Not even close.

The only thing you can know for certain is that you exist.

Everything else an opinion.

Facts are agreements. (opinions that have been agreed upon)

Well start picking the straw out of your own shirt.

You said “One witnessed event has more than one personal conclusion,”

The use of “One” is non-specific and thus indicates a reference to a single representative instance within the set of “all”. And the verb “has” is unmodified, which means that it applies in every case. Thus the grammatical structure of the sentence indicates that all events are being referenced and that all those referenced events possess the indicated object – i.e. “more than one personal conclusion”.

So if you want to reword that statement, be my guest. But accusing me of using strawman arguments in this case is simply admitting that you did not express yourself well enough to be understood.

Yes

If the “reasonable understanding” does not include identical conclusions as to the definitions of those words, then communication does not occur.



My point is that you have not given an example of anything real that is not agreed upon by anyone. (Apparently the fact that an event happened at all is agreed upon, so there goes your supposed example right there.)

-------------------------------------------------

And speaking of strawman arguments…

You have proposed a hypothetical “real” event.
You have postulated that there were multiple observers of that event.
You have postulated that they did not agree on the event.

Ok, so you’ve come up with a hypothetical situation and then offered postulates that exclude the possibility of the opposing viewpoint being true.

Wow. I’m impressed. You can come up with a postulate that contradicts someone else’s postulate. Congratulations.

But you’ll excuse me if I don’t think of a postulate as a substitute for a reasoned argument.

-------------------------------------------------

So if we’re going to just make up postulates at whim and apply them to the scenario, I postulate that all the observers had the exact same conclusions about the event.

So where does that leave us?

We are arguing from different postulates and thus neither of us can present a logical argument to the other.

Fair enough?

Therefore a belief in God or Spirit or having a soul is "bullsh!t" according to this statement.

That is interesting. So then all thingsthat are agreed upon by more than one person is a fact?

Opinion becomes a fact upon an agreement?

What is the use of being true then?

This is a perfect example of the kind of bull**** incompetence which is dangerous to mankind's welfare. No worries there are and have been plenty of others throughout history who shared your views on what constitues a fact. Here is a short list of what it produced.

Child abuse.

Slavery.

Communism.

Fascism.

The Inquisition.

The French Revolution.

The Crusades.

9/11.

All of these examples were agreed to be acceptable by different people at the time.

So then, there is no difference between an agreement based upon logical and reasonable grounds and one that is not?

Now I will address this paragraph in the the O.P.



This is an opinion and a ridiculous statement since the noun "Bullsh!tters" is a personal opinion and undefined. The rest of the sentence is rhetoric designed to sound like a noble cause. (Down with evil bullsh1ters because they are a danger to our youth.) That is bull.




All information is just information. Individuals will decide if it is true or not, and groups of individuals agree if it is true or not. Therefore, "truth" is decided and defined by individuals and by group agreements.



That is a safe statement seeing as how ALL INFORMATION would have to be agreed upon by EVERYONE to have been defined as "true" and there is always conflicting information everywhere and different opinions everywhere.



The above statement is an opinion which includes the adjective "false" (describing the information) without naming the specific information, which according to someone else may be "true." Hence, the implication that said information is "false" is just an opinion. Therefore this is a useless vague and ambiguous statement.

It is a determined to be fact according to those who agree only.



Opinions shared and agreed upon are determined to be facts by those who agree.



I don't really understand that question.



The calling of these statements "bullsh!t is your opinion.

You keep saying that but you have not given any examples how this is dangerous to mankind's welfare.




Your examples were acceptable only by those who agreed upon them, and not acceptable to those who did not agree upon them.



I don't understand the question since what is "logical" and what is "reasonable" is a matter of opinion.

Sky...

That was a fine example of addressing that which has no relevance to the issue at hand. Allow me to follow your lead... sort of, while adding relevance simultaneously...

Here is your perspective again.



"Non specific" indicates nothing but what you, the observer, think it represents Sky. That is the nature of the being non-specific. Thus, once again you have offered a real example of the fact that there can be and often are different perspective(s) stemming from the same set of events.

