| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Local time: 8:53 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like. |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true?
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 5:53 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | I have a point to make that's not a defensive one.
What you're saying is that beyond a certain point, one that you define as being too arbitrary to matter (whatever the hell that means), there's no reason to ask the question 'Why?'
So if that can apply in philosophy, then why not in other things. Why do we continually ask why in other fields like chemistry or biology? |
Good question.... because nothing yet has become too arbitrary in Chemistry or Biology. All insight in these subjects can be put to further use in order to improve our lives, it effects are lives or could potentially effect our lives. However if these subjects reach a point where it becomes too arbitrary to matter, (as I feel many branches of Physics have *cough*string theory*cough*), I will stop searching, the questions simply don't matter.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 11:53 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like. |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true? |
We know the conclusion is true because that is how parallel lines work. In spacetime with zero curvature (aka basic geometry), a line never comes closer to or farther away from another line parallel to it.
| Quote: |
Good question.... because nothing yet has become too arbitrary in Chemistry or Biology. All insight in these subjects can be put to further use in order to improve our lives, it effects are lives or could potentially effect our lives. However if these subjects reach a point where it becomes too arbitrary to matter, (as I feel many branches of Physics have *cough*string theory*cough*), I will stop searching, the questions simply don't matter. |
When string theory is finished, it could produce things for us. It might be arbitrary at the moment, but in 20 years time I imagine it will have, true or false, helped to progress humanity. But I digress.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie.
Last edited by GodWarrior98 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 11:53 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do, believe it or not, understand what you're saying. I agree that there is a point at which is gets a little dull and I will agree: pointless. But to use the argument that it is a fruitless task, however true that may or may not be, is an argument that can be applied to almost every field of study. Why do we need to know where life came from, or why certain elements have certain properties? Does this contribute to our survival in the (Yes I am about to quote Fight Club) "hunter\gatherer sense" of the word?
This is an extreme way to look at it, but at what point does it stop.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Local time: 8:53 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true? |
We know the conclusion is true because that is how parallel lines work. In spacetime with zero curvature (aka basic geometry), a line never comes closer to or farther away from another line parallel to it. |
Whoa, that's a circular answer, and unless you want to rely on tautologies this early in the game, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than that.
That's how parallel lines work? That's simply reasserting the conclusion that you started with. That's not an answer for "how do we know it is so?". Are you simply defining it that way? And if so, that's going to fall prey to the problem that I mentioned earlier. We can define anything we want to be true, but if that's all that 'truth' means, the concept of truth is at best worthlessly trivial.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 5:53 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like. |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true? |
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about... pointless babble.
This is my counter argument.
Parallel lines do not touch because parallel means "never get closer or further away", if they never get closer, they cannot touch. Simple. The meaning doesn't change just because gravity is different. It's over analysing rather than dispute something worth disputing, ie. something that actually matters, that effects our lives.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 11:53 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | I do, believe it or not, understand what you're saying. I agree that there is a point at which is gets a little dull and I will agree: pointless. But to use the argument that it is a fruitless task, however true that may or may not be, is an argument that can be applied to almost every field of study. Why do we need to know where life came from, or why certain elements have certain properties? Does this contribute to our survival in the (Yes I am about to quote Fight Club) "hunter\gatherer sense" of the word?
This is an extreme way to look at it, but at what point does it stop. |
Science will stop when those who study a particular field find that the field has no more data to produce. Scientists will continue to research things until knowledge has been completed. Its use to the public may well run out before this, but it will not become like philosophy. Science will not be wild speculation with no basis.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Local time: 8:53 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like. |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true? |
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about... pointless babble.
This is my counter argument.
Parallel lines do not touch because parallel means "never get closer or further away", if they never get closer, they cannot touch. Simple. The meaning doesn't change just because gravity is different. It's over analysing rather than dispute something worth disputing, ie. something that actually matters, that effects our lives. |
That's just the defining problem I mentioned earlier, Tornado. All you just said there was, "It's true because we defined it to be true." If "Proposition X is true because we define it to be true" makes Proposition X true, then you've absolutely no defense if somebody defines God into existence - no defense except your own equally arbitrary definition of non-existence.
Surely truth must mean something more than "what we define to be true." If it doesn't, the world pretty solidly dissolves into intersubjectivity with absolutely no shared meanings.
Worse, allowing defining truth to be a permissible 'truth seeking' enterprise pretty well does away with any concept that 'truth' reflects reality in any way.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 11:53 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated. |
Sure thing. It's not the manner I would go about setting up a discussion, but we can look at that in a moment.
You have a conclusion:
C1: Two parallel lines never touch.
You assert that this statement is true, but how do we know that it is true?
Is that something built into the fabric of reality? Is that simply something that we humans, in our attempt to understand the world, have adopted as a 'rough' rule of thumb that might not be true in situations outside of our evolutionary environment (for instance, under high gravity, or in the hearts of exploding stars, or the like)?
Is it true merely because we have defined it to be true? If so it is the most worthless of trivialities, for I could just as easily define God to exist, define circles to have three corners, or define 1+1 to equal 7.
So, how do we know that the asserted conclusion is true? |
We know the conclusion is true because that is how parallel lines work. In spacetime with zero curvature (aka basic geometry), a line never comes closer to or farther away from another line parallel to it. |
Whoa, that's a circular answer, and unless you want to rely on tautologies this early in the game, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than that.
That's how parallel lines work? That's simply reasserting the conclusion that you started with. That's not an answer for "how do we know it is so?". Are you simply defining it that way? And if so, that's going to fall prey to the problem that I mentioned earlier. We can define anything we want to be true, but if that's all that 'truth' means, the concept of truth is at best worthlessly trivial. |
If you wish to conclude that taking a statement to be true is trivial, then think that. I do not care to argue with pointless ramblings.
I will bring this thread back to the original point. What does asking me how I know parallel lines are parallel bring to the table? What about that question makes its existence worthwhile? Will it produce some data or technology?
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 10:53 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
FYI: anyone who actually lists their ignore list in their sig is a drama queen.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 5:53 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | I do, believe it or not, understand what you're saying. I agree that there is a point at which is gets a little dull and I will agree: pointless. But to use the argument that it is a fruitless task, however true that may or may not be, is an argument that can be applied to almost every field of study. Why do we need to know where life came from, or why certain elements have certain properties? Does this contribute to our survival in the (Yes I am about to quote Fight Club) "hunter\gatherer sense" of the word?
This is an extreme way to look at it, but at what point does it stop. |
Interesting question, (and as a point, a philosophical question that does have a point and relevance to how we live our lives).
We stop searching when we are satisfied. When we can say we feel that nothing more can be gained from studying that specific subject further to help me to pursue my goal of enjoying my life more. We must decide when something no longer has a significant effect on our lives, and once we've decided it doesn't have an effect, we can then drop that thing. This step is subjective, however some things, particularly in philosophy, have the same result regardless of the answer making them universally insignificant in our lives.
I want to know what a certain elements properties are because I may find a use for them, even if that use is rather small, it will still provide me with something at the end, so I continue to explore. I am not just trying to find things to contribute to my survival, but things to contribute to my overall happiness, and that's a very different matter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Local time: 8:53 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: |
I will bring this thread back to the original point. What does asking me how I know parallel lines are parallel bring to the table? What about that question makes its existence worthwhile? Will it produce some data or technology? |
I say that it is trivial because it reduces the concept of truth to 'whatever somebody defines it to be,' which pretty much makes it worthless. You might define something to be true because it suits you, I might define something else to be true because it suits me, and we never accomplish anything. Truth means more than that. A 'true' statement is one which is in accord with reality, not something we simply 'define' that way.
And to answer your return to the OP question, yes, it very well might.
Not to throw a damper on your anti-intellectual post, but most all of our great mathematicians through history were philosophers of mathematics. Hell, Newton's calculus and physics were explicitly based upon his philosophies. He was what was then called a 'natural philosopher' (a philosopher of nature), and his first musings on physics are captured in his philosophical tracts on the nature of the universe. I have quite a number of good passages in front of me (I don't find them all that interesting, since I generally think of mathematics as being almost as boring as a subject can get, but that's me.). Leibniz and Kant drew their mathematical discussions from their philosophy, as did older names like Aristotle and Plato.
If these discoveries were made by seeking to understand the nature of underlying assumptions that we'd always taken for granted, finding one of them to be false (or badly understood) and correcting it - and then seeing where that correction led to in the discipline built upon it, then why should we condemn people who today do exactly the same things? Do you think that we've finally reached the pinnacle of knowledge and that absolutely no new paradigm shifts are ever going to happen again? That seems a bit presumptuous.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 11:53 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: |
I will bring this thread back to the original point. What does asking me how I know parallel lines are parallel bring to the table? What about that question makes its existence worthwhile? Will it produce some data or technology? |
I say that it is trivial because it reduces the concept of truth to 'whatever somebody defines it to be,' which pretty much makes it worthless. You might define something to be true because it suits you, I might define something else to be true because it suits me, and we never accomplish anything. Truth means more than that. A 'true' statement is one which is in accord with reality, not something we simply 'define' that way.
And to answer your return to the OP question, yes, it very well might.
Not to throw a damper on your anti-intellectual post, but most all of our great mathematicians through history were philosophers of mathematics. Hell, Newton's calculus and physics were explicitly based upon his philosophies. He was what was then called a 'natural philosopher' (a philosopher of nature), and his first musings on physics are captured in his philosophical tracts on the nature of the universe. I have quite a number of good passages in front of me (I don't find them all that interesting, since I generally think of mathematics as being almost as boring as a subject can get, but that's me.). Leibniz and Kant drew their mathematical discussions from their philosophy, as did older names like Aristotle and Plato.
If these discoveries were made by seeking to understand the nature of underlying assumptions that we'd always taken for granted, finding one of them to be false (or badly understood) and correcting it - and then seeing where that correction led to in the discipline built upon it, then why should we condemn people who today do exactly the same things? Do you think that we've finally reached the pinnacle of knowledge and that absolutely no new paradigm shifts are ever going to happen again? That seems a bit presumptuous. |
How does questioning whether parallel lines are parallel have potential to produce something?
That kind of philosophy is nothing like what Newton performed.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 5:53 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about... pointless babble.
This is my counter argument.
Parallel lines do not touch because parallel means "never get closer or further away", if they never get closer, they cannot touch. Simple. The meaning doesn't change just because gravity is different. It's over analysing rather than dispute something worth disputing, ie. something that actually matters, that effects our lives. |
That's just the defining problem I mentioned earlier, Tornado. All you just said there was, "It's true because we defined it to be true." If "Proposition X is true because we define it to be true" makes Proposition X true, then you've absolutely no defense if somebody defines God into existence - no defense except your own equally arbitrary definition of non-existence.
Surely truth must mean something more than "what we define to be true." If it doesn't, the world pretty solidly dissolves into intersubjectivity with absolutely no shared meanings.
Worse, allowing defining truth to be a permissible 'truth seeking' enterprise pretty well does away with any concept that 'truth' reflects reality in any way. |
You've taken this debate to a point where it has become to abstract for it to be of interest to me honestly. I disagree with your statements. Parallel is defined as such, it is true because the word is true to it's meaning. Using this foolish argument in favour of God just shows that you're thinking with too much abstract and confusing words and meaning of words. I'm not going to discuss this further as it's discussions precisely like this in philosophy that I hate, and as I said, it's easy to fall into the trap of arguing with them because their abstract nature makes them so bloody obnoxious. Look back at what you've said, you know that it's nothing but pointless dribble, like mainly philosophical arguments, and honestly, you're not arguing about whether parallel lines are parallel, you're just being awquard.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Local time: 8:53 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about... pointless babble.
This is my counter argument.
Parallel lines do not touch because parallel means "never get closer or further away", if they never get closer, they cannot touch. Simple. The meaning doesn't change just because gravity is different. It's over analysing rather than dispute something worth disputing, ie. something that actually matters, that effects our lives. |
That's just the defining problem I mentioned earlier, Tornado. All you just said there was, "It's true because we defined it to be true." If "Proposition X is true because we define it to be true" makes Proposition X true, then you've absolutely no defense if somebody defines God into existence - no defense except your own equally arbitrary definition of non-existence.
Surely truth must mean something more than "what we define to be true." If it doesn't, the world pretty solidly dissolves into intersubjectivity with absolutely no shared meanings.
Worse, allowing defining truth to be a permissible 'truth seeking' enterprise pretty well does away with any concept that 'truth' reflects reality in any way. |
You've taken this debate to a point where it has become to abstract for it to be of interest to me honestly. I disagree with your statements. Parallel is defined as such, it is true because the word is true to it's meaning. Using this foolish argument in favour of God just shows that you're thinking with too much abstract and confusing words and meaning of words. I'm not going to discuss this further as it's discussions precisely like this in philosophy that I hate, and as I said, it's easy to fall into the trap of arguing with them because their abstract nature makes them so bloody obnoxious. Look back at what you've said, you know that it's nothing but pointless dribble, like mainly philosophical arguments, and honestly, you're not arguing about whether parallel lines are parallel, you're just being awquard. |
Take it as you like it. I'm defending one of mankinds oldest, most influential, and best disciplines from people who don't seem to understand it. Your incuriousity isn't a reflection on philosophy, though. I don't see any of those questions as being trivial, and frankly, they're not even all that abstract - this isn't even the level of abstraction that you get in a high school course in philosophical reasoning, let alone something you'd get at university or beyond.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
