Beginning of the beginning?

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: ockky
i just want to point out a couple of things. . .
1) some of you couldn't type a full, complete, readable, english sentence to save your life. please, if you can't 'write', don't try to pass your thoughts on to us because it hurts. . .at least it hurts my head. . .

I agree that people should attempt to write correctly - and hope that you will take your own advice.

AND, if there is a god, what's to say there aren't 50 gods? why can there be only one? (sounds like **** to me)

That's bacause there can't be 50 different moralities (I can't be true that I ought to steal and that I ought not to - there is only one ought); and there can't be 50 different ultimate goals of human life (if there were then humanity is a split concept, unless there is a higher goal which judges between the lower ones).
What would you say to this argument - if truth exists, why can't there be 50 truths, why only one? This is a nonsense argument because implied in the concept of truth is its universality.

i think the the biggest question of all is why in the hell people are still talking about voting for bush?!

No, our relation to God is a more important question.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: hatim
We cannot prove the non-existence of God either which points to the fact that there must be a God. Existence of God is a more sensible theory and therefore it must be proven wrong.

No. If we cannot know God then it is for us as if God does not exist. Existence of God cannot be a theory, because if is only speculation and cannot be known, then it is in fact meaningless. Because if it can be perceved then it can be known, so if it cannot be known then it cannot be perceived and then the concept of God is divorced from us and cannot be understood, and is therefore meaningless.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I agree... true knowledge is knowing that we know nothing. So if I concede that I cannot prove anything absolutely, you must concede that you cannot prove the existance of a God either.

If you know nothing, then why do you assert anything, especially that nothing can be known?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I agree... true knowledge is knowing that we know nothing. So if I concede that I cannot prove anything absolutely, you must concede that you cannot prove the existance of a God either.

If you know nothing, then why do you assert anything, especially that nothing can be known?

The point of Socrates quote is to discourage people from claiming that everything know is the absolute' truth. If you are to take anything from his quotation, it's not that nothing can be known. It's that we should acknowledge that what you know may be completely wrong. We may have already asserted an 'absolute' truth, it's just difficult to figure out which one it is.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
The point of Socrates quote is to discourage people from claiming that everything know is the absolute' truth. If you are to take anything from his quotation, it's not that nothing can be known. It's that we should acknowledge that what you know may be completely wrong. We may have already asserted an 'absolute' truth, it's just difficult to figure out which one it is.

I discerned something of Socrates in that, but that can't be what he said. Socrates knew that he knew nothing of justice, so avoids the contradiction of the more general statement I know that I know nothing. He also kept searching for knowledge in others, never denying the possiblity of knowledge of justice in others.
Socrates certainly did not think that knowledge can be wrong. Is is always assumed that if you know something then it must be true - that's why he always talks to those who claim to know what justice is, since he wants to know not knowledge which can be false, but what the truth is; and why when their knowledge is shown up, it cannot be knowledge.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: hatim
time and sound, they are there only becuase we know of it. There is stuff that we don't know about; obviosuly. So the concept of sound and time is still something that is related with the universe, as in anything physical. Anything physical is related to the universe only.

I agree... true knowledge is knowing that we know nothing. So if I concede that I cannot prove anything absolutely, you must concede that you cannot prove the existance of a God either.

A smart one. We cannot prove the non-existence of God either which points to the fact that there must be a God. Existence of God is a more sensible theory and therefore it must be proven wrong. All this brings us to another vast(er) discussion. Which God is right. But that cannot be discussed since we cannot explain God. So the next best thing would be to explain God's creation. Then we must accept the fact that God created more than we know about and may/maynot be better than us.

Can you *prove* that the easter bunny doesn't exist? Then there must be one.
Can you *prove* that no one alive today will live to be 100,000 years old? Then there must be one.
Can you *prove* that there's no cheese on the moon? Then there must be some.
...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: ockky
i just want to point out a couple of things. . .
1) some of you couldn't type a full, complete, readable, english sentence to save your life. please, if you can't 'write', don't try to pass your thoughts on to us because it hurts. . .at least it hurts my head. . .

I agree that people should attempt to write correctly - and hope that you will take your own advice.

AND, if there is a god, what's to say there aren't 50 gods? why can there be only one? (sounds like **** to me)

That's bacause there can't be 50 different moralities (I can't be true that I ought to steal and that I ought not to - there is only one ought); and there can't be 50 different ultimate goals of human life (if there were then humanity is a split concept, unless there is a higher goal which judges between the lower ones).
What would you say to this argument - if truth exists, why can't there be 50 truths, why only one? This is a nonsense argument because implied in the concept of truth is its universality.

i think the the biggest question of all is why in the hell people are still talking about voting for bush?!

