Truth and knowledge : Not relative and not plural

[Byblos]

Logic and reason is the only tool at our disposal to understand not only the world around us but to understand pretty much ANYTHING

May be, but please watch a baby. Do you see a baby learning using logic and reason? A small baby doesn't use logic and reason to understand pretty much anything. He just uses experience that stacks up, imitation of others around him and environment conditioning.

I've raised a couple of my own (although in this case it's not a good example as they both still defy logic but that's besides the point). The fact is that babies don't start out using logic and reason simply because their brains are not yet developed enough to do so. I would even contend that in fact they do use logic and reason to the extent that their brain can process and comprehend. Gradually as their brain develops further and further so does their capacity to use logic and reason and understand the world around them. But we're venturing way off topic here, we're talking about mature adults who can appreciate and make full use of logic and reason. To state that sometimes you use them and sometimes you don't puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate how (in what instances do we not use logic and reason).

Logic and reason is good in our lives but to what extent?

You tell me, you made the argument now explain it.

Anyways, what I was trying to point out is that Dom was using relativity to disprove my own arguments, but he didn't use relativity when he presented his arguments. It doesn't work that way. It's using a double standard in the first place.

That's because relativity was not the tool by which he disproved your argument so it is fallacious to turn around and make it the tool by which he must prove his.

[BryanH]

That's because relativity was not the tool by which he disproved your argument so it is fallacious to turn around and make it the tool by which he must prove his.

Actually he did that. He clearly said that a relative statement disproves itself by being relative in the first place.

You tell me, you made the argument now explain it.

1) Since you raised two kids that means you are married. Now go to your wife and say to her that the love you have for her has logic and reason behind it. See how she reacts:)) Good luck with providing the actual logic and reasons.
2) A person who jumps in front of a bullet just to save another person uses a LOT of logic and reason...
3) Faith... there is no logic and reason behind that

[Byblos]

That's because relativity was not the tool by which he disproved your argument so it is fallacious to turn around and make it the tool by which he must prove his.

Actually he did that. He clearly said that a relative statement disproves itself by being relative in the first place.

And that is a LOGICAL statement sir, not a relative one.

You tell me, you made the argument now explain it.

1) Since you raised two kids that means you are married. Now go to your wife and say to her that the love you have for her has logic and reason behind it. See how she reacts:)) Good luck with providing the actual logic and reasons.

My love for my wife is a microcosm of the love of God in which he made me (and us all) in his image. Logic and reason demands not only a creator, but a creator that is pure goodness from whom all goodness flows. Love is the first manifestation of such goodness.

2) A person who jumps in front of a bullet just to save another person uses a LOT of logic and reason...

It's called extreme altruism and also flows directly from pure goodness which puts others before self. It is a very strong argument for objective morality by the way. Are you sure you're not arguing FOR my case?

3) Faith... there is no logic and reason behind that

If you're referring to blind faith I might agree with you. But a Christian faith is most certainly not a blind faith. It is a reasonable faith (as in based in reason), first from the light of the natural world (so no one has any excuse) and second from the moral law giver that impressed the OBJECTIVE moral law upon our hearts (so again, no one has an excuse).


Next.

[BryanH]

My love for my wife is a microcosm of the love of God in which he made me (and us all) in his image. Logic and reason demands not only a creator, but a creator that is pure goodness from whom all goodness flows. Love is the first manifestation of such goodness.

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question. You just presented me with a place from where your love originates.
Now try getting more factual. How did it actually happen? How come you chose her and not someone else?
The fact I am trying to point out is that feelings do not listen to logic and reason.

And that is a LOGICAL statement sir, not a relative one.

Well decide then, either your disprove my theory with a logical statement that doesn't involve relativity or you use relativity thus a relative statement. Which one is it?
I told you he used a double standard.

[Byblos]

My love for my wife is a microcosm of the love of God in which he made me (and us all) in his image. Logic and reason demands not only a creator, but a creator that is pure goodness from whom all goodness flows. Love is the first manifestation of such goodness.

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question. You just presented me with a place from where your love originates.
Now try getting more factual. How did it actually happen? How come you chose her and not someone else?
The fact I am trying to point out is that feelings do not listen to logic and reason.

