Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.mangaroosh wrote: »The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.
Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.
Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.
Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something?
Ok, let's look at an example:
I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?
Self. Assessable by other people. E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
"I don't like the taste of apples"
"Apples grow on trees"
One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.
The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:
1) It has to be true
2) It has to be believed to be true
3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true
This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).0 -
-
You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.
Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!
Again, this is just a variation on the "this could all be a dream" concept. If indeed we are all plugged into "the matrix", then, "the matrix" is the omniscient, omnipresent being that is referred to as God
Again, the issue of fallibility of the senses means that the scientific method of inquiry falls down - see above.Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something?
The above statement is correct, however it is a strawman, as that was not what was stated.
Evidence does not add to the probability of something being true, as truth is absolute, either something is true or it isn't.
Probability is relative, and is based on our ability to predict an outcome.Ok, let's look at an example:
I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.
Good example, but it does not deal with what was actually stated. Here we can calculate the probability of my being able to answer correctly.
Of course it ignores the fact that, you would actually know 100% what the correct answer is, as you put the balls in the bag. Indeed, it would have been your experience of putting the balls in the bag, that would give you this 100% knowledge.Self. Assessable by other people.
As soon as someone assesses it, it is in violation of the concept of externality. It means that their assessment is no longer trustworthy, and that it must be assessed by soemone else, whose assessment is also untrustworthy, as their asessement of evidence makes the evidence no longer external. So on ad infinitum.
Of course, if any one of the senses of any one of those can be trusted, then the chain can be broken.E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
"I don't like the taste of apples"
"Apples grow on trees"
One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.
the concept of taste is subjective, however, the eating of the apple is objective, as is the digestion of it, as is the defacation of it.
To say that one knows what it is to have experienced all these things, one must experience them.
Experience preceded Newton's theory of Gravity (which is subjective), and experience will be required in order to verify whether or not string theory is correct.The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:
1) It has to be true
2) It has to be believed to be true
3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true
This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).
And as has been discussed, the scientific method is entirely based on personal experience, and verification of personal experience, by means of further personal experience.
It may perhaps be easier to demonstrate how this is not accurate, and give an example of the scientific method in operation, and we can see whether or not personal experience is intrinsic to it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
mangaroosh wrote: »There appears to be some confusion however... [etc, etc]
Indeed, and I think the confusion lies with the inconsistency of your own argument with respect to the science/philosophy mash-up.No - evidence adds to our ability to apply a degree of probability to a claim.
Yes, a probability of its truth. Hence the more evidence we have to support a claim, the more likely it is that the claim is true [surely that is obvious?]. We don’t exist in a world where absolute truth is easily apparent - we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves.
Evidence evaluation and its relation to truth claims is dealt with comprehensively mathematically via Bayesian theory.As a theory is dependent on the mind for existence, as is the case with any rationalisation of anything, it is therefore subjective by definition.
Newton's explanation of the reason behind gravity is not subjective: It's not "subject" to personal opinion.
The only sense in which it is could be said to be not objective is in the philosophical one where there can be said to be a lack of proof that objective reality itself exists. As I’ve been trying to point out, science doesn’t concern itself with that sort of philosophy.Perhaps the confusion arose, as the discussion with Sam Vines was referenced, so as to avoid re-hashing the same point.
As I said, I think the confusion lies more with your odd philosophy-tinted view of what science is about. If it is a mix-up due to cross-posting, perhaps Sam can clarify? [Though I suspect that he, like me, is losing interest with this one...]0 -
There's a difference between "cannot be known with 100% certainty" and "cannot be trusted". If you run an experiment 100 times and it succeeds each time you can be more confident that you are correct. The kind of absolutes you're talking about just don't exist in or out of science but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything with any level of confidence. Just because we can't be 100% certain about anything doesn't mean we have to remain 0% certain about everything.mangaroosh wrote: »If we apply logic to the above statement about our senses always being fallible, then we can see that the scientific method falls down, as no experiement carried out to verify a hypothesis can be trusted. If none of the individual experiments can be trusted, then it makes no difference how many experiments are carried out, as none of them can be trusted.
It is illogical to suggest that because two or more untrustworthy assessments are in agreement, then the trustworthiness increases.
This would create an infinite chain of untrustworthy experiments, where we get nowhere near the truth. The only way to break the chain is if it is possible that some assessments are trustworthy.
What difference does it make whether the input is fallible or the interpretation of the input is?mangaroosh wrote: »Again however, the assumption is that it is our senses that are fallible, and not our interpretation of those senses.
