In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

I’m very interested in hearing all of you respond
Rabbit trail alert. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

i.e. without God you cannot be certain of anything, even that 1+1=2, but with God you can rest in a certainty far greater than 1+1+2 “Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” - Michael Faraday - [When asked about his speculations on life beyond death, as quoted in The Homiletic Review (April 1896), p. 442] – He is considered one of the greatest experimenters ever – credited with inventing the electric motor.bornagain77_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

This following video is very interesting for revealing how difficult it was for mathematicians to actually 'prove' that mathematics was even true in the first place: Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge - Part 1 https://vimeo.com/30482156 Part 2 https://vimeo.com/30641992 Kurt Godel's part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#bornagain77_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

keiths
Do any of you think that human cognition is perfect, and that mistakes are impossible?
This is such a silly strawman. No one is claiming to be mistake free. It is only by being certain about first principles that we can even recognize a mistake for what it is. That you would represent certainty about first principles as a claim to be mistake free is an indication that you are either not following the argument--or that you do not want to follow the argument.StephenB_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

I'm very interested in hearing all of you respond to this:
Since all of you are theists, as far as I know, let me ask a simple question: Do you think that God has the power to create a being who feels absolutely certain of something that is false? I am not asking if you think he has done so, only whether you agree that he has that power. If you believe in an omnipotent God, the answer must be yes. If God has that power, then how can you be 100.0% certain, with literally no chance of being mistaken, that he hasn’t used that power to make you believe that you are sitting in front of your computer, reading this, when in reality you are somewhere else entirely? Again, I know you don’t think he’s deceiving you, but that’s not the issue. The question is how you could ever — ever — be 100.0 percent certain of that. I look forward to your answers.
keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Way ahead of you, Sal. From two days ago:
And I would be willing to bet an extremely large amount of money on the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 (in decimal arithmetic). Am I absolutely certain of it, without the tiniest room for doubt? No, of course not. I could be wrong, and so could you.
keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

I beg to differ with keiths (unusually!) on the 1+1=2 question.
Agreed, that statement is meaningless in modulo-2 vector spaces used in communication engineering. In the modulo-2 world: 1 + 1 = 0 And that is the operating assumption when using: Error Correction Polynomials Math systems capable of Arithmetic are based on a small set of unprovable axioms. They are a superset (I think) of the field axioms which also include the modulo-2 world of fields.scordova_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

BTW Keith I am not DonalM, Barb, tgpeeler or StephenB. They state their case and I have put forth mine which is "I" an absolutely certain that "I think "I" think I am typing this. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, Slightly better, but still needs improvement. :) She may not have lost interest at all, but simply needs to sleep. I sleep every night, but that doesn't mean I've lost interest in the things I do while awake. (In fact, I sometimes think about the discussions I'm having here at UD as I drift off to sleep.)keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

If so, then all of you are in the awkward position of saying “Yes, I’m capable of making mistakes.
I have no idea why you think I am in an awkward position. Besides one would most certainly must exist to make a mistake. OOps
Do any of you think that human cognition is perfect, and that mistakes are impossible?
I have no idea why your asking me this. Please read carefully my post # 90.
There is literally no chance that I’m wrong, not even one chance in a trillion raised to the trillionth power raised to the trillionth power
There is no chance that I am wrong that "I" think "I" think that I am typing this.
That’s irrational and totally unjustified.
Says who? Whats more rational, that I think I think I am typing this or I don't think I think I am typing this? Sheesh you are one confused individual. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer: I read the entire TSZ thread you cited. I don’t see how it’s relevant to my statement. Keiths: You evidently didn’t read it very carefully. Note the similarity:
I did. No sililarity whatsoever. If you think so, then, well, what can I say. At any rate, I never got and "ought" from an "is" in anything you said. Not any reason to think any thing I have written is logically or rationally equivalent to anything Mr. Murray has stated. (Not that I necessarily disagree with him. I like ya, Bill!) Oh well. So where does that leave us?CentralScrutinizer_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

