Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though we can all agree there is much that intelligent people can and will do, no matter their beliefs, to distort the facts and/or the truth, this DOES NOT MEAN ONE ULTIMATE UNIVERSAL TRUTH DOES NOT EXIST.
LearnMe, whilst I am sympathetic to your worldview, it is by no means indisputable, no matter how much you capitalise your asserted claims. There is a reason why philosophical solipsism is such a nuisance when it comes to metaphysics - it's an absolute pain in a backside to argue away. Even your shape of the Earth argument won't stand up to it.
We have nearly 3000 years worth of arguments on the subject of Metaphysics and Epistemology, all with their own proofs. What you are proposing is to dismiss all those schools of philosophical thought contrary to your worldview on a basis of nothing but a handful of assertions that lack any kind of proof. That's just not how philosophy works. No matter how common sense something is, without proof you haven't really got a leg to stand on. The best you can do is say 'This is how I choose to look at things. I can't prove it but I'm satisfied with this picture of reality, so I'll just act like it's true.'
I'm very impressed. Is that all your development, or is it from somewhere else?
I missed this comment -- compliment -- of yours until just now...
My development over a fairly long time considering and studying the subject. Born of what I thought might serve as an "off-the-shelf" way to easily tell people my thoughts about all this without having to reinvent the wheel each time. Also perhaps to offer an alternative way to consider a thing or two that is fairly important to me, for the reasons also given. Thanks.
That's because you don't understand what Universal Truth is.
Universal Truth exists. It's all around you.
One electron orbiting one proton is an Hydrogen atom and it has certain basic properties and characteristics. That's a Universal Truth.
If you cease to exist or even if you never existed, that Universal Truth is not altered.
What you call the particles is subjective. You can call an electron a "wad" and a proton a "widget" and an Hydrogen atom a "fuzzy-whiz" but you have not altered Universal Truth, because whatever you call it, it still has the same basic properties and characteristics.
Two fuzzy-whiz atoms will do the same thing two Hydrogen atoms do under sufficient temperature and pressure, and that is fuse to form a Helium atom and release ~86 MeV of energy.
That's true everywhere in this Universe. That's why it's a Universal Truth.
The Sciences are all Universal Truth, because they are objectively true. That's why we differentiate the Social Sciences like psychology, sociology and history from the Sciences. The Social Sciences are subjective rather than objective. Not everyone in a dysfunctional home grows up to be a serial killer or a mass murderer or a genius.
Universal Truth is the reason we are able to make scientific predictions and the reason you have a life.
A pleasure to read a comment that seems to better understand what I've been trying to explain. Thanks to you too!
LearnMe, whilst I am sympathetic to your worldview, it is by no means indisputable, no matter how much you capitalise your asserted claims. There is a reason why philosophical solipsism is such a nuisance when it comes to metaphysics - it's an absolute pain in a backside to argue away. Even your shape of the Earth argument won't stand up to it.
We have nearly 3000 years worth of arguments on the subject of Metaphysics and Epistemology, all with their own proofs. What you are proposing is to dismiss all those schools of philosophical thought contrary to your worldview on a basis of nothing but a handful of assertions that lack any kind of proof. That's just not how philosophy works. No matter how common sense something is, without proof you haven't really got a leg to stand on. The best you can do is say 'This is how I choose to look at things. I can't prove it but I'm satisfied with this picture of reality, so I'll just act like it's true.'
Itzpapalotl, trust me when I say I'm not looking for sympathy or even agreement as long as whatever we might disagree about is truly considered and understood in a fair, objective and intelligent manner. Your further explanation is appreciated as well, though I think you must be misunderstanding me. Something is being misunderstood here in any case...
Apparently we don't agree about what to me is simply obvious. Regardless all the years, isics and ologies, there is ultimately one universal truth. We've just simply got lots of resistance, confusion and challenges when it comes to recognizing what it is. To go as far as to suggest I "haven't got a leg to stand on" must mean you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain, but from where I am sitting, I can assure you I have two legs to stand on. No more and no less, and this too is a universal truth no matter how you might attempt an Epistemological denial of this obvious universal truth as well. Another very easily proven.
Not sure what more I can do to better explain, but if you can better address how you establish what is obvious truth vs what is not, perhaps I'll better understand (or you will better understand) when I return tomorrow. Right now, however, time for me to sign off. That or maybe Mircea can "fill in the blanks" for you too, since I think Mircea better understands the obvious in these regards as well. That or maybe Mircea can better explain. I don't know but this is not rocket science after all...
Itzpapalotl, trust me when I say I'm not looking for sympathy or even agreement as long as whatever we might disagree about is truly considered and understood in a fair, objective and intelligent manner. Your further explanation is appreciated as well, though I think you must be misunderstanding me. Something is being misunderstood here in any case...
Apparently we don't agree about what to me is simply obvious. Regardless all the years, isics and ologies, there is ultimately one universal truth. We've just simply got lots of resistance, confusion and challenges when it comes to recognizing what it is. To go as far as to suggest I haven't "got a leg to stand on" must mean you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain, but from where I am sitting, I can assure you I have two legs to stand on. No more and no less, and this too is a universal truth no matter how you might attempt an Epistemological denial of this obvious truth as well.