That was just a part of the evidence that I presented earlier.

I am forced to conclude that you have no substantive argument against the claim that there does exist an actuality which is completely independent of observation. The independant existence of which allows for different perspectives to exist. That claim was heavily suported by me, both scientifically and logically throughout this discussion. If you missed it, then re-read it.

Do you have any evidence based upon fact which is relevant to the main idea of this thread and therefore supports that which you claim to be true?

I have yet to "see" anything but you focusing on irrelevant little pieces of this discussion, while desperately looking for a flaw to point out.

It is unbecoming of you.

FYI...

I have more than entertained the notion of both sides of this argument. If you would like to switch places you would see it differently.

I understand the nature of the differences between our sides concerning the notions of opinion/belief and fact. Thus, the importance, value, and definition placed upon knowledge differs accordingly.

This is very important.

The examples you offered above are not example of the "result" of this line of thinking but they are actually evidence that what I am saying is true and that this is the way people do think and determine truth and reality and facts individually and within their groups.

JB...

This will be the last time I respond to you directly...

Your earlier claim that a fact is an agreement brought about the following response from me...



To which you said...



This is painfully obvious to one who does.

Good luck with all you pursue with a good-natured intent.

That's a total cop out Creative.

The reason I don't understand the question is because it has been agreed that for the purpose of this thread that the term "truth" is to be considered "personal."

This is what you and Red agreed on.

Since you used the term "truth" (true) in that question and your "truth" is personal to you I don't understand what you mean by "truth."

You actually challenged me to this debate and you told me that you were not going to be so "nice" this time, and I took that as a serious challenge.

But now you are just running away and making some lame excuse why you are not going to respond to me any more.

You cannot dispute my other responses so you tuck your tail and run.

Okeee dokeee bye!

(but don't think I am going away that easy.)

I will still comment on your propaganda. If you don't want to respond that is your choice.

I once had an ex-girlfriend who had been treated very poorly by her ex before me. She had not came to terms with the relationship and how it had affected her. Therefore, the reasoning for the jealousy, which was perhaps warranted in her case with him, was also applied to me.

This is a real case scenario.

The unconscious overload of fear, worry, and pain resulting from her previous relationship was consequently carried into our relationship.

I was tired after working 12 hour shifts for two weeks straight, so I immediately laid down for about ten minutes after coming home. This resulted in her final conclusion that I did not love her. This was twisted into making sense to her by unsubstantiated propositional psuedo-reasoning.

After she told her friend her friend agreed.

Does that make it a fact.

Did you stick it out with her, work it out, convince her at all costs that you really did love her, and eventually marry her? Are are you still married to her?

Do you still love her?

If not, then, yes, it probably was a fact.

Love is felt, it is not "reasoned."

Since Skyhook and I somewhat closely agree on this topic, and Creative will not address my valid points I am responding to what he wrote to Skyhook below:

1.)


You are the person who made the claim not Skyhook. You are the person who failed to present evidence of the existence of an actuality which is completely independent of observation.

This is just like a person who claims that God exists and then expects the person who disagrees to present evidence "that God does NOT exist.

The scientific answer would be that "God" has never been seen, and that which has never been seen or observed does not exist. If someone claims they have "seen God" in the form of a burning bush or a tree, they have no way of proving that what they saw was God.


2.)
Creative wrote:


A "perspective" is a point of view and a point of view is an observer.

If a "point of view" does not indicate an observer, then what does it indicate? Is it a hypothetical point of observation? If so, then you are saying that your proof of non-observed actuality requires "hypothetical" observers.

If your observers are "hypothetical" then your actuality is also hypothetical.

Calling an observer by a different name ("a different perspective") does not eliminate observers from the actuality that you claim exists independent of observers.

jb

This is where I agree with Creative and the scientific community.

The earth, this solar system and the galaxy and stars etc. existed long before the advent of humankind and life as we know it on the earth.

I totally agree with this based on current scientific observation and knowledge.

Where we do not connect is the concept of what an "observer" is.

But even so, the knowledge of the earth and solar system and the rest of the physical universe would not be known of by humans if not for the observations of humans, even though we all might agree that these things existed before humans.