No, our relation to God is a more important question.

Last I checked there were huge numbers of moralities and huge numbers of goals for humans. What makes your morality right from the people you feel to be immoral besides your own concepts of such (borrowed or not). Who ever confirmed there was an ultimate goal? How do you decide that one goal is greater then another so that you can come to a point where there is no higher goal and find your answer? Since when was humanity a uniform concept?

And to the person who way back said you can't study what isn't in the universe many people have devoted large amounts of work studying things like frictionless plains which do not exist in the universe. The whole reason logic was rewritten in recent history was to account for things that are of interest but don't exist.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
Last I checked there were huge numbers of moralities and huge numbers of goals for humans. What makes your morality right

But all those moralities can't be true at once. I wasn't claiming that a particular one (mine or anyone else's) is true.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

And why does there have to be a true morality? Your making the assumptions based on an assumption your not going to get very far with that.

 

[CSMR]

What if I were to say to you: you are making the assumption that truth exists, and you are making all your statements based on that assumption. One doesn't start with nothing.
Yes, I have made an assumption - if by that is meant knowledge which is not attainable by pure logic only. The assumption of truth is in fact part of the concept or morality: as soon as morality is conceived as an idea, is must also be conceived as true. As soon as one can speak of morality and ask what is moral, one has already assumed that it is true. Of course, it is logically possible to deny that the validity of the concept, not to use the word, and to consider the word meaningless. But once one has the meaning, one has also the factuality. (NB I am not asserting that undertstanding the meaning of a moral statement implies its truth or falsity, only undertanding the idea of morality itself.) The same goes for God.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

No no the assumption isn't that morals exist; the bad assumption being made is that theres some greater set of morals that are universally true. You really need to prove that first before using it as evidence of one god.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TuxDave
The point of Socrates quote is to discourage people from claiming that everything know is the absolute' truth. If you are to take anything from his quotation, it's not that nothing can be known. It's that we should acknowledge that what you know may be completely wrong. We may have already asserted an 'absolute' truth, it's just difficult to figure out which one it is.

I discerned something of Socrates in that, but that can't be what he said. Socrates knew that he knew nothing of justice, so avoids the contradiction of the more general statement I know that I know nothing. He also kept searching for knowledge in others, never denying the possiblity of knowledge of justice in others.
Socrates certainly did not think that knowledge can be wrong. Is is always assumed that if you know something then it must be true - that's why he always talks to those who claim to know what justice is, since he wants to know not knowledge which can be false, but what the truth is; and why when their knowledge is shown up, it cannot be knowledge.

Interesting... I was not aware of the premises surrounding Socrates' quote and his search to understand justice.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR
What if I were to say to you: you are making the assumption that truth exists, and you are making all your statements based on that assumption. One doesn't start with nothing.
Yes, I have made an assumption - if by that is meant knowledge which is not attainable by pure logic only. The assumption of truth is in fact part of the concept or morality: as soon as morality is conceived as an idea, is must also be conceived as true. As soon as one can speak of morality and ask what is moral, one has already assumed that it is true. Of course, it is logically possible to deny that the validity of the concept, not to use the word, and to consider the word meaningless. But once one has the meaning, one has also the factuality. (NB I am not asserting that undertstanding the meaning of a moral statement implies its truth or falsity, only undertanding the idea of morality itself.) The same goes for God.

I say morality and truth cannot be lumped together. The truth describes what is and is not. It can only have one outcome (ignoring strange quantum physics). Morals describe what should and shouldn't. I say this is a relativistic term like who's high and who's low. To one person, there may be a universal set of morals, but that universal set of morals may not transfer to another.

 

[itachi]

Originally posted by: hatim
1 If science says that the big bang happened, It mustve started from something. Like a dot. So where did that dot come from?

that's a question that nobody will ever be able to answer. just as nobody can prove or disprove the existance of God.

2 Also What happens to the feeling of beings oneself after death? You cant just not exist if you think about it.

without conscience you're not you. if you're dead, you have no conscience.. no soul.. no brain activity.. all that's left is your corpse. if you define yourself by what your body looks like rather than your mind and body then you'll be around for a little while after you die.. then your body decomposes into other sht.