keiths:
It appears Liz may have [temporarily] lost interest in making further points.
Better?Phinehas_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Its strange that even prominent evolutionary psychologists admit certainty cannot be had in their Darwinian worldview: The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)
Ironically, certainty can be attained for the truthfulness Theism by exploiting the uncertainty of the Darwinists/Materialists inherent within their multiverse conjecture: i.e. The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe also insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641
Where this argument has gained purchase is in the materialist/atheist appeal to the multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to try to ‘explain away’ the extreme fine tuning we find for this universe. The materialist/atheist, without realizing it, ends up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument and thus guarantees the success of the argument and thus insures the 100% probability of God’s existence! I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from Dr. Plantinga:
"God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit."
supplemental note:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Thus I guess it should be no surprise that a committed materialists would be shocked that certainty exists for Theists, since in his worldview certainty cannot exist, moreover the uncertainty inherent within his worldview can be used to guarantee the 100% certainty of God's existence. Sort of a deep poetic justice in how it all works out!bornagain77_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

keiths, as has been pointed out to you, we utilize common sense. We realize that there are things we can be absolutely certain of (1+1=2), and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. To suggest that because we might not be sure of some things, this necessarily leads to the conclusion that we can't be sure of all things is a logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo prompter hoc). You haven't begun to answer my last post. I suggest you try.Barb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
It appears Liz may have lost interest in making further points.
She lives in the UK, where it is 3:30 AM. I suspect she decided to sleep rather than staying up all night debating you.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Since all of you are theists, as far as I know, let me ask a simple question: Do you think that God has the power to create a being who feels absolutely certain of something that is false? I am not asking if you think he has done so, only whether you agree that he has that power. If you believe in an omnipotent God, the answer must be yes. If God has that power, then how can you be 100.0% certain, with literally no chance of being mistaken, that he hasn't used that power to make you believe that you are sitting in front of your computer, reading this, when in reality you are somewhere else entirely? Again, I know you don't think he's deceiving you, but that's not the issue. The question is how you could ever -- ever -- be 100.0 percent certain of that. I look forward to your answers.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Thanks KRock. It appears Liz may have lost interest in making further points.Phinehas_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

@Phinehas, post #128 Thanks Phinehas, I guess this was precisely what I was trying to convey to Elizabeth.KRock_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

DonaldM, StephenB, Barb, vividbleau, tgpeeler, Do any of you think that human cognition is perfect, and that mistakes are impossible? I suspect that the answer is no. We've all made mistakes, so we all know that it's possible. If so, then all of you are in the awkward position of saying "Yes, I'm capable of making mistakes. No, I'm not perfect. But on this point, I am perfect. I can't possibly be making a mistake. There is literally no chance that I'm wrong, not even one chance in a trillion raised to the trillionth power raised to the trillionth power." That's irrational and totally unjustified.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Keiths continues,
Anyone.
What’s the name on your driver’s license? Does that tell you anything? Seriously, you’re not even trying to make an argument here. You’re continuing a line of reasoning that failed a long time ago.
Barb, why do you keep ignoring what I write? I don’t claim that 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2. It’s just that I’m not 100.0% certain of it. Why are you?
Because I passed the first grade.
No. Who said I did?
You’re the one claiming that you’re not absolutely certain you’re Keiths. Better make sure.
I haven’t claimed that either. You’re flailing, Barb. How about slowing down and really thinking things through before your next comment? Reread the thread if you have to.
You mentioned the “brain in a vat” example earlier. Your line of reasoning, not mine. And you’re the one who’s flailing.
See my reply to Reciprocating Bill above. If you merely mean that you are so certain that you can reasonably ignore the chance that you are mistaken, then of course I would agree. If you mean that you cannot be wrong — that there is literally no chance that you are mistaken — then I vehemently disagree. How could you possibly justify such a claim, given that human cognition is not perfect?
Because I possess and utilize common sense.
If my argument is wrong, I invite you to demonstrate that. So far you haven’t found a single flaw in it. Read through the thread again if you don’t believe me.
I’ve shown that your argument is wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything wrong with abandoning common sense and rational thinking.
No. But even if it did, the problem is that you can’t be absolutely certain that the law of noncontradiction is correct.
. Yes, it does. Try Googling it sometime. If the law of noncontradiction is wrong, then everything we know about everything else is wrong. Including evolution and philosophy and physics and astronomy. Are you willing to throw all that out for an untenable argument?
I believe that too. It’s just that I’m not absolutely certain of it.
If truth is absolute, then you can be absolutely certain of it. Your argument is hereby invalidated.
I didn’t make that statement. You’re making things up. Please address my actual arguments — if you can.
I am not making things up, keiths, I am proving you wrong. And, like Jack Nicholson once said, “You can’t handle the truth!”Barb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