Either way the end result is you can't be 100% certain.
There might well be those who are more adept at discerning but no one is infallbile. And science is a bad example to pick since it relies on externally verifiable data and repeatable experiments, not just someone's interpretation of something. It doesn't matter how sure someone is, if no one else can repeat their experiment then their hypothesis is rejected.mangaroosh wrote: »No, what is suggested is that there are those who can tell and there are those who may not be as adept at discerning. Indeed, the method of scientific inquiry is just one example [not the only one] of where some people are more capable of discerning.
No, it's not. People's brains can conjur up, say, an image of a ghost when there is nothing there but a camera cannot. If the camera sees something then it wasn't just in the person's head. A person can also misinterpret, say, a pattern of light as a ghost but a thousand other people viewing the pattern of light on a video would not all be subject to the same flawed perception. An example would be this video:mangaroosh wrote: »The issue of course, is that anyone who checks the video is reliant on their senses, so the concept of externality is nullified.
Thousands of people said they saw an apparition of the virgin Mary but all I see is the sun. When you stare directly at the sun your eyes can't handle it and they essentially overload and you see strange things but the same does not happen when looking at a video because there's no UV light etc. You say "scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience" but the experience of looking at a video of an event is a very different experience to being there because it was recorded by a device not subject to the same flaws as our senses and looking at numbers on a graph that describe a physical phenomenon is very different to just watching it happen. You can also watch the video over and over again without any recollection biases. Everyone has certain flaws and biases but not everyone has the same ones so the more people look at something, the more likely you are to pick up errors. A simple example of this is writing software, where the writer can stare at something for hours and not find the fault but a fresh pair of eyes will spot the error immediately and as soon as it's pointed out the writer will also see it
By that logic nothing is objective, which I think is the point you're trying to make.mangaroosh wrote: »You are very much correct, the existence of God is objective (either exists or not). However, any rationalisation of God, any attempt to describe God in words, and images of God are entirely subjective, as they are dependent on the mind for existence.
Yet another bad example. You keep on talking about things that can only be subjectively experienced and trying to extend that to everything in existence but you can't do that. I cannot describe with 100% accuracy what goes on behind my eyes to someone that isn't colourblind but that doesn't mean that I can't describe the cup I'm holding in my hands with enough accuracy that only irrelevant details are left out and if I'm a scientist trying to prove something, telling someone what I experienced when running an experiment is very different to telling them how to do it and letting them verify it for themselves. To put it in your language, in science everyone can be made to personally experience the relevant parts of the experiment in exactly the same way. They might not be able to describe how the beaker felt against their skin but that's irrelevant, all that matters is that the outcome of the experiment is verifiedmangaroosh wrote: »Can you describe your experience of being colour blind? Do you think that anyone who has always seen colour will understand what it is like? Do you feel that another colour blind person would intuitively know what it is like?
Your point here seems to be that you feel you can assume that your senses receive input correctly and that it is only our interpretation of them that is infallible so "certain people" (which I assume includes you) can know things with 100% certainty because they "know" that they interpreted it correctly. sorry mate, not buying it. For every person that "knows" something there are ten people that "know" the opposite. Your own personal opinion about how great you are at interpreting things is irrelevant, you still need to verify what you're saying just as much as anyone else. You can say you "know" something but how is anyone else meant to know if you actually know it or if you just think you know it? Unless of course you can show us your certificate of interpretational infallibility?0 -
-
Indeed, and I think the confusion lies with the inconsistency of your own argument with respect to the science/philosophy mash-up.
There has been no mash-up of philosophy and science, unless of course application of logic to the scientific method is considered philosophical, which of course it could be.
The points being made remain logical, and it would perhaps be better to challenge the points themselves on the basis of logic, as opposed to sticking to unquestioned assumptions.Yes, a probability of its truth. Hence the more evidence we have to support a claim, the more likely it is that the claim is true [surely that is obvious?].
Let's break it down.
Evidence does not add to the likelihood that a claim/hypothesis is true or not.
Evidence adds to our ability to verify a claim/hypothesis.
They are two entirely different things, again, this is basic logic.
With respect to the earlier example of the balls in the bag. We had gottent to the stage where there was a 50% probability assigned to the claim that all the balls in the bag were red.
This doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the claim is correct.
Remember, the claim is either 100% correct, or it isn't.
The value of 50% is the ability to predict whether or not the claim is true or not.
