100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Truth vs. Bull**** | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Mon 11/10/08 09:28 PM
|
|
And I have no idea why I am sharing this...   
some sweet sweet memories ....
Cool MS. Here is a picture for the occasion.... 
Thank You Abra for your kind words...
And You too, Jeannie...
Jeannie.... it is always Amazing to see this kind of Motherly Love displayed in the Animal Kingdom.... especially when displayed towards others outside of the same species of the Animal Kingdom .
But come to think of it.... there is coming a day when there will be Peace Among All of God's Creation.... including the Animal Kingdom..... Where even the Lion
will Lay down with the Lamb....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 11/10/08 08:54 PM
|
|
If not, I will have to assume you can't answer my questions because you don't know and you don't have proof for what you assert is fact and truth.
You will assume??? Well there ya go!!!
Your questions are a child's plaything. My 14-year-olds could counter those unsupported claims with an effective argument. I will not take the time to dissect and refute such simple things, especially with one who does not know the difference between fact and opinion. If you are refuting something, please... do so logically and rationally with substantive counter evidence, because all else is your unsubstantiated opinion. Offer something to consider other than your claim, offer a good argument, or sit down and shaddup. Hmmmm.... I think people here are rubbing off on me... where's funches when I need him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/10/08 09:21 PM
|
|
If not, I will have to assume you can't answer my questions because you don't know and you don't have proof for what you assert is fact and truth.
You will assume??? Well there ya go!!!
Your questions are a child's plaything. My 14-year-olds could counter those unsupported claims with an effective argument. I will not take the time to dissect and refute such simple things, especially with one who does not know the difference between fact and opinion. If you are refuting something, please... do so logically and rationally with substantive counter evidence, because all else is your unsubstantiated opinion. Offer something to consider other than your claim, offer a good argument, or sit down and shaddup. Hmmmm.... I think people here are rubbing off on me... where's funches when I need him?
This is your thread Creative and You are the person who has made the claim not me. I refute it. I am asking for proof. You can't offer any. Don't declare something to be a "fact" or "the truth" if you can't prove it. Actuality is not determined by the observer, neither has it ever been.
Prove it. If you can't prove it then tell me WHAT DETERMINES ACTUALITY. What determines actual reality? Answer that. Saying that the universe existed long before humans is ridiculous, because you are assuming that only humans can observe reality. If only humans can observe reality, I guess all of these other creatures are deaf and blind. Perhaps they are just illusions. Then again, you can be eaten by a lion if you are walking across the African plane. I'll bet that lion observed you. You lost this one Creative, just admit it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" the Lion will lay down with the
lamb...." MS, Or in this case with the chimp.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again...
Pick up a book on effective reasoning skills, because within them one can learn the difference(s) between a good and bad argument, the factors of relevance, the difference between fact and opinion, how to construct a valid argument, the differences between good and psuedo-reasoning, the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, etc...
It should also highlight the differences between a claim and an argument as well as outlining that which constitutes a logical refutation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/10/08 09:42 PM
|
|
I will not take the time to dissect and refute such simple things, especially with one who does not know the difference between fact and opinion.
Creative you are the one who started this thread and you gave me the heads up that you were starting a thread on this subject and even warned me that there would be no more mr. nice guy where you were concerned. (see below) And I can win this debate hands down without the reading any of materials you suggest because you cannot prove your claim and you won't even try. You cop out by saying that you will not take the time to dissect and refute simple things. I am not asking you to dissect or refute anything Creative. I just want you to prove your claim or answer my questions about your claim. But since you can't provide proof and since you refuse to answer my questions, then you have clearly lost this debate. Sitting up on your high horse saying that you consider yourself to be so right and me so wrong that you won't even waste your precious time does not wash with me. You loose. I made this statement on another thread: "The bottom line is we decide what is real and what is not." You said: "This is bull****, and easily disproven with a normal second grader's intellect. Pardon my direct approach, but I feel a little less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to ignorance right now, especially when it seems to be more and more blatent. This comment and it's implications are extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things. I will be starting a new thread soon on the topic of truth and the underlying implications of both intentional and unintentional falsehoods being claimed as truth(knowledge). Feel free to join, but do not expect this author to be as complacent as he usually is." You clearly challenged me to this debate and now you refuse to participate. All you do is sit there on your high horse acting like you are too good to waste your time. Well, I hope you enjoy the reality you have created for yourself Creative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Mon 11/10/08 09:39 PM
|
|
Jeannie...