I’ve addressed StephenB’s comment. Did you miss that?
Keith I am vividbleau not StephenB did you miss that? I have already given my explanation it is obvious that you do not read what I write very carefully or you would not be confusing me with StephenB. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Barb,
I think I found your logical flaw. You claim that you are confident that you are keiths but you are not absolutely certain? Then, pray tell, who else might you be?
Anyone.
And we’re going to have to re-write all the elementary school math textbooks if you claim that 1+1 doesn’t equal 2.
Barb, why do you keep ignoring what I write? I don't claim that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2. It's just that I'm not 100.0% certain of it. Why are you?
This is what I mean by abandoning rational thinking. Not being absolutely certain of who you are—do you really need to pull out your birth certificate and read it?
No. Who said I did?
Oh, right, you can’t—because you’re a brain in a vat. Gotcha.
I haven't claimed that either. You're flailing, Barb. How about slowing down and really thinking things through before your next comment? Reread the thread if you have to.
There are things that we can be absolutely certain about, though. I am absolutely certain that 1+1=2. I am absolutely certain that I am Barbara, and no one else.
See my reply to Reciprocating Bill above. If you merely mean that you are so certain that you can reasonably ignore the chance that you are mistaken, then of course I would agree. If you mean that you cannot be wrong -- that there is literally no chance that you are mistaken -- then I vehemently disagree. How could you possibly justify such a claim, given that human cognition is not perfect?
There’s a very large chance that you’re wrong. However, you are wedded to your philosophy and will not brook any dissention.
If my argument is wrong, I invite you to demonstrate that. So far you haven't found a single flaw in it. Read through the thread again if you don't believe me.
Your argument violates the law of noncontradiction.
No. But even if it did, the problem is that you can't be absolutely certain that the law of noncontradiction is correct.
Truth is not relative but absolute; it’s true for everyone, everywhere, and at all times.
I believe that too. It's just that I'm not absolutely certain of it.
Your statement, “There is no such thing as absolute certainty” (are you absolutely certain of that?) is self-refuting and fails its own criteria.
I didn't make that statement. You're making things up. Please address my actual arguments -- if you can.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

SB: On the other hand, if we can be absolutely sure that our cognition is reliable on any give question… keiths:
"Which we can’t."
You have already insisted that you can't be sure about anything, so you probably ought to change the words "which we can't" to "I don't think we can." You have made this same logical error several times.
Not unless we can be absolutely sure that our premises are true and our logic is correct. Which we can’t.
There you go again. You keep making unqualified statements like that, but then when we examine them further, you always amend them with a qualification. Again, you need to reform "which we can't" into, "I am not sure that we can." You did it two more times on this correspondence, but two examples will suffice. SB: As it turns out, I am absolutely sure that the Law of Non-contradiction is true.
How do you know, beyond any doubt, that it is true? Are you perfect? Incapable of making an error?
I am absolutely certain about the validity of the law non-contradiction because it is a self-evident truth about which I cannot be mistaken. The law of non-contradiction is ontologically certain. What is your rational justification for saying that I am not certain about it? (other than to say that you are not certain about it yourself). Why would you presume to say that I don't know what I do, in fact, know?
I don’t want to “disavow that law.” I use it all the time! I just don’t think we can be absolutely certain of it.
You haven't explained, on the one hand, why you don't accept it unconditionally or, on the other hand, why you have any confidence in it at all. You have simply taken a position with no rational justification to support it.
Sure I should.
What is your rationale for saying that your argument against certainty is better than my argument for certainty? To be consistent, you should say that I am just as likely to be right as you are.
Meanwhile, your affirmation of absolute certainty is flawed, because it depends on the assumption that your cognition is guaranteed to be perfect, with a 0.0% possibility of error.
It doesn't depend on any assumptions at all. I know, for example, that I exist. I have no doubts at all about the matter. You, on the other hand, don't even know for sure that you exist.
What hubris! You’re not being very rational.
That's cute. Someone who doesn't know for sure that he exists is claiming that I am not being very rational. Someone who continually makes unqualified statements only to amend them later with a qualification is claiming that I am not being very rational. Someone who tells me that I don't know what I say I do know, though he has no way of knowing what I know and don't know, is claiming that I am not being very rational?StephenB_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, Let me repeat:
I’ve addressed StephenB’s comment. Did you miss that? Click here.
Follow that link, and you will see that I am not making an argument from authority. It's quite ironic that you would accuse me of making an argument from authority, when it's StephenB who is claiming absolute certainty, not me. I am acknowledging that any statement that any of us makes might be mistaken. You are the ones who claim to have perfect, infallible knowledge of certain things. As I said, what hubris!keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Easy, vivid. You’re getting all wound up.
Hardly I am just pointing out your hypocrisy.
I see this statement from you
You are the one that admonished me to
Please reread my comments more carefully.
Its hubris on your part to think I haven't read your comments carefully when you are the one that has not read my comments carefully because if you did you would see I have already given you my explanation why you are only giving an argument from authority. I have done that already so take your own advice and read carefully this time. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

