Theological Opinions

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just don't buy this wholesale perception problem thingy. If it's true, then I shouldn't be graded down in math class if I perceive that 1 + 1 is 3.

1+1=2 because we have defined it as such... mathematics (unlike concepts like "everything") is completely defined by us, so it is absolute... if the english language had developed in a way so that two objects together were called "3", then 1+1=3 (3 being the linguistic representation for two objects)

"everything" is a general concept and construct in the english language... when you say something like "everything is relative", what it applies to is implied by the context in which you use it... it goes without saying (or should ) that it does not apply to something with a pre-defined ruleset like mathmatics

humans define the whole universe of what we call "addition", so we can claim absolutes... we can not define or even perceive the entirety of what we call "reality", so we can not claim absolutes about it

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm pointing out that things can't be all relative, for if they are all relative, that still leaves the absolute truth that they are all relative. If one says that there is no absolute truth that they are all relative, then that means absolutes exist. So all things can't be relative. Explain to me how that doesn't make sense.

read my comment to RÃ*an... there is no contradiction... our perception of the world around us is relative, but this does not necessarily mean that we can not make absolute statements... an observable thing is not the same as a concept

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, but if you aren't willing to grant the basic reliability of the senses, on which all of science is founded, then why bother to talk?

science actually takes this very factor into account as best as they can when they speak of observational bias... anything that is theorized about, or even known as a "law" in science is tempered by our own ability to properly observe a situation... and it is why everything in science (as opposed to mathematics) is ultimately not an absolute truth

[Lief Erikson]

You're only talking about human error, brownjenkins. It's like the scripture that says, "We look in the mirror darkly," and then adds that in heaven we shall see clearly. This doesn't mean that science does not present absolutes, or that faith or other means do not. It merely means that we human beings make mistakes, and so our judgment about things is often flawed in various ways.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

read my comment to RÃ*an... there is no contradiction... our perception of the world around us is relative, but this does not necessarily mean that we can not make absolute statements... an observable thing is not the same as a concept

Our observation might be flawed in various ways, but this relativistic factor does not mean that there are no absolutes or that all points of view are equally valid. For example, if you thought that diabetics shouldn't be given medicine, your point of view is not equally valid to someone else's. It is a more significantly flawed view than other people hold. So all you're talking about is degree of human error. "Everything is relative," is not what you're saying. "We make mistakes," is all you're really claiming, I think. That's a claim that I expect no one on this website would challenge.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

1+1=2 because we have defined it as such... mathematics (unlike concepts like "everything") is completely defined by us, so it is absolute... if the english language had developed in a way so that two objects together were called "3", then 1+1=3 (3 being the linguistic representation for two objects)

"everything" is a general concept and construct in the english language... when you say something like "everything is relative", what it applies to is implied by the context in which you use it... it goes without saying (or should ) that it does not apply to something with a pre-defined ruleset like mathmatics

humans define the whole universe of what we call "addition", so we can claim absolutes... we can not define or even perceive the entirety of what we call "reality", so we can not claim absolutes about it

BJ,

Start a revolution dude! Arbitrarily re-define 1 +1 to = 3. Then apply your standard to the universe and see if it holds. Should work given your argument that 1+1=2 is a merely human construct and can be altered at will.

(I think we'd use base 9 if Frodo's post-Mt Doom digits were the standard!)

Relativists of the World, Unite. Throw off the shackles of reality and make 1 +1 = 3 ! It does have a certain cachet, BJ.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of inanity, that is.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're only talking about human error, brownjenkins. It's like the scripture that says, "We look in the mirror darkly," and then adds that in heaven we shall see clearly. This doesn't mean that science does not present absolutes, or that faith or other means do not. It merely means that we human beings make mistakes, and so our judgment about things is often flawed in various ways.

no, it's not about error... that is another factor, but not the only one

our judgement about things is always flawed to some degree (unless we define all the parameters, as in mathematics)... a scientific example:

i assume you know about visible light being a very small portion of what we define as "light"... modern observation has allowed us to extend the spectrum very far on both sides of what we call the visible spectrum (roygbiv) to gamma, x-rays, ultraviolet, etc.