I have these 2 huge loveable dogs...one male and one female.... and there is not a day that doesn't go by.... that the female dog doesn't go up to the male dog..... and chew away at his invisible fleas.....
I mean.....there are no fleas there.....but she lovingly still will chew thru his fur nonetheless......just in case there is one hiding there, I quess....
And my male dog will just stand there... eating all this attention up ...
Talk about Motherly Love ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least, Creative, if you can't prove it then tell me WHAT DETERMINES ACTUALITY.
What determines actual reality? Answer that. That is the very least you can do if you are making these claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About this remark by Creative:
Pardon my direct approach, but I feel a little less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to ignorance right now, especially when it seems to be more and more blatent. This comment and it's implications are extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things.
And Creative, just so you will know, I did not overlook what you have implied towards my comment in the above statement. a.) That it is ignorant b.) That it is more and more blatent (?) b.) That it's implications are extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things.  
Rather dramatic don't you think? A little over the top don't you think? Extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things?? Is this your personal opinion? Would you want to elaborate on that? If it weren't so funny I might be insulted. But what it is, is a bold faced lie. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Tue 11/11/08 12:14 AM
|
|
... there does exist an actual reality, that which is completely independent of the notion of an observer To me, this is still the biggest and smelliest pile of bull**** in the entire thread. But I guess if you're willing to swallow this pile, then a lot of the other bull**** would make sense as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Tue 11/11/08 12:47 AM
|
|
What IS Truth ? or rather .... WHO Is Truth ? Jesus said, " I AM The WAY... The TRUTH.... The LIFE..... NO Man NO Man NO Man NO Man....... Can Come to the Father BUT... BY .... ME ...." Was Jesus LYING?
Would jesus deni someone worthy... Yet they have become worthy on their own... with out his name but by his message... Would you lord deni that person... Ok..... First of All, Adventure....
GOD Denies( Rejects) NO Man!!!! EVER!! NEVER EVER!!! It is the other way around..... It is MAN that DENIES(Rejects) GOD!!! See what I am saying here?
Adventure..... The fact that a person is drawn to Jesus's Message, is already the Lord "drawing" that person unto Him..... and so No.... the Lord will NOT deny that person ....but will complete the wooing process of that person towards Him. But of course ....God Will NEVER force one to believe on Him........or go agaisnt that person's free will. Ever..... But God knows those whose hearts are turned..or drawn towards him... and is Patient.... Just because many don't yet believe....doesn't mean that God is done...... God is a God of Much Patience and Deep Abiding Love.....Towards All..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... there does exist an actual reality, that which is completely independent of the notion of an observer To me, this is still the biggest and smelliest pile of bull**** in the entire thread. But I guess if you're willing to swallow this pile, then a lot of the other bull**** would make sense as well.
Well if such a actual reality exists, no one can possibly be aware of it on account of it's being completely independent of the notion of an observer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... there does exist an actual reality, that which is completely independent of the notion of an observer To me, this is still the biggest and smelliest pile of bull**** in the entire thread. But I guess if you're willing to swallow this pile, then a lot of the other bull**** would make sense as well. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/psychology/Commonsense2.htm
yep. 12 out of 12. 
if truth is purely personal, then why does science "work"? the pursuit of scientific knowledge requires that one be able to make meaningful measurements on which all observers can agree. if truth is only valid individually, it would appear that such an endeavor as science - or any measurement actually is ultimately pointless. so, here is a dilemma: is measurement pointless or is truth not merely personal? hmmm? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Tue 11/11/08 02:52 AM
|
|
if truth is purely personal, then why does science "work"?
Neither.
the pursuit of scientific knowledge requires that one be able to make meaningful measurements on which all observers can agree. if truth is only valid individually, it would appear that such an endeavor as science - or any measurement actually is ultimately pointless. so, here is a dilemma: is measurement pointless or is truth not merely personal? hmmm? Measurement is not purely personal. Measurement is agreement-based. What is pointless is comparing something that is agreement-based with something that is purely personal. Don’t confuse “truth” with “agreement” in this case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/psychology/Commonsense2.htm
yep. 12 out of 12.
