03 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou speak of truth?
That is true...
So how precisely do you recognise truth when you encounter it...
Something more impressive than it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling is in order here.
He and I are speaking of The Truth.
Something you apparently don't give a damn about, so no wonder you don't get it when it smacks you in the face. (Provided it even bothers with you.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneNo you don't give a damn about truth other wise you wouldn't believe based on faith.
You speak of truth?
He and I are speaking of The Truth.
Something you apparently don't give a damn about, so no wonder you don't get it when it smacks you in the face. (Provided it even bothers with you.)
Don't you dare tell me I don't care about the truth when you evidently don't give a
damn about it.
Science and rationality is THE ONLY way of discovering the nature of the universe.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgetruth
No you don't give a damn about truth other wise you wouldn't believe based on faith.
Don't you dare tell me I don't care about the truth when you evidently don't give a
damn about it.
Science and rationality is THE ONLY way of discovering the nature of the universe.
small t
Your small mind is too focused on small truths, like did that coin land heads or tails, or will I make it on time to catch that train.
Truth
large T
You obviously eschew the existence of larger Truth because you cannot fully wrap your head around it, and so therefore, sine qua non, it cannot exist.
But I suppose that small tidbit escaped your logical mind.
There are greater truths than just the nature of the universe.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThere is one reality, THE REALITY we inhabit.
truth
small t
Your small mind is too focused on small truths, like did that coin land heads or tails, or will I make it on time to catch that train.
Truth
large T
You obviously eschew the existence of larger Truth because you cannot fully wrap your head around it, and so therefore, sine qua non, it cannot exist.
But I suppose that sm ...[text shortened]... bit escaped your logical mind.
There are greater truths than just the nature of the universe.
Truth (capitalised or not) is simply the nature of that reality.
I want to know what that nature is.
There is no bigger quest for truth than that.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneFor someone who is forever pulling people up over their poor grammar
truth
small t
Your small mind is too focused on small truths, like did that coin land heads or tails, or will I make it on time to catch that train.
Truth
large T
You obviously eschew the existence of larger Truth because you cannot fully wrap your head around it, and so therefore, sine qua non, it cannot exist.
But I suppose that sm ...[text shortened]... bit escaped your logical mind.
There are greater truths than just the nature of the universe.
it is amazing that you now want to define a new use for capital letters!
06 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThere you go playing the 'supernatural' card. Essentially you are saying 'my Truth is different from yours, and mine doesn't have to be subject to logic or common sense'.
Truth
large T
You obviously eschew the existence of larger Truth because you cannot fully wrap your head around it, and so therefore, sine qua non, it cannot exist.
You don't care about knowing the truth, because you just make up the Truth as you go along.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Feb 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadShe's not just saying that "her truth is different"... she is claiming that her 'truth' is better.
There you go playing the 'supernatural' card. Essentially you are saying 'my Truth is different from yours, and mine doesn't have to be subject to logic or common sense'.
You don't care about knowing the truth, because you just make up the Truth as you go along.
But otherwise right on the money.
If I were to be staying in an old house, and one night I were to see a translucent faintly
glowing figure walking through the house carrying a similarly translucent glowing lamp.
Who walked through a wall and disappeared.
And I could not find any evidence of it's presence, I had no pictures of it, or any other evidence
you might think of to indicate that what I saw was a ghost...
Then not only could I not demonstrate to anyone else that what I saw was a ghost and not a hallucination.
But I couldn't even justify myself believing that what I saw was a ghost and not a hallucination. (or some
other kind of illusion/non-supernatural explanation).
Only with evidence sufficient to demonstrate the phenomena was actually the left over spirit
of a deceased person could I both be justified in believing that it really was a ghost AND demonstrate
that I was justified in believing I had seen a ghost to everyone else.
To know something to be true, you have to be able to demonstrate that it is true both to yourself AND everyone
else. (you get into slightly trickier waters when dealing with proving something legally as it's possible to justifiably
claim to know someone is guilty without being able to justify that in court as certain evidence is ruled legally
inadmissible... or is evidence you don't want to, or can't, reveal for other reasons. this doesn't apply to truth
claims about the universe)
This is a fundamental property of (and requirement for) knowledge.
You must have evidence to be able to be able to demonstrate that you know something and thus to be able
to know something yourself.
You therefore cannot claim to know anything believed based on faith.
As you thus do not by definition have evidence to justify that knowledge claim.
06 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357A possible source of the quote is A Grain of Wheat by Ngugi wa Thiong'o (1967):
Without my vouching for it, this is as least a claimed source:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
quote:
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.
As quoted in Desmond Tutu: A Biography (2004) by St ...[text shortened]... sec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=later%20he%20turned%20serious&f=false
"'We went to their church. Mubia, in white robes, opened the Bible. He said: Let us kneel down to pray. We knelt down. Mubia said: Let us shut our eyes. We did. You know, his remained open so that he could read the word. When we opened our eyes, our land was gone and the sword of flames stood on guard. As for Mubia, he went on reading the word, beseeching us to lay our treasures in heaven where no moth would corrupt them. But he laid his on earth, our earth.'" (p15)
Originally posted by googlefudge
She's not just saying that "her truth is different"... she is claiming that her 'truth' is better.
But otherwise right on the money.
If I were to be staying in an old house, and one night I were to see a translucent faintly
glowing figure walking through the house carrying a similarly translucent glowing lamp.
Who walked through a wall and dis h.
As you thus do not by definition have evidence to justify that knowledge claim.
And yet still you saw it. You're telling me that you don't even know what you saw without some sort of outside verification? That's weak.
If I were to be staying in an old house, and one night I were to see a translucent faintly glowing figure walking through the house carrying a similarly translucent glowing lamp. Who walked through a wall and disappeared.
And I could not find any evidence of it's presence, I had no pictures of it, or any other evidence you might think of to indicate that what I saw was a ghost...
Then not only could I not demonstrate to anyone else that what I saw was a ghost and not a hallucination. But I couldn't even justify myself believing that what I saw was a ghost and not a hallucination. (or some
other kind of illusion/non-supernatural explanation).
To know something to be true, you have to be able to demonstrate that it is true both to yourself AND everyone else. (you get into slightly trickier waters when dealing with proving something legally as it's possible to justifiably claim to know someone is guilty without being able to justify that in court as certain evidence is ruled legally inadmissible... or is evidence you don't want to, or can't, reveal for other reasons. this doesn't apply to truth claims about the universe)Despite your capital letters to the contrary, you do NOT have to prove something to everyone else in order to know it yourself. How ridiculous is that? So you're saying that you depend on others for what you do and do not know to be fact? Yeah, right, sure, I believe that. As I said, that's weak.
As you thus do not by definition have evidence to justify that knowledge claim.By whose definition? Yours? How can I believe anything you say when you claim that you cannot know anything unless you can prove it to others? That not only ridiculous, it's not true. I may not have evidence to prove what I know to others, but that is NOT prima facie evidence that I can not know it to be true.
06 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, you don't.
There is one reality, THE REALITY we inhabit.
Truth (capitalised or not) is simply the nature of that reality.
I want to know what that nature is.
There is no bigger quest for truth than that.
In fact you deny it.
You don't care what it is, as long as it's not God.
Sorry to disappoint.