A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

@igm,

igm wrote:

Yes, I think my point was... there is no findable absolute truth...

I agree...I also THINK there is no findable absolute truth.

Quote:

...but there are some here who believe... there is...

Well, I have not seen anyone here who claims there is a findable absolute truth.

But of course, you cannot be talking about me, because I do not do any kind of "believing."

Quote:

...they even say that if there is no absolute truth then that is the absolute truth...

Egad...this is so mealy mouthed.

I am someone who has often said that if there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...then that would be the absolute truth.

The only reason I said that...is because IF THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...THAT WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Fact is...there is no absolute truth is an absurd statement to make.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

So the universe must either be flat and infinite or a sphere for there to be no center to it, right?

That's what the math points to... yes... or everywhere is the center... take your pick.

So this, to you, would not be an absolute truth, if you are right?

1 Reply

It is only absurd if you are hooked on simplistic aristotelean logic. Both mathematics and physics are not, and paradoxes are accepted as inevitable in post modernist philosophy. Those interested in the latter might look up Derrida's treatment of aporia which draws attention to the privileging of one side of a dichotomy.
You have a choice. You can operate at the level of trench warfare or you can attempt to sail aloft to a higher vantage point and observe the triviality below.

2 Replies

@mikeymojo,

mikeymojo wrote:

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

So the universe must either be flat and infinite or a sphere for there to be no center to it, right?

That's what the math points to... yes... or everywhere is the center... take your pick.

So this, to you, would not be an absolute truth, if you are right?

I'm saying the 'math' points to it... I was making a conventional point based on the understanding of limited concepts... I can't see how there can be an absolute truth... philosophy for me is used to go beyond philosophy... a tool of deconstruction... letting go is best IMO... but to communicate and interact one must use conventional concepts... i.e. to help others when asked or when circumstances demand it... either directly or indirectly.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

It is only absurd if you are hooked on simplistic aristotelean logic. Both mathematics and physics are not, and paradoxes are accepted as inevitable in post modernist philosophy. Those interested in the latter might look up Derrida's treatment of aporia which draws attention to the privileging of one side of a dichotomy.
You have a choice. You can operate at the level of trench warfare or you can attempt to sail aloft to a higher vantage point and observe the triviality below.

Nice way of saying "...or you can get way up here where I am!"

Oh, that stupid Aristotle...if only he could have climbed to your level.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

So the universe must either be flat and infinite or a sphere for there to be no center to it, right?

That's what the math points to... yes... or everywhere is the center... take your pick.

So this, to you, would not be an absolute truth, if you are right?

I'm saying the 'math' points to it... I was making a conventional point based on the understanding of limited concepts... I can't see how there can be an absolute truth... philosophy for me is used to go beyond philosophy... a tool of deconstruction... letting go is best IMO... but to communicate and interact one must use conventional concepts... i.e. to help others when asked or when circumstances demand it... either directly or indirectly.

Well obviously, since YOU cannot see it...it cannot possibly exist!

Where are you guys coming from?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No, Its another way of saying that trench dwellers often become so mentally dependent on the protective walls that they never venture to leave them.
How do you cope with the fact that quantum scientists who were instrumental in developing the theory behind components in your computer needed to abandon aspects of conventional logic ? Answer: You don't cope with it !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No, Its another way of saying that trench dwellers often become so mentally dependent on the protective walls that they never venture to leave them.

Nah, Fresco, I think any reasonable reading of what you wrote indicates that you were saying, "...or you can get way up here where I am!"

You even managed a rather backhanded dissing of Aristotle.

What Chutzpah!

Quote:

How do you cope with the fact that quantum scientists who were instrumental in developing the theory behind components in your computer needed to abandon aspects of conventional logic ? Answer: You don't cope with it !

I have no problem with "abandoning" aspects of conventional logic.

But you do it as though it is a certainty...where I am open minded enough to recognize that it may be anything but a certainty.

If you opened your eyes, Fresco...you would see that you are the one unwilling (or unable) to cope with open-minded thinking.

But that doesn't make you a bad person.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have no problem with "abandoning" aspects of conventional logic.
But you do it as though it is a certainty...where I am open minded enough to recognize that it may be anything but a certainty.

The irony is that you cannot see that your use of the word "certainty" indicates that you haven't got a clue what your problem is. Laughing

Never mind...as you say...it doesn't make you a "bad" person. Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
I have no problem with "abandoning" aspects of conventional logic.
But you do it as though it is a certainty...where I am open minded enough to recognize that it may be anything but a certainty.

The irony is that you cannot see that your use of the word "certainty" indicates that you haven't got a clue what your problem is.

Never mind...as you say...it doesn't make you a "bad" person.

Yeah...the problem is that I am a stupid person.

You shouldn't be wasting your time on someone so low on the intellectual scale, Fresco.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No. I think you hide behind that label. The refusal to read even simplified texts indicates that "blatant indolence " is more appropriate, but I understand the vested interests in maintaining your self integrity as an evangelist for agnosticism. You are a bit like the Pope who refused to look down Galileo's telescope not because he was afraid of learning something, but that he was afraid of losing his social status.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No. I think you hide behind that label. The refusal to read even simplified texts indicates that "blatant indolence " is more appropriate, but I understand the vested interests in maintaining your self integrity as an evangelist for agnosticism. You are a bit like the Pope who refused to look down Galileo's telescope not because he was afraid of learning something, but that he was afraid of losing his social status.

