Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I agree it is close, but not synonymous. I make a hierarchy between facts and theories;

your idea of a hierarchy of theories is only your own theory, it is not fact. nor is any fact actually a fact, but a mere theory which is well accepted.

Quote:

I make a difference between local theories and general, all-encompassing ones. The higher one goes towards generality, the more one must assume all sorts of unproven things. General theories of everything (even of everything as nothing, such as nihilism) assume much much more than simpler, more local theories.

now, even if i accept your claim of hierarchy of theories, the idea that local ones are always more plausible than general ones is also preposterous. just because a local theory only requires smaller assumptions does not make it any more likely to be true.

Quote:

Hence it is perfectly coherent logically to say: we can't access the ultimate truth.

furthermore, your idea that 'there is no ultimate truth' is itself the MOST generalized possible theory. you think that 'we can't access the ultimate truth' is a nice, local theory? no, it is the most generalized possible thing you could ever say. you are assuming that humanity as a whole is incapable of finding such a thing as 'ultimate truth', also assuming you know that no such thing exists. all because you yourself have the personal opinion that you are unable to access any such truth.

also, if you say 'we can't access the ultimate truth', that itself IS an ultimate truth, because it is an absolute fact about the inability of all humans to access such a thing. that is extremely generalized and ultimate.

Quote:

That in itself is not an ultimate truth, in the sense of "a true theory of everything".

the idea that we cannot access the ultimate truth IS by definition then your 'true theory of everything'. it extends to all humanity and becomes the way you define 'everything'.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

the idea that we cannot access the ultimate truth IS by definition then your 'true theory of everything'. it extends to all humanity and becomes the way you define 'everything'.

It's not a theory, just a personal belief based on logic. Even if we found a theory that would explain everything we've observed so far, we could not conclude it is certain and proven because another observation in the future could always contradict that theory. And it's not about everything, just about epistemology...

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
You are just someone who wants to prate...and who, it seems, wouldn't recognize wisdom if it were an anvil and fell on your toe.

But I know things.

Yes, you do.

Quote:

You do not since you are of the opinion that one can never know anything.

That is completely false.

Quote:

I'm surprised that in all of that shiny bald head of yours there is not one ounce of wisdom.

There is plenty of wisdom there. And although I am 77, still plenty of hair...although admittedly, less than I would like.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
to say there is no such thing as 'ultimate truth' is essentially the same as me saying 'knowledge is impossible'. it brings up the same paradoxes, that you can never say 'this statement is not true'.

I agree it is close, but not synonymous. I make a hierarchy between facts and theories; and between theories, I make a difference between local theories and general, all-encompassing ones. The higher one goes towards generality, the more one must assume all sorts of unproven things. General theories of everything (even of everything as nothing, such as nihilism) assume much much more than simpler, more local theories. Hence it is perfectly coherent logically to say: we can't access the ultimate truth. That in itself is not an ultimate truth, in the sense of "a true theory of everything".

That is not the same as "there is no ultimate truth"...which is your contention.

We cannot access the surface of any planet circling any star in the Andromeda galaxy...so we cannot determine if there is any kind of life on any of them. But that does not mean there is no life.

I doubt you will acknowledge that you were wrong earlier...

...but you were.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
the idea that we cannot access the ultimate truth IS by definition then your 'true theory of everything'. it extends to all humanity and becomes the way you define 'everything'.

It's not a theory, just a personal belief based on logic. Even if we found a theory that would explain everything we've observed so far, we could not conclude it is certain and proven because another observation in the future could always contradict that theory. And it's not about everything, just about epistemology...

It's not a pill...it's just a little round thing my doctor wants me to take each morning to keep my cholesterol down! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I wasn't 'wrong' earlier. I said 'there is no such thing as an ultimate truth, or if there is, we can't access it'.

I doubt you will acknowledge your mistake though Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You don't prove a negative.

Burden of proof falls upon you to prove that god does exist. Not vice versa.

I'm surprised that you still post here considering how little you know.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Actually, you WERE wrong before.

There absolutely HAS TO BE an Ultimate Truth...because whatever IS...IS.

There is no getting around that.

Suggesting that there is no absolute truth...is a contradiction, because it contradicts itself. It is, as has been mentioned by several people, like the statement "This sentence is false."

It contradicts itself.

Granted, and this has been acknowledged many, many times (including here in this thread) it appears as though we "cannot access it." But not being able to access it; know it; define it; or describe it...is a far cry from "there is no absolute truth."

The invalidity of "there is no absolute truth"...whether qualified by your "or..."...is a mistake.

And since you are into this "logical" progression that is "not an absolute truth"...to start that comment with "there is no absolute truth..." makes it a mistake whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

As I said twice already, my statement included the possibility that an ultimate truth exists but beyond our reach. You're just not paying attention.

And even if we could reach it, we wouldn't be certain it is the truly ultimate truth.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

As I said twice already, my statement included the possibility that an ultimate truth exists but beyond our reach. You're just not paying attention.