But remember, one person's ability to predict the validity of the claim, does not change the fact that either the claim is true or it isn't.
The only way in which the claim can be verified, is if all the balls are drawn from the bagWe don’t exist in a world where absolute truth is easily apparent - we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves.
Just to ask a question, how does one achieve the aim of the emboldened statement, without the benefit of personal experience?Evidence evaluation and its relation to truth claims is dealt with comprehensively mathematically via Bayesian theory.
cheers for the link, but the statements themselves are independent of the Bayesian Theory, and should be treated as such, even if they do overlap.Newton's explanation of the reason behind gravity is not subjective: It's not "subject" to personal opinion.
The only sense in which it is could be said to be not objective is in the philosophical one where there can be said to be a lack of proof that objective reality itself exists. As I’ve been trying to point out, science doesn’t concern itself with that sort of philosophy.
That is not correct. It is by definition subjective, because it depends on the mind for existence. The words which it uses are subject to personal opinion, even if consensus has been reached on what they mean.
Again, the sense in which it is subjective, is in the logical, rational sense, where the correct meaning of the word subjective is applied.
It is the force of Gravity itself that is objective.As I said, I think the confusion lies more with your odd philosophy-tinted view of what science is about. If it is a mix-up due to cross-posting, perhaps Sam can clarify?
Again, it is the application of logic to the points being made that may qualify it as philosophy, however, the fact remains that it is logic.
Again, it may be helpful to read the post that was referred to[Though I suspect that he, like me, is losing interest with this one...]
Baisc logic does often lead to lack of interest. Emotionally charged rants and mis-representations of points is usually more fun, but infinitely more pointless.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Just to do the courtesy of replying in full.
Warning: this is pretty longThere's a difference between "cannot be known with 100% certainty" and "cannot be trusted". If you run an experiment 100 times and it succeeds each time you can be more confident that you are correct. The kind of absolutes you're talking about just don't exist in or out of science but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything with any level of confidence. Just because we can't be 100% certain about anything doesn't mean we have to remain 0% certain about everything.
Just to re-iterate, the issue here is fallibility of the senses.
The assumption here, is that the more times a person runs an experiment that returns consistent results, the more accurate it can be said to be.
However, if a persons senses are infallible on the first experiment, then they just as fallible on all the subsequent experiments, meaning that each experiment is as flawed as the next.
Just because the experiment is repeated 100 times, it doesn't remove the issue of fallible senses, rather replicates them in every single experiment. The same is true for every single person who carries out the experiment. Meaning that every single experiment carried out to verify a claim is flawed and so nothing can ever be verified.
Probability cannot apply if nothing is known, or at least assumed to be true.
Of course the main point is being overlooked though. In order for someone to verify a claim, they must carry out the experiment themselves. This is done through personal experience, and is unavoidable. So for every experiement that is carried out, there is a corresponding number of personal experiences [or corresponding to the number of scientists]
If this is not the case then, please logically and rationally outline why.What difference does it make whether the input is fallible or the interpretation of the input is?
Either way the end result is you can't be 100% certain.
Because the input does not have to be Interpreted, and so can be known, while the interpretation will be subjective.There might well be those who are more adept at discerning but no one is infallbile. And science is a bad example to pick since it relies on externally verifiable data and repeatable experiments, not just someone's interpretation of something. It doesn't matter how sure someone is, if no one else can repeat their experiment then their hypothesis is rejected.
Everyone is indeed capable of this, although, like most things, it must be cultivated.No, it's not. People's brains can conjur up, say, an image of a ghost when there is nothing there but a camera cannot. If the camera sees something then it wasn't just in the person's head. A person can also misinterpret, say, a pattern of light as a ghost but a thousand other people viewing the pattern of light on a video would not all be subject to the same flawed perception. An example would be this video:
Again, the issue of interpretation arises. While the mind may intepret the experience in a certain way, the experience itself is not dependent on the mind.
Experience is what gives rise to tacit knowledge. This is the part of an experience that is known, that is objective and is not dependent on the mind.
Again, to use an analogy that has been used before, but resist the temptation to assume that the same thing is being said.
Lets just say the last time you went for a walk. Was there any part of that experience that was, for you objective, or did any such experience only take place in your mind?Thousands of people said they saw an apparition of the virgin Mary but all I see is the sun. When you stare directly at the sun your eyes can't handle it and they essentially overload and you see strange things but the same does not happen when looking at a video because there's no UV light etc. You say "scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience" but the experience of looking at a video of an event is a very different experience to being there because it was recorded by a device not subject to the same flaws as our senses and looking at numbers on a graph that describe a physical phenomenon is very different to just watching it happen.