to someone in the 16th century "light" was red to violet... it was the "absolute" definition of it... we learned much later that this very visible part was actually a very small part of the entire force we call "light"

and it is not beyond comprehension that "light" actually extends even further than what we currently understand, we just can not perceive any more... this is not an error on our part, but a limitation in our ability to percieve the world around us completely... we don't see "everything"

and, due to our limitations, what we casually call absolutes are only absolute as far as we know

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Our observation might be flawed in various ways, but this relativistic factor does not mean that there are no absolutes or that all points of view are equally valid.

that's where i would say you are in error... the idea that something must be an absolute, or we just cast it aside... something is black and white, good or evil, or else every point of view and action is equally valid

i'd say that human existance is much more complex... most point of views fall within the grey areas... opinions differ and the "validity" of a given opinion is decided by the results of that opinion upon society as a whole... not upon some arbitrary "absolute"

i had the discussion with RÃ*an a good while back when she claimed that something like "thou shalt not kill" is an absolute... i mentioned that we actually qualify that statement all the time, be it in war or to execute criminals... she mentioned that it really meant "thou shalt not murder" or, in other words, kill without good reason

well then what's "good reason"?

it seems like an awfully relative term to me... if we invade a country that has attacked us we must kill, but it is to defend ourselves... but what if some inhabitants fight back and kill us, some just rural civilians who have no real concept of the big picture behind the conflict, are they not also defending themselves? and what if the original attack upon us was motivated by fear (rational or not) that they were in danger of being attacked by us if they did not strike first?

the point, "good reason" is very relative, so even a seemingly obvious "absolute" like "thou shalt not kill" breaks down in practice... this does not mean it is completely invalid... it's actually very good advice most of the time, as long as it is understood that it is a relative, not absolute, concept

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Start a revolution dude! Arbitrarily re-define 1 +1 to = 3. Then apply your standard to the universe and see if it holds. Should work given your argument that 1+1=2 is a merely human construct and can be altered at will.

The human symbol for two units IS and has always BEEN altered at will (or with time more accurately). Youll notice that right away when you see that 'two' is meaningful only in english. Why dont we still call it 'II'? Why do the chinese use a character for it? Yet it all means the same thing. Because your only talking about symbols. You can call it whatever you want to. The underlying truth of it still remains.

[rohirrim TR]

the symbols are irrelevant it doesn't matter what symbols you use, you could write it out: one plus one equals two you can use roman numerals
I + I =II, the symbols are irrelevant I assume whoever brought up this expression was making the point that the principle of one number added to another number is always the same result i.e an absolute, whether that example happens to be 1+1=2 or 10+10=20 is the utmost of irrelevancy (is that a word?)

edit: this debate was funny for the first two pages but now ya'll have been repeating the same thing for half a page and its not as much fun to read anymore.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The human symbol for two units IS and has always BEEN altered at will (or with time more accurately). Youll notice that right away when you see that 'two' is meaningful only in english. Why dont we still call it 'II'? Why do the chinese use a character for it? Yet it all means the same thing. Because your only talking about symbols. You can call it whatever you want to. The underlying truth of it still remains.

IR, gotta love that last sentence.

Truth is self-existent. It is absolute. So glad you agree.

I suspect we still disagree that "it" is a Person?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

edit: this debate was funny for the first two pages but now ya'll have been repeating the same thing for half a page and its not as much fun to read anymore.

more like repeating for two years... but hopefully a little bit sinks in every now and then

[inked]

I know the sensation, BJ, I know.