I agree with Abra that those questions had little to do with common sense and more to do with rejecting commonly repeated "wives tales."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/11/08 07:12 AM
|
|
http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/psychology/Commonsense2.htm
if truth is purely personal, then why does science "work"? the pursuit of scientific knowledge requires that one be able to make meaningful measurements on which all observers can agree. if truth is only valid individually, it would appear that such an endeavor as science - or any measurement actually is ultimately pointless. so, here is a dilemma: is measurement pointless or is truth not merely personal? hmmm? Truth begins at a personal level. A fact is an agreement. My idea as to why science works is a little abstract. It begins with the premise that this environment we call reality and everything in it is made up of vibrations. Human observers agree on the interpretations of these vibrations because they possess similar sensory skills and have similar organs that are used for that interpretation. The environment itself is somewhat stable where the vibrations are concerned. 'Like' vibrations attract 'like' vibrations. 'Like' observers (humans) interpret them in a similar manner. Agreement verifies the observation. An observer with completely different sensory skills (providing we could communicate with them) may not agree with human science and may see this environment of vibrations completely differently than we humans do. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 11/11/08 07:33 AM
|
|
if truth is purely personal, then why does science "work"?
Neither.
the pursuit of scientific knowledge requires that one be able to make meaningful measurements on which all observers can agree. if truth is only valid individually, it would appear that such an endeavor as science - or any measurement actually is ultimately pointless. so, here is a dilemma: is measurement pointless or is truth not merely personal? hmmm? Measurement is not purely personal. Measurement is agreement-based. What is pointless is comparing something that is agreement-based with something that is purely personal. Don’t confuse “truth” with “agreement” in this case. i believe that it is impossible to confuse truth with agreement because the definition of truth is agreement.
this universal agreement on which we base the utility of measurements is the common definition of "truth". i think this is basically the definition that Michael is making: ie. -in truth (meaning in accordance with fact) but don't take it from me, check the dictionary! here is the Websters online version of the definition. =-=-=-=-=-=-= Main Entry: Truth truth Listen to the pronunciation of truth Pronunciation: \ˈtrüth\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural truths Listen to the pronunciation of truths Listen to the pronunciation of truths \ˈtrüthz, ˈtrüths\ Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old English trēowe faithful — more at true Date: before 12th century 1 a archaic : fidelity , constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions 3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard 4 (capitalized Truth) Christian Science : god example: — in truth : in accordance with fact : actually =-=-=-=-=-= definitions 2 and 3 are the operative ones here. definition 1 is archaic regarding "fidelity of character" definition 4 is a way that Christian Science sometimes refers to God. the other definitions equate truth to agreement with facts which are measurable. so, it cannot be reasonably argued in this framework that truth is merely personal. truth is defined by agreement with measurement of facts. that was my point. 
truth is NOT personal. truth IS agreeeeement! bias is personal like fantasy and opinions. THAT is what MAKES measurement meaningful.
truth is independent of opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 11/11/08 07:37 AM
|
|
Here are the issues that I see surfacing.
First, most people "agree" to accept certain knowledge. That knowledge can be based on empirical evidence - which is evidence of the senses and that knowledge can have a basis in science, epistimology and scientific methods. Now, some or none of the 'agreed' upon knowledge is accepted by some, becasue their philosophy is NOT TO AGREE with what most people accept. Such things as, physical reality is merely the effect of a vibration - to accept that theory one would also have to believe that the vibration could just stop or end and some or all physical reality would simply cease to exist. But this is still not acceptible to the human ego, to imagine it cannot go on, to think that a mere vibration is the cause of its existence. So even those who don't accept the "common knowledge" of the universal tribe of humans still have to find a way to go on, to be worthy, to have value. Thus they have independent personalities, how that is possible, no one can explain. There are observers which are explained as a separation of the universal mind being manifested within a human. Now is that observer part of the vibration that has created the person? And how does that whole thing fit in with birth and death. If we are simply the extention of a vibration, what is evolution, what is birth? The vibration theory is a God theory. If a vibration can be the cause of physical existence, what purpose does reproduction serve. Also, what does aging and death accomplish when a simple change in a vibration can end the experience? These are philisophical questions, they are not accepted as a basis for scientific study becasue they don't allow epirical evidence for the purpose of study under scientific methodology. This is what Creative is trying to explain. Science can never prove such theories, so they stick to what they can, because SO FAR, it works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
truth is defined by agreement with measurement of facts. that was my point. truth is NOT personal. truth IS agreeeeement! bias is personal like fantasy and opinions. THAT is what MAKES measurement meaningful. also, i think that is what Michael is getting at..... truth is independent of opinion. 1.)Your first statement is also an agreement. (That "truth is defined by agreement with measurement of facts.") "That truth is defined.." ... defined by whom? The answer is: by those who agree to define truth this way. 2.)"Truth is not personal." ~~ I disagree. Truth is very personal. I submit that truth begins on a personal level. I submit that agreement is "not personal."
Measurement is meaningful because it supports the agreement. |
|
|
|
|