I am paying attention, Olivier. You are the one not paying attention...or you would not be phrasing things the way you just did.

There IS an Ultimate Truth. There has to be. The qualifications you are offering are gratuitous...and are absurd on their face.

Quote:

And even if we could reach it, we wouldn't be certain it is the truly ultimate truth.

I am not interested in whether or not we can "reach" it; or understand it; or be able to explain it.

Whatever it IS...it IS.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Whatever. I said:

Quote:

there is no such thing as "the ultimate truth"... or if it exists, it's not accessible to us.

And I stand with that. You should to because it's pretty close to: "we cannot know anything certain about ultimate reality".

1 Reply

Jesus hinted that there are certain truths that our human minds would struggle to handle-
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

And Paul spoke of a man (possibly himself) who was forbidden to tell what he saw in paradise-
"He was...caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor 12:2-4)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Whatever. I said:

Quote:
there is no such thing as "the ultimate truth"... or if it exists, it's not accessible to us.

And I stand with that. You should to because it's pretty close to: "we cannot know anything certain about ultimate reality".

Your comment "there is no such thing as 'the ultimate truth'" is an absurdity...something that contradicts itself. But you are now wedded to it...and as usual you will stick with it no matter how often it is pointed out as being absurd.

I will stipulate that it almost certainly is not accessible to us...but that does not impact on whether or not there is an Ultimate Truth (I actually prefer Ultimate Reality).

I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no Ultimate Truth. It simply cannot be done.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The ability to see absurdity also requires one to admit to it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

To me, truth is a different concept than reality. Truth is a correct representation of reality. Eg in the mind, or in a text, theory etc. I believe it is possible that reality may not be correctly represented, formalized or "thought about". Not by us, and maybe not by any sentient being. I don't see any reason why I should rule it out. If you do, please provide.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

To me, truth is a different concept than reality. Truth is a correct representation of reality. Eg in the mind, or in a text, theory etc. I believe it is possible that reality may not be correctly represented, formalized or "thought about". Not by us, and maybe not by any sentient being. I don't see any reason why I should rule it out. If you do, please provide.

Rule what out???

You realize that your argument here has fallen flat...and rather than man up and acknowledge that you were wrong...you are trying to change things so that you can argue something else.

I challenge you to create a scenario...anything you want; you have everything to work with...and have that scenario be that there is no Ultimate Truth...or no Ultimate REALITY.

I defy you to do it.

All you have to do in order to show me to be wrong...and show that you were not wrong, as I have charged...is to create a scenario where there is no Ultimate Truth...or Ultimate REALITY.

Do it!

Show me that I am wrong.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

REPEAT: I believe it is possible that reality may not be correctly represented, formalized or "thought about". Not by us, and maybe not by any sentient being.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

REPEAT: I believe it is possible that reality may not be correctly represented, formalized or "thought about". Not by us, and maybe not by any sentient being.

FOR GODDAM CERTAIN IT IS POSSIBLE THAT REALITY MAY NOT BE CORRECTLY REPRESENTED, FORMALIZED, OR THOUGHT ABOUT' BY ANY SENTIENT BEINGS.

THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

IT MOST ASSUREDLY IS POSSIBLE!

In fact, it is almost a dead certainty...rather than just a possibility.

But we are not talking about representing it, knowing it, being able to explain it...or any of that other nonsense that you are trying to inject rather than simply acknowledge that your statement was WRONG!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

We are talking about "truth", which is different from "reality". Truth is a correct formalization, representation or theory OF reality. The "ultimate truth" is therefore a perfectly correct representation or formalization of all reality. You just admitted that such a thing may not exist.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

We are talking about "truth", which is different from "reality". Truth is a correct formalization, representation or theory OF reality. The "ultimate truth" is therefore a perfectly correct representation or formalization of all reality. You just admitted that such a thing may not exist.

One...I do not "admit" things like that in debate...I acknowledge them...or concede them.

Two...I most assuredly have not conceded that "truth is a correct formalization, representation, or theory of reality. That is an incredibly simplistic, gratuitous, self-serving diversion created only because you apparently are not man enough to acknowledge or concede that you were wrong on the subject issue.

The Ultimate Truth, Olivier...IS WHATEVER ACTUALLY IS. It has nothing to do with whether humans (or any other sentient beings) can understand it or describe it or access it. The Ultimate Truth is whatever the truth is...and the fact that petty being like ourselves seem unable to fathom what the truth actually is...says everything about us...AND NOTHING ABOUT THE TRUTH except as a reflection of what we can understand about it.

Stop with the nonsense. It is embarrassing to watch.

You were WRONG.

But watching you twist and turn...and torture logic in order to avoid having to acknowledge that you were wrong...is interesting...and tells us all a lot about your refusal to do so in situations where it is less conclusive that you are wrong.

You are a person unable to acknowledge you are wrong. Here, in this discussion, we have evidence of it...indisputable evidence to most, except for you.

1 Reply

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know