vividbleau,
Talk about hubris you are the last one that should admonishing others regarding hubris!!!! How about you rereading my comments carefully. I have already spelled out for you my explanation. If you don’t understand it you let me know.
Easy, vivid. You're getting all wound up. I see this statement from you:
I want you to address my statement with something other than an argument from authority. To quote StephenB “you should not be saying that your denial of absolute certainty is any more realistic than my affirmation of it.”
I've addressed StephenB's comment. Did you miss that? Click here.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Keiths writes,
Yes, really. I am extremely confident that all of those things are true, butabsolutely certain, with no chance whatsoever of error? Of course not.
I think I found your logical flaw. You claim that you are confident that you are keiths but you are not absolutely certain? Then, pray tell, who else might you be? And we’re going to have to re-write all the elementary school math textbooks if you claim that 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Because pretty much everyone else is absolutely certain that it does. This is what I mean by abandoning rational thinking. Not being absolutely certain of who you are—do you really need to pull out your birth certificate and read it? Oh, right, you can’t—because you’re a brain in a vat. Gotcha.
Who said I had abandoned logic and rational thinking? They’re incredibly important!
Says the man who claims to not be absolutely certain of who he is.
Barb, you keep forgetting what we are discussing here — certainty. I’m not arguing against logic. I’m pointing out that we can’t be absolutely certain of its correctness.
There are things that we can be absolutely certain about, though. I am absolutely certain that 1+1=2. I am absolutely certain that I am Barbara, and no one else.
I think it’s correct, I use it continually, but there is a chance — a very small one, in my opinion, but nonzero nonetheless — that I am wrong.
There’s a very large chance that you’re wrong. However, you are wedded to your philosophy and will not brook any dissention.
Sure, I can defend it. That’s how I operate, too. I just don’t claim absolute certainty, because that would be foolish.
No, foolishness is stating that 1+1 does not equal 2. A first grader will correct you on that one.
The fact that you haven’t identified a single logical flaw in my argument, while I’ve identified several in yours, is quite telling.
Your argument violates the law of noncontradiction. Truth about reality is knowable. Truth is not relative but absolute; it’s true for everyone, everywhere, and at all times. Your statement, “There is no such thing as absolute certainty” (are you absolutely certain of that?) is self-refuting and fails its own criteria.Barb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill,
I think Keiths would agree with me that there are levels of certainty that, for any practical human purpose, are indistinguishable from “absolute” certainty.
I do agree with you, and that's what I was getting at in this comment to DonaldM:
(I should note that in colloquial usage “I am absolutely certain” doesn’t mean “the probability of my correctness is 1.0?, it just means “I am so certain that I can reasonably ignore the chance that I am mistaken”. I wouldn’t advise you to dispute this since most ID arguments depend on it.)
keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

If you think I’m making an argument from authority, then you haven’t understood my argument. Please reread my comments more carefully. After you’ve done so, if you still think I’m making an argument from authority, then please provide a quote along with an explanation of why you think it’s an argument from authority.
Talk about hubris you are the last one that should admonishing others regarding hubris!!!! How about you rereading my comments carefully. I have already spelled out for you my explanation. If you don't understand it you let me know. Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

vividbleau,
I want you to address my statement with something other than an argument from authority.
If you think I'm making an argument from authority, then you haven't understood my argument. Please reread my comments more carefully. After you've done so, if you still think I'm making an argument from authority, then please provide a quote along with an explanation of why you think it's an argument from authority.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply