01 Jul 14
Originally posted by AgergYou should refer to the Atheists Debate Tactics thread.
[b]#1. Biblically speaking, the Truth is a person, Jesus Christ.
"Quranically" speaking, the Truth is a person, Mohammed.
#2. I choose to believe to think the truth is what the Truth tells me the truth is.
I.e. you choose to believe to think the truth is what Mohammed tells you the truth is
Why do I always have to feel so simple every time I answer questions like that?
hmmm ...[/b]
Your post is a perfect example of tactic #2.
Where in the Quran does it say that Mohammed is the truth?
01 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby1) ¬0
[b]The Truth
"I think everyone chooses to believe what they think is the truth. That is why most of us do not describe it as 'choice' as we feel the result is forced by the evidence." -twhitehead Thread 159766 (Suzianne's "Adieu" thread: Page 10) Two Questions: 1) [i]How do you define truth? 2) What do you choose to believe t ...[text shortened]... sted topics: "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."?[/b]
2) If it's on Wikipedia it must be true!
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"Two Questions: 1) How do you define truth?..." (OP)
1) ¬0
2) If it's on Wikipedia it must be true!
Originally posted by DeepThought
1) ¬0
2) If it's on Wikipedia it must be true!
"In logic, negation, also called logical complement, is an operation that essentially takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being true when p is false and false when p is true. Negation is thus a unary (single-argument) logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity and vice versa. In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition p is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of p...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation
DT, please comment on this logic symbol ¬ which apparently refers to or provides for the meaning of "negation". Thanks.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby¬ just means not, so since 0 refers to false my statement was true is not false. Really I just put the first think into my head so I could make my joke about Wikipedia in answer to the second point - although I wasn't being entirely flippant, people seem to think that a crowd sourced resource with no real review process is a sound authority.
"Two Questions: 1) How do you define truth?..." (OP)
Originally posted by DeepThought
[b]1) ¬0
2) If it's on Wikipedia it must be true!
"In logic, negation, also called logical complement, is an operation that essentially takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being ...[text shortened]... ic symbol ¬ which apparently refers to or provides for the meaning of "negation". Thanks.[/b]
I don't think defining truth as that which is not false really works. Possibly, insight can be gained by looking at usage where one isn't talking about veracity as such - "He is true to his beliefs", "true north", "the beams are true (carpentry)", "my one true love". The etymology is from Old English - treowe meaning steadfast or loyal. So truth would be what one can rely on.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't make that mistake, but then I don't make the reverse error - assume that it is worthless just because its 'a crowd sourced resource with no real review process'.
although I wasn't being entirely flippant, people seem to think that a crowd sourced resource with no real review process is a sound authority.
In fact, I find Wikipedia to be just as good as, or better than an many sources that have real review processes. In general it is best to be skeptical of any source.
I don't think defining truth as that which is not false really works.
It does highlight the fact that 'truth' really refers to logic. When we say something is 'the truth' we typically mean it is a statement that matches reality.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhitehead"When we say something is 'the truth' we typically mean it is a statement that matches reality." twhitehead, I agree.
I don't make that mistake, but then I don't make the reverse error - assume that it is worthless just because its 'a crowd sourced resource with no real review process'.
In fact, I find Wikipedia to be just as good as, or better than an many sources that have real review processes. In general it is best to be skeptical of any source.
[b]I don't think ...[text shortened]... . When we say something is 'the truth' we typically mean it is a statement that matches reality.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"So truth would be what one can rely on." Deep Thought, we agree.
¬ just means not, so since 0 refers to false my statement was true is not false. Really I just put the first think into my head so I could make my joke about Wikipedia in answer to the second point - although I wasn't being entirely flippant, people seem to think that a crowd sourced resource with no real review process is a sound authority.
I don't ...[text shortened]... s from Old English - treowe meaning steadfast or loyal. So truth would be what one can rely on.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySorry but I really don't know what you are asking for. Your a) and b) seem to be trivial observations.
Deep Thought and twhitehead, please comment on these two possibilities: a) That truth exists independently of our birth, life or death; b) That there are innumerable truths which we have never even identified, considered, accepted or rejected?
02 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you, twhitehead. Edit Note: And also for your unintended inspiration for this thread: "I think everyone chooses to believe what they think is the truth. That is why most of us do not describe it as 'choice' as we feel the result is forced by the evidence." -twhitehead Thread 159766 (Suzianne's "Adieu" thread: Page 10) OP
Sorry but I really don't know what you are asking for. Your a) and b) seem to be trivial observations.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Deep Thought and twhitehead, please comment on these two possibilities: a) That truth exists independently of our birth, life or death; b) That there are innumerable truths which we have never even identified, considered, accepted or rejected?
That truth exists independently of our birth, life or deathI don't think that that is trivial. Certainly things happen in the universe which are independent of us, but since the truth as defined earlier is "something we can rely on" it can't exist independently of us since otherwise there is nothing for it to be relied on by. Also imagine another world where I do not play chess. In that world the sentence "I don't know the rules of chess." would be true, but not in this one, so truth depends on me knowing the rules of chess, never mind my actual existence. So I don't think truth is independent of us.
03 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThought"So I don't think truth is independent of us." Dependent? Considering the unknown magnitude of truth that exists, it seems reasonable to assume that during our lives we apprehend [identify and consider] a miniscule part of its totality. If truth is "something we can rely on" [first class Koine conditional: and it is] wouldn't we gravitate toward it as a desirable acquisition?That truth exists independently of our birth, life or deathI don't think that that is trivial. Certainly things happen in the universe which are independent of us, but since the truth as defined earlier is "something we can rely on" it can't exist independently of us since otherwise there is nothing for it to be relied on by. Also imagin ...[text shortened]... he rules of chess, never mind my actual existence. So I don't think truth is independent of us.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtActually a better wording in the context you listed earlier would be "something that can be relied on". Although I think an even better definition is "something that sticks to a given rule". So in some contexts 'true' may mean 'straight' in that it does not deviate from a straight line. To 'remain true' (to someone) means to not break a promise or commitment. This is more a case of being able to rely on it sticking to the rule rather than personally relying on it. So someone may even stay 'true to his nature' by being totally unreliable.
but since the truth as defined earlier is "something we can rely on"
Also imagine another world where I do not play chess. In that world the sentence "I don't know the rules of chess." would be true, but not in this one, so truth depends on me knowing the rules of chess, never mind my actual existence. So I don't think truth is independent of us.
In this case, truth is defined as 'as statement that accurately describes reality'. So obviously if the statement in question describes something that would be different if you did not exist, then it is dependent on your existence. But now the question is how much of reality is dependent on your existence?
15 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHave you entertained the possibility that the spaghetti monster exists, and then rejected it? Or do you not have negative volition with regards to His Noodlyness?
"Footnote: Even those with negative volition have glimpsed the truth: you have to entertain the truth to reject it." (Page 1)