3 What gives someone individuality. Why are you yourself? Why can you feel only yourseld? Why can you see what your body sees? Why are you inside your body?

you're trying to sound all philosophical and inquisitive.. but in reality, you just sound retarded. i smell identity crisis.. maybe you should seek professional counseling.

4 How are there so many individuals each thinking for himself? Like if you are you, then a new baby must also be thinking the same way. So how are there increasing? Where did "we" come from?

there is no limit.. if you think that there is one, then you're just being naive. where we came from is a question to be answered by your beliefs.

5 Does a baby remember what happens inside his/her mother's womb? How is something born? Like a sperm? How is the sperm created which becomes you. Were you a sperm that evolved? Could you feel yourself when you were a sperm? If yes then before the sperm?

does a sperm have a brain? then how the hell would it even be possible to remember? memories are stored inside the brain.. if you don't have one, then you have no way of remembering.

 

[cquark]

That's bacause there can't be 50 different moralities (I can't be true that I ought to steal and that I ought not to - there is only one ought); and there can't be 50 different ultimate goals of human life (if there were then humanity is a split concept, unless there is a higher goal which judges between the lower ones).
What would you say to this argument - if truth exists, why can't there be 50 truths, why only one? This is a nonsense argument because implied in the concept of truth is its universality.

You're oversimplifying here--truth is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Many factual truths about the world are relative. For example, you do have 50 (and many more) different velocities right now. All of them are true, accurate, precise measurements. Velocity is an observable quantity, but it's not universal.

If you want a more abstract example, how about algebra? Is ab = ba or is ab != ba?

Well, it depends on which algebraic system that you use. In grade school algebra, they teach you that ab=ba and you find that works fine in high school physics too, so it seems universal. Then in university you take an algebras class, where you learn about the many varieties of algebraic axiom systems and find that ab != ba in most of them. After that, you take quantum mechanics which is founded on such algebraic systems. In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can be stated mathematically as the fact that x (position) and p (momentum) don't commute in quantum systems.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I say morality and truth cannot be lumped together. The truth describes what is and is not. It can only have one outcome (ignoring strange quantum physics). Morals describe what should and shouldn't. I say this is a relativistic term like who's high and who's low. To one person, there may be a universal set of morals, but that universal set of morals may not transfer to another.

OK, but how is that different from truth? I'm not sure what you have in mind. I have black hair is part of the truth about me, but cannot be transfered to all other people. Similarly one person perhaps ought to mow the lawn and another ought not to. Are you going further and saying that morality may apply to one person, but another is free of it altogether?
I am also not sure what you mean by the term relitavistic. Are you saying that there are degrees of should between the extremes should and should not?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
No no the assumption isn't that morals exist

Why isn't that an assumption, but the universality an assumption?

the bad assumption being made is that theres some greater set of morals that are universally true.

Tell me how it could be otherwise. I am about to take an action. I ask whether it is right or not. Is this not justified? But if one morality said that it is right (one God) and one said that it is wrong (another) then would it be right or wrong? I don't want one view, I want the truth, and the that can't be that something is both right and not right.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: cquark
You're oversimplifying here--truth is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Many factual truths about the world are relative. For example, you do have 50 (and many more) different velocities right now. All of them are true, accurate, precise measurements. Velocity is an observable quantity, but it's not universal.

If you want a more abstract example, how about algebra? Is ab = ba or is ab != ba?

Well, it depends on which algebraic system that you use.

The symbols ab=ba have no meaning except in an algebraic system. In order to speak accurately you need to specify the algebraic system therefore. What about a=b; is that true? Well, it depends on what a and b are - without knowing this the statement has no meaning - rather it is not even a statement. Hmm. - maths has no meaning anyway, so let's move on. "What is your velocity" is not a question in your other example. Velocity is not applicable to me, only to my 50 and many more parts with different velocities.
If you claim that I am moving at both 1mph and 10mph, please tell me what both statments mean and how they are both true. Secondly show me how they conflict, so cannot be part of a universal truth. Unless you do both you have not shown that I am over-simplifying in assuming one truth.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I say morality and truth cannot be lumped together. The truth describes what is and is not. It can only have one outcome (ignoring strange quantum physics). Morals describe what should and shouldn't. I say this is a relativistic term like who's high and who's low. To one person, there may be a universal set of morals, but that universal set of morals may not transfer to another.

OK, but how is that different from truth? I'm not sure what you have in mind. I have black hair is part of the truth about me, but cannot be transfered to all other people. Similarly one person perhaps ought to mow the lawn and another ought not to. Are you going further and saying that morality may apply to one person, but another is free of it altogether?
I am also not sure what you mean by the term relitavistic. Are you saying that there are degrees of should between the extremes should and should not?