OK, there are a couple of assumptions there, that must be addressed. Firstly that God must be perceived in the form of an apparition, akin to the above. This of course is not necessarily the case.
With regard to the video as externally verifiable evidence, again, the nature of what is known is the question. If we ignore the example of a ghost, as it is not compatible, we can maybe take the example again of either your walk down the street or a skydive.
Let's just go with the skydive. If you do a skydive and make a video of it.
Then you tell your friend about your experience, and you say that it is impossible to explain the experience in words, as no matter how descriptive you are, you will never be 100% accurate.
You can then show the video to your friend [along with other externally verifiable evidence] and your friend can verify that yes indeed, you went skydiving. He can know this piece of information about you, however, with regard to skydiving, he would still have less knowledge about it.
The only possible way, that he can have the same knowledge as you. is if he goes skydiving. This isn't about emotions, or feelings, this is about the tacit knowledge of skydiving.
The same applies to something like meditationYou can also watch the video over and over again without any recollection biases. Everyone has certain flaws and biases but not everyone has the same ones so the more people look at something, the more likely you are to pick up errors. A simple example of this is writing software, where the writer can stare at something for hours and not find the fault but a fresh pair of eyes will spot the error immediately and as soon as it's pointed out the writer will also see it
OK, but the above example of the programmer is a different point.
While the programmer can make mistakes, that doesn't mean that he didn't have the knowledge to do it right. There may of course have been some interference, either personal or external, that made him make the mistake, but he would still retain the knowledge.
Sticking with that example. A programmer can learn a programming language, but until he has the experience of actually writing code, and seeing it in action, he cannot know that it works.By that logic nothing is objective, which I think is the point you're trying to make.
No, experience is objective, indeed objective knowledge is in the form of tacit knowledge. It is the attempted rationalisation or interpretation of that knowledge that is subjective.Yet another bad example. You keep on talking about things that can only be subjectively experienced and trying to extend that to everything in existence but you can't do that.
Hopefully the nature of objective experience has been clarified. It is the experience that is objective and tacit knowledge is what is objective. It is the attemtped rationalisation of that experience that is subjective.I cannot describe with 100% accuracy what goes on behind my eyes to someone that isn't colourblind but that doesn't mean that I can't describe the cup I'm holding in my hands with enough accuracy that only irrelevant details are left out
Indeed, I fully agree. The only way that it can be verified however, is by someone else seeing the cup, and verifying through personal experience that your description of the cup is accurate. Otherwise one would have to rely on faith, in your good character.and if I'm a scientist trying to prove something, telling someone what I experienced when running an experiment is very different to telling them how to do it and letting them verify it for themselves.
Indeed, but a hypothesis would be needed so that something could be verified, which would be the same as saying what is expected to be the outcome.
The running of the experiment must be done by someone, who will have the personal experience of running the experiment. If their experience corresponds to what you have described, then they will agree with your hypothesis.
If they have a different experience, then they will not agree.To put it in your language, in science everyone can be made to personally experience the relevant parts of the experiment in exactly the same way.
Exactly the point.They might not be able to describe how the beaker felt against their skin but that's irrelevant, all that matters is that the outcome of the experiment is verified
Indeed, that part would be entirely subjective. However, giving measurements of anything is also entirely subjective. Saying that something travels at x kilometres per hour is entirely subjective, as both a kilometre and an hour are subjective measurements. Not only because they are dependent on the mind, but because they were decided upon completely arbitrarily.
They may of course have been agreed upon and standardized, but it doesn't change the fact that they are subjective.Your point here seems to be that you feel you can assume that your senses receive input correctly and that it is only our interpretation of them that is infallible so "certain people" (which I assume includes you) can know things with 100% certainty because they "know" that they interpreted it correctly. sorry mate, not buying it.
"Good! because I ain't selling it" - apologies, couldn't resist a "genuine opportunity"
There is no claim on the exclusive ability to do it, and indeed there has been no claim whatsoever in the ability to do it, it is based on rational and logical consideration. Everyone has the ability to know things, and indeed reality, however, no one has the ability to express it in words, as the nature of words are such that they cannot define reality. They can describe it, but not define it.
Again, tacit knowledge is what is refers to this knowledge.For every person that "knows" something there are ten people that "know" the opposite. Your own personal opinion about how great you are at interpreting things is irrelevant, you still need to verify what you're saying just as much as anyone else.