There you go again claiming one cannot fully explain or comprehend anything unless one sees the big picture. The fact that I (or even science) cannot fully explain the biology of love doesn't mean one cannot understand the origin of love. And as to the origin of love I've given you a reasonable and logical answer. You don't need to understand the mechanics and pathways by which gravity came about to know that it exists.

And that is a LOGICAL statement sir, not a relative one.

Well decide then, either your disprove my theory with a logical statement that doesn't involve relativity or you use relativity thus a relative statement. Which one is it?
I told you he used a double standard.

Bryan, he used logic, not relativity to disprove your relativity. You are the one using a double standard by requiring him to use a method he did not use. Dom is being consistent, logic disproves relativity. Relativity disproves nothing as it is relative. Those are all logical constructs. To be consistent, what you want to ask Dom is to use his own method (logic) to disprove his method (logic), and that sir, yet again, is a logical contradiction. You cannot prove not x by using x. See how logic is logical?

[BryanH]

Bryan, he used logic, not relativity to disprove your relativity. You are the one using a double standard by requiring him to use a method he did not use. Dom is being consistent, logic disproves relativity. Relativity disproves nothing as it is relative. Those are all logical constructs. To be consistent, what you want to ask Dom is to use his own method (logic) to disprove his method (logic), and that sir, yet again, is a logical contradiction. You cannot prove not x by using x. See how logic is logical?

Byblos I understand what you say, but he actually said that relativity disproves relativity. You do understand that?

The point I am trying to make is that you can't disprove relativity with relativity because then you have to apply it for your own judgement AND
You can't disprove relativity using a logic argument and absolute truth because relativity doesn't exist in a world of absolute truth and you don't have what to disprove in the first place. AND
Of course vice versa

So I may be right when I say that the truth is based on axioms that can't actually be demonstrated in a simple manner or not at all to begin with.

[Byblos]

Bryan, he used logic, not relativity to disprove your relativity. You are the one using a double standard by requiring him to use a method he did not use. Dom is being consistent, logic disproves relativity. Relativity disproves nothing as it is relative. Those are all logical constructs. To be consistent, what you want to ask Dom is to use his own method (logic) to disprove his method (logic), and that sir, yet again, is a logical contradiction. You cannot prove not x by using x. See how logic is logical?

Byblos I understand what you say, but he actually said that relativity disproves relativity. You do understand that?

Yes, I am well aware of that. And again, that statement: 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical, not a relative statement.. So you cannot ask to prove it using relativity, only using logic. I honestly don't know how many times I can say that.

The point I am trying to make is that you can't disprove relativity with relativity because then you have to apply it for your own judgement AND
You can't disprove relativity using a logic argument and absolute truth because relativity doesn't exist in a world of absolute truth and you don't have what to disprove in the first place. AND
Of course vice versa

And again you would be wrong in stating that because NO ONE is claiming to use relativity. The statement 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical statement since relativity cannot prove or disprove anything.

So I may be right when I say that the truth is based on axioms that can't actually be demonstrated in a simple manner or not at all to begin with.

Er, no. If that were the case, as I stated before, you might as well just talk in gibberish, you will be just as unintelligible just the same.

[BryanH]

And again you would be wrong in stating that because NO ONE is claiming to use relativity. The statement 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical statement since relativity cannot prove or disprove anything.

I don't get something:

How can you say that the statement 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical statement since relativity cannot prove or disprove anything?

In order for relativity to disprove relativity you have to apply that concept in the first place... How can you apply a concept that does not exist?

It's illogical to say that "relativity disproves relativity" to begin with.

All I am saying is this:
A=objective absolute view
B=relative view

If A is true, than B is false
If B is true, than A is false

So you can't use A to disprove B because B is false to start with
you can't use B to disprove A because A is false to start with

[Byblos]

And again you would be wrong in stating that because NO ONE is claiming to use relativity. The statement 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical statement since relativity cannot prove or disprove anything.

I don't get something:

How can you say that the statement 'relativity disproves relativity' is a logical statement since relativity cannot prove or disprove anything?

In order for relativity to disprove relativity you have to apply that concept in the first place... How can you apply a concept that does not exist?

It's illogical to say that "relativity disproves relativity" to begin with.

All I am saying is this:
A=objective absolute view
B=relative view

If A is true, than B is false
If B is true, than A is false

So you can't use A to disprove B because B is false to start with
you can't use B to disprove A because A is false to start with

Bryan, the term 'relativity disproves relativity' does not mean relativity is being used to disprove itself. It precisely means that relativity, by definition, proves nothing. The terms relativity and proof are mutually exclusive.

