standard. There needn't be.
    the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #122
    Registered User madeinoregon's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Posts: 2,375
    Rep Power: 997
    madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500) madeinoregon is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    madeinoregon is offline
    strong username to post ratio

    cuz all i read was blablablah
    Reply With Quote

  3. #123
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.
    Most theories of truth are not subjective or relative. The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute truths without there being an absolute source of truth to use as a standard, and the same can be said of theories of knowledge.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #124
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by lucious View Post
    Feels like OP is going around in circles.


    This is the problem with presuppositional apologetics- It already presupposes its own truth and the falisty of an opposing viewpoint, and usually the very nature of the belief precludes you from actually listening to and taking your opponent seriously since you need to assume they're automatically wrong for your argument to work.

    If you've already convinced yourself your position is the true one and nothing can convince you otherwise, its a worthless discussion. Its logical trickery and willful self-delusion.
    im sorry if it appears that way because i am doing my utmost to be open and consistent.

    it may very well be true that my argument pre-supposes its own truth and validity, but as a human this is unavoidable. you pre-suppose the validity of human reason, but this you do not gainsay. why is it any different?
    Reply With Quote

  5. #125
    Enemy of ignorance lucious's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: In a squat rack, curling away
    Posts: 11,474
    Rep Power: 2672
    lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000)
    lucious is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.
    truth is correspondence to facts, what dont you understand about this?


    What does ultimate truth entail?
    Nov 04-fatass @40%bf

    Jan 06- buff(apparently) @ ermm i dunno, still have a gut though,

    long term goal= jacked @ 7% bf, get the damn abs to show themselves
    Reply With Quote

  6. #126
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by lucious View Post
    truth is correspondence to facts, what dont you understand about this?


    What does ultimate truth entail?
    truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute
    Reply With Quote

  7. #127
    Enemy of ignorance lucious's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: In a squat rack, curling away
    Posts: 11,474
    Rep Power: 2672
    lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000)
    lucious is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    im sorry if it appears that way because i am doing my utmost to be open and consistent.

    it may very well be true that my argument pre-supposes its own truth and validity, but as a human this is unavoidable. you pre-suppose the validity of human reason, but this you do not gainsay. why is it any different?

    That is simply not true. We know human reasoning is valid because there are very good reasons to believe so- Evolution would only select for beings which have valid reasoning faculties. We trust our reason because it provides results. It works.
    Nov 04-fatass @40%bf

    Jan 06- buff(apparently) @ ermm i dunno, still have a gut though,

    long term goal= jacked @ 7% bf, get the damn abs to show themselves
    Reply With Quote

  8. #128
    Enemy of ignorance lucious's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: In a squat rack, curling away
    Posts: 11,474
    Rep Power: 2672
    lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000)
    lucious is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute
    Whats an absolute truth? If you mean logic or math, those are abstractions and are true by their nature.

    This goes back to my point about analytic truth-thats a truth that is true by virtue of the definitions. Its truth is contained within itself.


    We're going around in circles
    Nov 04-fatass @40%bf

    Jan 06- buff(apparently) @ ermm i dunno, still have a gut though,

    long term goal= jacked @ 7% bf, get the damn abs to show themselves
    Reply With Quote

  9. #129
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by lucious View Post
    That is simply not true. We know human reasoning is valid because there are very good reasons to believe so- Evolution would only select for beings which have valid reasoning faculties. We trust our reason because it provides results. It works.
    this is not an argument. it is a biased case of circular reasoning. we know that human reason is valid because we deduced it is, using human reason.

    evolution is irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #130
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by lucious View Post
    Whats an absolute truth? If you mean logic or math, those are abstractions and are true by their nature.

    This goes back to my point about analytic truth-thats a truth that is true by virtue of the definitions. Its truth is contained within itself.