If the concept of black is universal, then there is one truth. YOU (CSMR) have black hair. That is universal truth since everyone will agree, you have black hair.. The statement "I have black hair" is not universally true and hence, not a universal truth.

When I say relativistic, I mean that it is different for each individual. "I have black hair" is relativistic because it's true for some but not all. There may indeed be a set of universal morality, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to why, intuitively, it should be true.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: cquark
You're oversimplifying here--truth is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Many factual truths about the world are relative. For example, you do have 50 (and many more) different velocities right now. All of them are true, accurate, precise measurements. Velocity is an observable quantity, but it's not universal.

If you want a more abstract example, how about algebra? Is ab = ba or is ab != ba?

Well, it depends on which algebraic system that you use.

The symbols ab=ba have no meaning except in an algebraic system. In order to speak accurately you need to specify the algebraic system therefore. What about a=b; is that true? Well, it depends on what a and b are - without knowing this the statement has no meaning - rather it is not even a statement. Hmm. - maths has no meaning anyway, so let's move on. "What is your velocity" is not a question in your other example. Velocity is not applicable to me, only to my 50 and many more parts with different velocities.
If you claim that I am moving at both 1mph and 10mph, please tell me what both statments mean and how they are both true. Secondly show me how they conflict, so cannot be part of a universal truth. Unless you do both you have not shown that I am over-simplifying in assuming one truth.

I can answer the velocity part. There is a mindset that there is no universal stationary position to reference and hence there is no intrinsic velocity that a person can move at. The only thing you can claim is the velocity relative to something else. So if you and another person are moving away from me at 10mph, then I say you are moving 10mph. To the other person (who is going the same speed), he'll say you're not moving. Hence, velocity is not a universal truth.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: DrPizza<BR>hatim.. that it "doesn't make any sense" depends on who the recipient of the knowledge is. I'm sure a lot of things don't make any sense to you. However, it's a horrible mistake to, when faced with something you don't understand or can't explain using current knowledge, attribute that phenomenom to a supreme deity. YES, I *DO* believe in a supreme being. Nonetheless, when science is faced with problems that it cannot explain, you're treading on thin water when you attribute that phenomenom to God. Because, if science says "ah ha!" and realizes a simple solution, you've suddenly seen a "special power" of your God disproved as being attributed to your God. I don't know what religion you do believe in, but I'll provide the Christian Bible as a prime example: There are *numerous* places in the Bible that show it was believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe. For ages, people believed it was all the workings of God, making it rise on one side and set on the other side... But, eventually science explained the roundness of the earth as well as the solar system.... some of the foundation of religion crumbled, because that foundation was built up on an explanation for something that wasn't understood. <BR><BR>Nonetheless, apparently your sole motivation for starting this thread was to turn it into a religious thread, one which is hardly "highly technical." A discussion about the physiology of death, or quantum mechanics would have qualified.. and, perhaps some discussion of religion. But, you started this thread with 4 questions, the answers to which you already "know" are God.

<BR><BR>Nothing that my religion has said has ever been proven wrong yet.

Maybe your religion says little and err none. Kindly pray to your God and ask Him to help us solve the mystery. Possible?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
When I say relativistic, I mean that it is different for each individual. "I have black hair" is relativistic because it's true for some but not all. There may indeed be a set of universal morality, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to why, intuitively, it should be true.

I take it that by universal you mean not relitavistic? Then logically if r(p) is whatever is right for person p, then "if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is a universal morality in your sense, isn't it?
This isn't what I was trying to argue - I was only saying that there aren't many moralies that apply to a single person, only one true one.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TuxDave
When I say relativistic, I mean that it is different for each individual. "I have black hair" is relativistic because it's true for some but not all. There may indeed be a set of universal morality, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to why, intuitively, it should be true.

I take it that by universal you mean not relitavistic? Then logically if r(p) is whatever is right for person p, then "if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is a universal morality in your sense, isn't it?
This isn't what I was trying to argue - I was only saying that there aren't many moralies that apply to a single person, only one true one.

That is a self-referencing statement.

"If that action is moral to me, then that action is moral to me." That statement IS universal since it is always logically true. However, I don't see how that is a form of morality, unless you consider simple logical equations to have some moral quality. Look what I can do to prove that Santa is real by making logically correct statements.

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

 

[CSMR]

No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"