But some people are simply constructed so as to have spent-uranium casings around their brains. We can only pray that the neutrinos enlighten them in the deep, dark recesses of their constructs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no, it's not about error... that is another factor, but not the only one

our judgement about things is always flawed to some degree(unless we define all the parameters, as in mathematics)

So my judgment is flawed in some way when I say that I have a tongue? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying, fully (If you're saying anything, which, supposing my judgment is always flawed, I guess I can't assume either ).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i assume you know about visible light being a very small portion of what we define as "light"... modern observation has allowed us to extend the spectrum very far on both sides of what we call the visible spectrum (roygbiv) to gamma, x-rays, ultraviolet, etc.

to someone in the 16th century "light" was red to violet... it was the "absolute" definition of it... we learned much later that this very visible part was actually a very small part of the entire force we call "light"

and it is not beyond comprehension that "light" actually extends even further than what we currently understand, we just can not perceive any more... this is not an error on our part, but a limitation in our ability to percieve the world around us completely... we don't see "everything"

I'll quote what I said earlier, which I think responds appropriately to this as well.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This doesn't mean that science does not present absolutes, or that faith or other means do not. It merely means that we human beings make mistakes, and so our judgment about things is often flawed in various ways.

Ignorance is one of the ways our judgment or observations are flawed. That person in the 16th century might have been right about light. He wasn't, but he could have been. This doesn't mean there's no absolute about light. Neither does it mean that future scientific discoveries won't discover the absolute about light. People can correctly believe things are absolutes, based upon the available evidence, just as they can incorrectly believe things are absolutes (or that things are relative!) based upon the available evidence. Based upon the available evidence, Magellan was able to make the accurate guess that the world was roughly round. He would have found himself to be right in his guess about the state of reality, if he had lived to the conclusion of his voyage. That the world is roughly round is an absolute at this time. Of course, the world may change shape in the future; we don't know. The available evidence can lead to correct judgments, just as it can lead to flawed judgments.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and, due to our limitations, what we casually call absolutes are only absolute as far as we know

I agree that things are only absolute as far as we know. I have a lot of trouble understanding your idea that judgment is always flawed. Perhaps you could define what you mean there, a bit better?

If I am in the bank, I'm not at home. My judgment about this fact is not flawed. If I am drinking Hot Chocolate, I am not drinking Minute Maid (though there may be some chemical similarities, these drinks are not chemically identical). So yes, these things are only absolute as far as I know. For all I know, I might be in the Matrix, and "tasty wheat might really taste like oatmeal or porridge." However, I am not necessarily in the Matrix. It might be an absolute that Minute Maid is not the same as Hot Chocolate.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, gotta love that last sentence.

Truth is self-existent. It is absolute. So glad you agree.

I suspect we still disagree that "it" is a Person?

Is god math? Ive been asking all my life to show me god in the numbers.

[Spock]

Absolut Vodka is the only absolute I subscribe to.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is god math? Ive been asking all my life to show me god in the numbers.

have you checked out the mathmatical decimals of Pi lately?

[Insidious Rex]

Well if hes in there somehwere we are gonna need a super computer the size of texas to find him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that things are only absolute as far as we know. I have a lot of trouble understanding your idea that judgment is always flawed. Perhaps you could define what you mean there, a bit better?

If I am in the bank, I'm not at home. My judgment about this fact is not flawed. If I am drinking Hot Chocolate, I am not drinking Minute Maid (though there may be some chemical similarities, these drinks are not chemically identical). So yes, these things are only absolute as far as I know. For all I know, I might be in the Matrix, and "tasty wheat might really taste like oatmeal or porridge." However, I am not necessarily in the Matrix. It might be an absolute that Minute Maid is not the same as Hot Chocolate.

when it comes to defining things we can observe (i.e. your tougue), absolute is a perfectly acceptable terminology to use... eventhough there may be factors we are unaware of (i.e. the matrix)

but concepts like "good" and "evil" are another story... you can not touch "evil" like you can your tongue... the word in and of itself is defined by the person who uses it... there is no universal (i.e. absolute) definition of "evil"... sure, there are situations that most will agree on... but, like my "thou shalt not kill" example above, there are many grey areas... and even cases where people on opposite sides of a conflict will both define themselves as "good" while calling the other side "evil"

to put it simply... no human will debate whether or not you have a tongue, thus, you can say it is absolute... but people debate good and evil all the time... and the very fact that it can be debated rationally, shows that it is not absolute

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is god math? Ive been asking all my life to show me god in the numbers.

Among His names are Infinity and Unity, is that mathematical enough.