    We're going around in circles
    youre going around in circles because you cannot accept the absolute. to you everything is relative. the truth cannot be relative by definition.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #131
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute
    Correspondence theories of truth and empiricism are not interchangeable. One may believe one while still rejecting the other. Furthermore, I feel as if you may have missed my previous post:

    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    Most theories of truth are not subjective or relative. The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute truths without there being an absolute source of truth to use as a standard, and the same can be said of theories of knowledge.
    Finally:

    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    this is not an argument. it is a biased case of circular reasoning. we know that human reason is valid because we deduced it is, using human reason.
    Human reasoning is not an argument, and it doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.
    Reply With Quote

  12. #132
    Keeps the Misc Classy... Grug's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2006
    Location: Australia
    Age: 36
    Posts: 13,924
    Rep Power: 18070
    Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Grug is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    Grug is offline
    How is human existence 'trans-subjective'? Existence is purely subjective, so the understanding and comprehension of it comes down purely to the individual - so there's no need for a framework (like that provided by the belief in a higher power), a subjective perspective will simply attach the purpose and reasoning it personally finds in existence.

    Which is to say that a person might (independently) arrive at the conclusion that a higher power might exist, but equally it may never even occur to them.

    With subjectivity, knowledge, truth and understanding don't only come from external sources (if they did, the human race would never have developed even the most basic of tools), they come from personal interpretation (from external sources or otherwise). So there is absolutely NO reason to assume that people couldn't conceive of there not being a higher power.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #133
    Banned loik's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2006
    Location: Australia
    Posts: 5,064
    Rep Power: 0
    loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) loik has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    loik is offline
    Originally Posted by rhaus View Post
    this thread will not get you to 1k reps

    abort
    umad?
    Reply With Quote

  14. #134
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    Correspondence theories of truth and empiricism are not interchangeable. One may believe one while still rejecting the other. Furthermore, I feel as if you may have missed my previous post:



    Finally:



    Human reasoning is not an argument, and it doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.
    i have to reject the concept of a correspondant theory of truth, as i have no idea what it is, and i think it is distracting from the real discussion: whether the concept of truth or knowledge has any meaning without reference to a source of ultimate truth and knowledge. thus far you have ignored it.
    Reply With Quote

  15. #135
    Enemy of ignorance lucious's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: In a squat rack, curling away
    Posts: 11,474
    Rep Power: 2672
    lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000) lucious is just really nice. (+1000)
    lucious is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    youre going around in circles because you cannot accept the absolute. to you everything is relative. the truth cannot be relative by definition.
    But what is "absolute truth"? Truthes have to correspond to something!!!!!
    Nov 04-fatass @40%bf

    Jan 06- buff(apparently) @ ermm i dunno, still have a gut though,

    long term goal= jacked @ 7% bf, get the damn abs to show themselves
    Reply With Quote

  16. #136
    Registered User Wikiniks's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2010
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,782
    Rep Power: 206
    Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50) Wikiniks will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Wikiniks is offline
    Brb using big words to sound smarter and to pretend like my arguement seems well thought out.


    People who deny god usually adopt other theorys such as big bang not just deny there being any source.



    Arguement=invalid
    Reply With Quote

  17. #137
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    i have to reject the concept of a correspondant theory of truth, as i have no idea what it is, and i think it is distracting from the real discussion: whether the concept of truth or knowledge has any meaning without reference to a source of ultimate truth and knowledge. thus far you have ignored it.
    The correspondence theory of truth is the real discussion; it explains how there can be truth without reference to a source of ultimate truth. It states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts. I haven't ignored anything. Indeed, I've explained the correspondence theory of truth more than thoroughly enough for you to understand why you are coming up with needlessly false conclusions regarding some unnecessary ultimate source of truth.
    Reply With Quote

  18. #138
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by lucious View Post
    But what is "absolute truth"? Truthes have to correspond to something!!!!!
    this is exactly my point. truths, if they are to be true, must have some standard to which they can be judged in reference to. if there is no standard, there cannot be a concept of truth - do you accept this?
    Reply With Quote

  19. #139
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    this is exactly my point. truths, if they are to be true, must have some standard to which they can be judged in reference to. if there is no standard, there cannot be a concept of truth - do you accept this?
    The standard is, most plausibly, whether or not they are in accordance with reality.
    Reply With Quote