Again, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only beleive it.
Again, there has been no claim of grandeur, rather mere application of logic.You can say you "know" something but how is anyone else meant to know if you actually know it or if you just think you know it?
Again, the simple answer is, "through personal experience".0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
They're the same thing.mangaroosh wrote: »Evidence does not add to the likelihood that a claim/hypothesis is true or not.
Evidence adds to our ability to verify a claim/hypothesis.
No, it's not basic logic, it's basically wrong.They are two entirely different things, again, this is basic logic.
Do you even read what you write? "50% probability assigned to the claim" is the same as "50% chance the claim is correct".With respect to the earlier example of the balls in the bag. We had gottent to the stage where there was a 50% probability assigned to the claim that all the balls in the bag were red.
This doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the claim is correct.
Ok, well let's imagine a real-world scenario and apply your absolutist logic to it and see how far it gets us shall we?Remember, the claim is either 100% correct, or it isn't.
Setting: Courtroom
Judge: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious crime here of murder and it’s up to you 12 jurors to decide the fate of the defendant. Counsel, please proceed.
Prosecutor: He did it.
Judge: thank-you counsel. Now, the defence please?
Defence attorney: He didn't do it. The defence rests.
Judge: Thank-you. Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Juror #1 (timidly): Eh, shouldn't we, like, hear some evidence first?
Judge (scoffing): Evidence? Don't be silly - evidence has no bearing on truth! I mean, sure, there may be CCTV footage of the defendant shooting the victim, and yes, the defendants fingerprints were all over the crime scene in the victim’s blood, and yes the bullets recovered from the victim do match the gun registered to the defendant, found in his home, covered with both the victim's blood and the defendant’s fingerprints, and yes the victims heart was found in the defendant’s freezer, but really - none of this evidence has any bearing on the actual truth of whether he killed the victim or not.
Seem ok to you?
In the real non-boolean world of complex, open systems, there is no absolute knowledge of truth (that's more the position of religions that have an omniscient deity as the arbiter of truth). Therefore ALL truth claims are subject to probability - there are no certainties. This is why each piece of evidence for something adds to the PROBABILITY of it being true.
Look at it from a mathematical perspective: True = 1, false = 0. Probability represents the gradient in between. Let's assume every truth claim has a probability of 0 to begin with (false until shown otherwise). How do you move something from false (0) to true (1) in the absence of absolute knowledge (i.e. without conveniently knowing for certain the answer in advance)? Happily, the Bayesian theorem can show how evidence can be used to move truth claims from 0 to 1 in the real world.
In the example I gave of the red balls and green balls (and if it makes it easier to grasp, assume no one, including me, has knowledge of the choice that was made at the start - a random number generator kicked it off for example), at the point in time when I had drawn 50 red balls, the probability of the bag NOT containing all red balls is (1 / 100891344545564193334812497256), which is roughly the same chance of winning the Euromillions 4 times in a row (So, pretty small then!). We got to this level of certainty by assessing the evidence.cheers for the link, but the statements themselves are independent of the Bayesian Theory, and should be treated as such, even if they do overlap.
What? Did you read the wiki entry? Bayesian theory is a mathematical field specifically concerned with assessing truth probability based on evidence. IT’S IN BLACK AND WHITE.It is by definition subjective, because it depends on the mind for existence
So you're saying that gravity worked differently before humans were around to describe it?It is the force of Gravity itself that is objective.
The "force of gravity" is what is described by Newton's theory. You're arguing that his theory is subjective, but his theory is also objective.
Or are you just saying that "things fall down" is objective. Because, while accurate, it's not very useful.Again, it is the application of logic to the points being made that may qualify it as philosophy, however, the fact remains that it is logic
In this thread, your “application of logic” has led you to the following conclusions:
“Something is either true or false”
“Everything about the universe is subjective because humans describe it. If we didn’t exist the universe would be a crazy place of random physical forces”
“Things fall down”
I’m blown away by your powers of reasoning! :rolleyes:Baisc logic does often lead to lack of interest. Emotionally charged rants and mis-representations of points is usually more fun, but infinitely more pointless
LOL. Ok Spock, but what you misinterpret as a rant is merely a modicum of the frustration of responding repeatedly to the same (very lengthy) posts again and again that seem to be based on weird semantics and completely unrelated to reality.
(Though I agree, it was fun
) 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGJC1pM54EQ
Advertisement