Not sure what more I can do to better explain, but if you can better address how you establish what is obvious truth vs what is not, perhaps I'll better understand (or you will better understand) when I return tomorrow. Right now, however, time for me to sign off. That or maybe Mircea can "fill in the blanks" for you too, since I think Mircea better understands the obvious in these regards in any case.
LearnMe, have you considered that I might have a decent enough understanding and appreciation of your position and nonetheless be capable of looking at it from an impartial perspective?
I can see you are passionate about it but passionate conviction is not proof. Do you think that pronouncements of truth should never be questioned? Does simply calling something 'universal truth', without the bother of laying down a logical argument for it, constitute a sufficient enough reason to outright dismiss philosophy of Descartes or Berkeley, when even Russell struggled with the subject? Aren't you, in fact, contradicting your fifth "truth"?
Last edited by Itzpapalotl; 08-15-2019 at 01:44 PM..
I'm trying to figure out what supposed 'universal truths', the way they're being described here ( mostly physical/scientific things) have to do with religion and spirituality.
I don't think you'll find anybody to disagree that if my leg is amputated above the knee, that I'll only have one foot.The same with the earth is not flat( but even then, you'll find some disagreement.)
But what does any of that have to do with this forum?
I'm trying to figure out what supposed 'universal truths', the way they're being described here ( mostly physical/scientific things) have to do with religion and spirituality.
I don't think you'll find anybody to disagree that if my leg is amputated above the knee, that I'll only have one foot.The same with the earth is not flat( but even then, you'll find some disagreement.)
But what does any of that have to do with this forum?
Interesting. I've been thinking that part of the difference here is how people are defining "universal truth".
I'm trying to figure out what supposed 'universal truths', the way they're being described here ( mostly physical/scientific things) have to do with religion and spirituality.
I don't think you'll find anybody to disagree that if my leg is amputated above the knee, that I'll only have one foot.The same with the earth is not flat( but even then, you'll find some disagreement.)
But what does any of that have to do with this forum?
There is a huge overlap between philosophy and religion. And LearnMe's "truths" do attempt to challenge the authority of religion in describing reality.
e.g. People can believe in the Biblical flood if they want to, but they cannot (credibly) claim that Geology shows anything but No Flood.
The believers can claim there was a total Creation -extinguishing flood, or they can say it was Local...didn't destroy creation...but there was one, so "the Bible is true", or they can say it is a metaphor of..something... so it's "metaphorically true". I suggest giving them all iron-shod clubs and an arena and let them do the world some good. Science meanwhile will say with one voice:
"No Biblical Flood". .
That's not entirely true.
For one, the idiot christians doom themselves because they're too damn stupid and cannot correctly translate the texts.
The word "flood" never appears in the text. The Sumerian/Akkadian loan-word the Hebrews used means "deluge" not "flood."
Semantics? No. That's not how Semitic languages work.
Semitic languages are connotial. Words connote certain thoughts and ideas and they cannot be used interchangeably.
There are three Semitic roots that mean "the taking of a life" but they connote -- convey -- different thoughts and ideas.
One root is best translated as "slay" and connotes the taking of a life under the color of authority, whether that authority is some god-thing or government or the rule of law or social law or a justifiable homicide.
The second root is best translated as "kill" connoting the taking of a life by accident, malfeasance, negligence or recklessness.
The third is "murder" with the connotation being the taking of a life with premeditation and malice aforethought for profit or gain.
"Thou shall not kill" is an incorrect translation. The correct translation is "You will not murder."
If you look at older bibles, you'll see it translated correctly, but around the Vietnam Era, bibles started incorrectly translating as "Thou shalt not kill" for political and social propaganda purposes.
The ironic thing is the moronic unholy christians not inspired by any god-thing correctly translate "deluge" the other five times the Sumerian/Akkadian loan-word is used in the text. It's just that one time they incorrectly translate it as "flood."
The word "deluge" connotes rolling waters moving back and forth, like a tsunami, which is what it was.
Then, too, the Deluge is not 1st-hand info. The Hebrews are getting the story 5th- and 6th-hand and alter it to fit the political and social conditions extant at that time.
And, science?
Are you kidding? That's a hoot.
No archaeologist or geologist has ever looked for evidence of the Deluge.
You can't find something if you're not looking for it, especially when you refuse to look for it.
I missed this comment -- compliment -- of yours until just now...
My development over a fairly long time considering and studying the subject. Born of what I thought might serve as an "off-the-shelf" way to easily tell people my thoughts about all this without having to reinvent the wheel each time. Also perhaps to offer an alternative way to consider a thing or two that is fairly important to me, for the reasons also given. Thanks.
so they are "your nine beliefs" or "your nine opinions" or "your nine thoughts" or "your nine considerations" or "your nine reasons"
i'm fine with that.
that is more accurate and palatable than saying "nine truths"
your beliefs are what you believe to be true.
that does not make them facts.
there are many inaccuracies in the list of "your nine opinions"
this renders them not universal for everyone. and not true for everyone.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-15-2019 at 02:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