Where the observer concept comes in is my definition of an observer is anything that receives and responds to vibrations. Therefore, even the elusive particle can be classified as an observer.

Every inch of the universe is alive, conscious, vibrating and expanding in my opinion.

In the opinion of an atheist, the universe itself is basically dead,(or unconscious) save for a few isolated incidents of life here and there.

Because of my nearsightedness concerning the ambiguity in what constitutes "love". Allow me to use the same relationship as a more concise example in another aspect.

So then, if one claims that their significant other is having an affair, all that is required to constitute the conclusion that this claim is a fact is an agreement?

Does it not have anything to do with whether or not the claim is true?



The ability to know whether or not a proposition is true or false requires competence. Competence itself requires an accurate understanding of the relevant information, and the ability to make sound conclusions based upon the facts at hand.

This conversation considers and has displayed the importance of the information upon which human knowledge is built being true. That value can only be had with confidence if there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. Evidence itself must contain reasonably irrefutable information, either by way of being testible or by way of being reasonable. Either way, the evidence must be based on and compared to factuality. That which is already known to be true.

A fact must be true, anything less and it is not.

Reflecting on an earlier part of the discussion which involved exactly what constitutes a fact, the other side of this "debate" insisted, for reasoning that has not yet been shown, that a fact simply equates to an agreement.

This is not true, I will provide a simple yet effective example to support my refutation of this absurdity... again.

A fact is a true regardless of whether or not it is acknowledged as such by a human. Human interpretation is prone to error by misunderstanding the evidence at hand, especially when the base of the individual's perceptual faculty contains falsehoods which are believed to be true.

Most everyone, according to the available history on humans, once believed that the world was flat. Those were agreements. They were not true. An agreement alone does not constitute what is true/fact. It only constitutes what one believes to be true. Personal truth is subjective, actuality from which personal truth stems is not.

It is that which is not...us!

Evidence does determine fact, and this example also reflects upon what TRIBO mentioned earlier concerning the dynamic nature of human knowledge. The fact that humans have gained understanding of that which surrounds us, and have therefore gained some measure of exactitude within our human knowledge logically proves the fact that we are indeed separate from that which we learn about, and that it's(actuality's) truth existed long before the first evaluation, human or otherwise. It is only our own understanding of actuality that changes according to our knowledge. Actuality remains independant of observation. The universe would still be there, and it was, long before humans existed.

Godspeed.

Personal truth has no boundaries, nor limiters... it is self evident...and requires no justification.


Where one has no room for allowing another their truths... there is no room for growth.

When one consistently requires disputing EVERYTHING of another...they show themselves.

Precisely

That is why my only argument against the so called agreement created reality is that science works . . . that shows this supposition is incorrect.

For science to work, we have to find truth that was always there then make use of it . . . if it where wrong it would not work. Science uncovers truth, if it doesn't work, it isn't true, it isn't science.

If agreement created reality, the world would be flat. If agreement created reality, we would have been poofed into existence, there would be no dinosaurs.

If agreement created reality, it would be a circular relationship where the agreement comes before the reality . . . . that is absurd.

CS:

A fact is a true regardless of whether or not it is acknowledged as such by a human. Human interpretation is prone to error by misunderstanding the evidence at hand, especially when the base of the individuals perceptual faculty contains falsehoods which are believed to be true.

Most everyone, according to the available history on humans, once believed that the world was flat. Those were agreements. They were not true. An agreement alone does not constitute what is true/fact. It only constitutes what one believes to be true. Personal truth is subjective, actuality from which personal truth stems is not.

It is that which is not...us!

TRIBO:

well i can't disagree with this - since I've used it myself before hand. i guess i'm not seeing clearly yet what is meant by the observer in JB's scenario - call me dense - i feel like both of you are making good points and should see it through to conclusion so that it ends with something positive for all to walk away from being satisfied - please continue, all of you -

Concerning the flat earth example:

(Wikipedia)

"The Myth of the Flat Earth or Flat Earth mythology refers to the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, many scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now).

Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[2] David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[3]