Fresco...you cannot see that the only reason you are suggesting that conventional reasoning or conventional logic does not apply...or is inappropriate...is because it is the only way you can maintain this "truth" that you suppose you have discovered. I suspect that is the reason some of the "experts" upon whom you rely have done that same thing.

In any case, I am the one with the open mind on these issues. I acknowledge that I do not know...and that the evidence in various directions is so ambiguous that it cannot "logically" be used for the basis of any meaningful guesses.

You on the other hand maintain that you know the reality...and that others can see that you are correct in this by figuratively looking down Galileo's telescope. But it is you, Fresco...afraid to do that. You are so certain in this religion (for want of a better word) of yours that you cannot even concede the possibility of other takes.

Continue down this path if you must...but if you do, may I respectfully suggest that you do it here where you are unlikely to meet anyone equipped to challenge you in any meaningful way. If you go to a forum with people who can...you'd almost certainly have your doors blown off immediately.

Hey...in the meantime...we can show love and respect to each other. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I suggest you need to think about that belief of yours ( Evil or Very Mad

) that you have "an open mind". I doubt whether the phrase has any meaning for you outside the narrow confines of the agnosticism it tautologically supports, and more generally, like the phrase "brotherly love" it may be an idealistic platitude for all of us.

Love from brother fresco Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I suggest you need to think about that belief of yours ( ) that you have "an open mind". I doubt whether the phrase has any meaning for you outside the narrow confines of the agnosticism it tautologically supports, and more generally, like the phrase "brotherly love" it may be an idealistic platitude for all of us.

Love from brother fresco

First of all...lots of love back atcha, Fresco.

Now...I understand you had a need to redefine "logic" and "reason" so that you could continue to support this "religion" of yours...but now you feel compelled to suggest I have a "belief" of an open mind on my part.

Look...even if you do not agree that I have an open mind...the notion that my suggestion I do can easily be something other than a belief. I could be mistaken...I could be kidding...I could be right on the button, but you might not be able to see it or, if you do, to acknowledge it.

You should by now realize that I use the word "agnostic" only as a short cut. Mostly I explain my position...which mostly is to acknowledge that I do not know the things that I do not know.

For instance, I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...but you seem to be claiming that you do...or you would simply be agreeing with me.

Anyway...I can see that your religion is too important for you to even acknowledge the possibility of some tenets of it being off kilter, so as I do with many militant theists, I'll just smile and move the discussion along.

I do suggest very strenuously that I am definitely more open-minded than you on a variety of facets of this discussion.

I do enjoy the certainty you and a few others have about matters that it is apparent "certainty" is not currently obtainable. I often wonder, "What must it be like for an intelligent person like Fresco to realize that his position can only be maintained by getting more and more absurd?"

I'm wondering it right now as I type. Wink

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

igm wrote:

mikeymojo wrote:

So the universe must either be flat and infinite or a sphere for there to be no center to it, right?

That's what the math points to... yes... or everywhere is the center... take your pick.

So this, to you, would not be an absolute truth, if you are right?

I'm saying the 'math' points to it... I was making a conventional point based on the understanding of limited concepts... I can't see how there can be an absolute truth... philosophy for me is used to go beyond philosophy... a tool of deconstruction... letting go is best IMO... but to communicate and interact one must use conventional concepts... i.e. to help others when asked or when circumstances demand it... either directly or indirectly.

Really igm.

A. You didn't answer the question
B. The math points to 1+1=2, yet for some reason this is also not an absolute truth according to you.
C. The only concept that needs to be deconstructed is your concept of philosophy.
D. You are the one who agreed that a universe that has no center, or everywhere is the center, must be spherical or flat and infinite.
E. Your rebuttal is the math that you used to claim the universe has no center..that's like using gravity to disprove gravity.

This was the weakest non answer I've ever witnessed.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Good. Wondering is a first step to understanding that absurdity and correctness lie in the eye of the beholder.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

MIkey if you were to do a math degree you might be surprised that whole lectures can consist in proving things like 1+0=0+1. Similarly if you were to do a philosophy degree you might find that lectures were devoted to the view that words are not representative of aspects of an independent reality.
Assuming you have neither qualification you as likely to understand igm as you are to understand quantum electrodynamics.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

MIkey if you were to do a math degree you might be surprised that whole lectures can consist in proving things like 1+0=0+1.

a personal favourite

http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~fienberg/Statistics36-756/Blyth-JASA-1972.pdf

2 Replies

@fresco,

Could I ask a favor of you? i know you do not owe me but I am interested in learning about Derrida's treatment of aporia but I am sad to say that I learn best from videos. would you please share a YouTube lecture that you think may be relevant? I have search but was uncertain if they were what you where referring to.

1 Reply

Next time people claim to bypass conventional logical arguments they ought to construct an explanation which does not recur in any moment to conventional logic with conventional half explanations... I mean its only logical they clearly establish the medium by witch they want to make a point...what I quite frankly find ridiculous and ultimately unacceptable is to have a constant word salad with all kinds of logic at work from conventional to fuzzy where anything goes to make a score no matter what. The sad fact of the matter is that this kind of behaviour is not different from the kind of straw men arguments religious people usually do to validate their own personnel beliefs when they have nothing else to resort to. Its desperate preaching !
The typical problem with some preachers is that they ought to try n do a better job on convincing themselves first before they start trying to convince anyone else...

1 Reply

A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know