  20. #140
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    The correspondence theory of truth is the real discussion; it explains how there can be truth without reference to a source of ultimate truth. It states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts. I haven't ignored anything. Indeed, I've explained the correspondence theory of truth more than thoroughly enough for you to understand why you are coming up with needlessly false conclusions regarding some unnecessary ultimate source of truth.
    it sppears to me you are continually referencing relativistic truths. i have no interest in the relative. my concern is with the absolute. if there is to be a coherent concept of absolute truth, there must be a standard against which it can be judged. if there is no standard, we can have no concept of truth.

    do you agree with this?
    Reply With Quote

  21. #141
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    The standard is, most plausibly, whether or not they are in accordance with reality.
    no it is not. you are speaking in relative terms again
    Reply With Quote

  22. #142
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    it sppears to me you are continually referencing relativistic truths. i have no interest in the relative. my concern is with the absolute. if there is to be a coherent concept of absolute truth, there must be a standard against which it can be judged. if there is no standard, we can have no concept of truth.

    do you agree with this?
    The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute, not relative truths. The standard you're looking for is whether or not the propositions accord with reality. There is nothing relative about it.
    Reply With Quote

  23. #143
    Banned Kalmah6661's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2010
    Age: 34
    Posts: 7,709
    Rep Power: 0
    Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    Kalmah6661 is offline
    So, basically, OP wrote a long piece of drawn-out text and then concluded with "therefore, my god is real."

    Unfortunately for you, winning arguments doesn't work that way.

    Nice try.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #144
    \_ʕ͡ᴥʔ_/ cchar042's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
    Posts: 9,893
    Rep Power: 18436
    cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) cchar042 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    cchar042 is offline
    If we were created in Gods image, whos image were the dolphin, snake, platypus, and cockroach created in?
    ★ cVc ★ 15R ★ OIF - OEF ★

    Red Sox - Patriots - Celtics - Friars
    Reply With Quote

  25. #145
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute, not relative truths. The standard you're looking for is whether or not the propositions accord with reality. There is nothing relative about it.
    how does the correspondence theory of truth determine truth then? if it is in relation to facts, it is relative
    Reply With Quote

  26. #146
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    how does the correspondence theory of truth determine truth then? if it is in relation to facts, it is relative
    I am thoroughly excited to hear your explanation behind that reasoning.
    Reply With Quote

  27. #147
    skip blablablah's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Location: Australia
    Age: 34
    Posts: 760
    Rep Power: 520
    blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250) blablablah has a spectacular aura about. (+250)
    blablablah is offline
    Originally Posted by PlasticJanus View Post
    I am thoroughly excited to hear your explanation behind that reasoning.
    to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.

    i think you are talking of the this-world concept of truth and deriving the necessary truths from a set of premises. that is a different concept entirely, and one which this discussion is not about.
    Reply With Quote

  28. #148
    Banned Kalmah6661's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2010
    Age: 34
    Posts: 7,709
    Rep Power: 0
    Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Kalmah6661 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    Kalmah6661 is offline
    Originally Posted by cchar042 View Post
    If we were created in Gods image, whos image were the dolphin, snake, platypus, and cockroach created in?
    This is where most religious people just start making things up.

    And isn't it funny how the only species on earth capable of critical thinking and speech is the one that concludes that humans were created in the image of a god?

    A little too convenient if you ask me. What if ants were created in a god's image but just can't tell us about it?
    Reply With Quote

  29. #149
    Registered User PlasticJanus's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts: 621
    Rep Power: 663
    PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500) PlasticJanus is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    PlasticJanus is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.

    i think you are talking of the this-world concept of truth and deriving the necessary truths from a set of premises. that is a different concept entirely, and one which this discussion is not about.
    I already dealt with this objection. You can get absolute metaphysical truths by corresponding propositions to facts about our metaphysical framework in the same way that you can get typical truths by corresponding propositions to typical facts. No source of ultimate truth required.
    Reply With Quote

  30. #150
    Banned magog704's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2009
    Location: United States
    Posts: 18,628
    Rep Power: 0
    magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) magog704 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    magog704 is offline
    Originally Posted by blablablah View Post
    to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.
    that's right. what you're describing is platonism. it's kind of archaic in the world of philosophy.

    so there is no Truth, capital T.


    "there are no facts, only interpretations" -Nietzsche
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts