Is truth subjective or objective?

Nobody

I accept your critic to Naive Realism - or philophical materialism -as I see it as a metaphysical theory. To talk about an independent and "objective" reality is not different from talking about God or Plato's world of Forms.
About your idea of an ultimate and non cognitively reality that is expressed in a multiplicity of moods, I think we are again facing the mystical intuition we have discussed some time ago. As I said then, I feel myself unable to talk about mystical revelation, because I never had one and my own way of thinking and living is very far from that "Noche oscura" - I think this is the spanish tittle.
As Xenofanes would say it's something I cannot experience and even if I could I problably wouldn't notice it. Smile

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank- maybe you are right and i did overlook some of the flaws of the argument.

I appreciate that acknowledgement. I also appreciate that you have put lots of work into your philosphy of life. This has become a very interesting discussion.

Quote:

...but your comment on the possibilities about the existence or non-existence of the universe are misunderstood.

I played a bit loose with the words you used, Raheel. But I did it because you were using another unestablished premise in one of the sentences you wrote.

You wrote: ".... the universe either came into existence or it didn't- mathematically these two are the only possibilities."

Well...that is true. But it is true from the perspective I placed on it.

Either it "came into existence"...or "it didn't come into existence."

Out of dererence to JL...I will say: We assume it is here...rather than we know it is here.

If it indeed is here...either it did come into existence...or it has always been here.

Quote:

...the universe is not infinite.

Really!

And how do you know that?

On this question, Raheel...there are two possibilities: The universe is infinite...or the universe is finite.

I don't KNOW which it is...and I suspect you don't KNOW which it is either.

For the record...I don't think Albert Einstein KNEW...and, I don't think Stephen Hawkings KNOWS either.

They can speculate and hypothesize...but as of right now (and I suspect for a very, very long time into the future)... we do not know.

Perphaps the universe is finite. Perhaps THE UNIVERSE is infinite...and what we call the universe is just a relatively small, temporary part of THE UNIVERSE.

Perhaps the thing we call "the universe" is finite...but it is merely one manifestation of a recurring series of "universes" that have happened throughout all of eternity...and will continue to happen throughout all of eternity.

We really do not know.

Quote:

... it did have a beginning- the Big Bang.

Well it appears as though this thing we call the universe did have its start with the Big Bang. Even that is still speculation...but let us suppose for the sake of this discussion that it is so. How do we know that THIS...is THE UNIVERSE?

Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is...BUT MAYBE IT ISN'T.

We don't really know.

Maybe this thing we call "the universe" is just a relatively tiny speck in THE UNIVERSE. Maybe this 13 billions of years that we talk of as being all of time for the universe...is just a flash of an eye in an ETERNAL UNIVERSE.

We really don't know.

Quote:

is it not impossible to have an infinite universe?

No...I don't think it is impossible.

If you do...I'd love to hear why you think that way.

0 Replies

Imagine there is a line which goes back infinitey. Imagine that the line is time, to go back in time would be a never-ending journey, and it would be logically impossible to reach the present from infinitely long ago as there would be no point from where the journey to the resent would begin from. Therefore it is impossible to have infinite time in the past.

If the line represents time as finite, with the beginning of time at the beginning of the line, it is easy to see how you could go back to the beginning of time inn 14 billion years, it is logical to assume that you could therefore not have an infinite regress of causes as after 14 billion years of regression you would reach a point where you could go no further back.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Imagine there is a line which goes back infinitey. Imagine that the line is time, to go back in time would be a never-ending journey, and it would be logically impossible to reach the present from infinitely long ago as there would be no point from where the journey to the resent would begin from. Therefore it is impossible to have infinite time in the past.

If the line represents time as finite, with the beginning of time at the beginning of the line, it is easy to see how you could go back to the beginning of time inn 14 billion years, it is logical to assume that you could therefore not have an infinite regress of causes as after 14 billion years of regression you would reach a point where you could go no further back.

You are making lots of assumptions that are not worthwhile here, Raheel.

You are assuming, for instance, that we are capable of "imagining" what infinity could be like....or what eternity could be like....or whether or not we can get here from there.

In a sense...you are attempting to define "infinity" as something that is impossible...in order to substantiate your assertion that infinity does not exist.

I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we can even come close to that.

We do not know what existed before the Big Bang. We do not know that the universe is a closed, finite system. We simply do not know.

You set out to offer a proof of the existence of god...or at very least, something that you considered sufficient proof of the existence of god.

If you are going to offer a proof of the existence of god that requires that the universe be finite as to time, space, or spacetime....it is going to fall flat on its face, because no intelligent, logical person would ever concede that in a discussion of this sort.

If you are going to ask me to concede something like that...you might as well save your time and just ask me to concede the existence of god based on nothing...because it ain't gonna happen.

So...if you have anthing else to say on this...present it. But I'd really prefer to get back to your proof of the existence of god.

0 Replies

Ah, Raheel, but this infinity or eternity presents a logical dillemma. If there is no eternity or infinity, then what makes the universe the way it is? It is illogical for us to think that something can be created out of nothign is it not?

0 Replies

frank- can i ask what you mainly use your hand for?

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

frank- can i ask what you mainly use your hand for?

Unusual question!

Let me respond by itemizing the first three things that jumped into my mind when I read it.

I use my hand(s) mostly to type, to properly grip a golf club, and to cook.

(Nancy would want me to add: And to hold Nancy's hand...so allow me to add that!)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

raheel wrote:
frank- can i ask what you mainly use your hand for?

Unusual question!

Let me respond by itemizing the first three things that jumped into my mind when I read it.

I use my hand(s) mostly to type, to properly grip a golf club, and to cook.

(Nancy would want me to add: And to hold Nancy's hand...so allow me to add that!)

can you do al these things well-
i mean does the shape/ structure of your hand allow you to grip?

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
raheel wrote:
frank- can i ask what you mainly use your hand for?

Unusual question!

Let me respond by itemizing the first three things that jumped into my mind when I read it.

I use my hand(s) mostly to type, to properly grip a golf club, and to cook.

(Nancy would want me to add: And to hold Nancy's hand...so allow me to add that!)

can you do al these things well-
i mean does the shape/ structure of your hand allow you to grip?

yes!

0 Replies

Sorry to jump in the middle, but I wanted to express my own views on the topic.

Raheel: In your earlier post, you said that everything has a cause, but that there must have been a "primal cause" that had no beginning. Why does this "primal cause" have to be "God" why couldn't it just be the universe? There is a theory in modern Physics that the universe gave birth to itself, and that the "Big Bang" has happened over and over.

I think there's still a few bugs in this theory, but I offered it because it made as much sense as the "God" theory. What exactly is it that makes you feel that it has to be a "God"?

I'm not disrespecting your beliefs - just challenging them. Like Frank, I'm an agnostic, but my views hold that it's more likely there is a "God". However, It remains unproven.

I'd like to add my confusion over the "hand" question, but I'll assume that it's a point you're trying to make.

Frank: The first thing that popped in my head was a dirty joke...but we won't go into that. :wink:

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Frank: The first thing that popped in my head was a dirty joke...but we won't go into that. :wink:

Okay...in the interests of absolute truth...there was one other thing that popped into my mind...even before the keyboard, golf, and cooking.

And I suspect it was that thing we ain't going into!!! :wink:

0 Replies

Val, your comments about causation (we think causation but do not see it) are well taken. I wish you would develop your comments about the movement and mover. One is struck upon careful observation by our iron assumption of the necessity of agents for events to occur. We even say "it" rains. "Raining", while perfectly adequate, seems incomplete. It may be so grammatically; but philosophy must transcend grammar. Also, "Thinking" by itself would have deprived Descartes of his axiom ("'I' think therefore I am).

0 Replies

frank- so you agree that the structure and design of your hand allows you to do these tasks fairly well.

0 Replies

Raheel

You asked what I use my hands for...

...and I answered.

You then asked if I do those things well...

...and if the shape/structure of my hand allows me to grip...and I answered.

Now you are asking if the structure and design of my hand allows me to do these tasks fairly well.

Do you see a pattern here????

If you have a point to make...

...I really wish you would make it.

In any case, I will respond to this third question...but I hope this ends the interrogation and that you will get to that point you are trying to make.

raheel wrote:

frank- so you agree that the structure and design of your hand allows you to do these tasks fairly well.

No...I do not.

As I said earlier, Raheel...the shape and structure of my hand does allow me to grip...and I consider that I do the tasks I mentioned fairly well.

So I have already agreed that the "structure" of my hands allow me to do these tasks fairly well.

I have no idea, however, if the hand was "designed" or "evolved"...so it would be silly of me to "agree" that "the design" of my hand is what allows me to grip or to do those things well.

The hand allows me to grip....and the hand allows me to do those things well.

It appears you are heading down a blind alley here, Raheel...but make your point and we can discuss it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no idea, however, if the hand was "designed" or "evolved"...so it would be silly of me to "agree" that "the design" of my hand is what allows me to grip or to do those things well.

ok lets just leave it at 'the hape and structure of your hand allows you to grip and do other things'.

what do you do with your eyes?

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I have no idea, however, if the hand was "designed" or "evolved"...so it would be silly of me to "agree" that "the design" of my hand is what allows me to grip or to do those things well.

ok lets just leave it at 'the hape and structure of your hand allows you to grip and do other things'.

what do you do with your eyes?

How long are we going to go through this nonsense, Raheel?

I'll humor you for a bit longer...but my patience is wearing thin.

I use my eyes for sight. I use them to look at things....to read...to move about...to line up a putt.

Now get on to your point.

0 Replies

stick with me.

the qusestions are all relevant.

so you use your eyes to see...

you know whats coming next...

does the structure of your eye- whether designed or evolved- allow you to do all those things?

(i will make my point- this is just part of it)

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

stick with me.

the qusestions are all relevant.

so you use your eyes to see...

you know whats coming next...

does the structure of your eye- whether designed or evolved- allow you to do all those things?

(i will make my point- this is just part of it)

Yes.

0 Replies

Frank, what Raheel has demonstrated here, is that the Socratic Method is very oppressive and manipulative, designed to steer a victim to a conclusion. I agree that Raheel should simply make his point in the form of a small thesis.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, what Raheel has demonstrated here, is that the Socratic Method is very oppressive and manipulative, designed to steer a victim to a conclusion. I agree that Raheel should simply make his point in the form of a small thesis.

Thanks, JL.

In any case, it appears as though Raheel simply does not have the technique mastered!

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know