[BryanH]

Bryan, the term 'relativity disproves relativity' does not mean relativity is being used to disprove itself. It precisely means that relativity, by definition, proves nothing. The terms relativity and proof are mutually exclusive.

In order to provide a definition for relativity, you have to assign a value of truth to a concept. The fact that you can say you have a definition for relativity in the first place means that you do have knowledge about relativity.

[Byblos]

Bryan, the term 'relativity disproves relativity' does not mean relativity is being used to disprove itself. It precisely means that relativity, by definition, proves nothing. The terms relativity and proof are mutually exclusive.

In order to provide a definition for relativity, you have to assign a value of truth to a concept. The fact that you can say you have a definition for relativity in the first place means that you do have knowledge about relativity.

And?

But I think the point I was trying to make is clear. Without reason nothing is intelligible. Don't you find it a bit ironic though that the theist side of the argument is using logic and reason? That alone must give you a little tingle deep down.

[domokunrox]

Wow, lets rewind here.

The fact that you can't prove something doesn't mean that it isn't actually true. I think that is one of the problems that people have with relativity.

I agree with you here, Bryan. Except relativism by definition is making a claim that MUST prove itself. Burden of proof is on person who affirms that position.

And again and again the same thing: I didn't actually say that you can't know truth. I just said that you can't know absolute truth, anyways not at this point in time.

and...we're back! The problem here is that you make a claim. You can't know absolute truth.
Is THAT Absolutely true? How do you KNOW that? You only have 3 options, Bryan
Yes, its true. Then it ABSOLUTELY true that you can't know absolute truth. (Supported? Where is your evidence?)
No, its not true. Then its wrong. (Discard it)
OR
Yes, its true. Its absolutely true, but you need to accept my statement is the ONLY exception. (Which is illogical and defies relativism)

I noticed that you also have now added "Anyways not at this point in time". Are you then admitting now that we can't know absolute truth at all, or are you saying that we can't know it right now, but we will later? Can you give me some justification for that belief?

The fact that Dom accepts only absolute and objective truth, well, that's his problem, not mine.

Not a problem at all, Bryan.

You on the other hand, Bryan are inconsistent with being an epistemological skeptic. You're an epistemological skeptic, but you are making exceptions to your skepticism without any warrant or reason for doing so. Thats YOUR problem, not mine.

Dom also says that truth and knowledge can be only absolute and objective. Well I am looking around me and I see that truth is not always objective and absolute.

Really? Only sometimes? You mean the truth is sometimes objective and absolute, but other times it relative? Thats a pretty bold statement considering you just told us that you can't know absolute truth. Do tell us, Bryan. Don't withhold this information from us.

Well, you can't prove that you exist. So what?

No, Bryan. I could prove I exist. No empiricism and no metaphors. Just logic. I doubt everything. Who is doing the doubting? I am. I exist. Its a prerequisite, and the proof is there.
You on the other hand. Cannot prove you exist without PRESUPPOSING that your senses show you reality.

Does that change the fact that we talk here and try to find some answers? Well, I don't see anything happening. So the fact that you want some objectivity it's ok, but as I said to Dom: logic has its purpose, but it can't be used in all areas.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I didn't say logic can be used in all areas. Logic however reaches farther than science does.

For example, why would I use logic in the first place to demonstrate the futility of relativity?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because if its not logical then it cannot be understood/experimented/etc. Did you think of that?

Relativity is not a logical concept in the first place.

No kidding.

Relativity doesn't work with TRUE and FALSE values. It works with possibility.

In other words, it does not reflect how things are in reality. Got it.

You eat soup with a spoon, don't you? You don't try eating soup using a fork, right?
Same thing about relativity and logic. They don't go together.
So you see this is an error.

Well, that settles it then! Relativity is all about doing things the wrong way. Why do it, then?

It's like psychology from one point of view: many psychological tests offer numbers and based on that you offer an interpretation for someone's personality. People are not numbers. Such tests can help of course, but I say it again: people are not numbers.

Just because people are complicated and its difficult to understand in terms of "numbers" does not proof relativism. People exist objectively. What they do is objectively true (objectively, you can't change the past). How they behave in the future is yet to be determined (objectively, they control their destiny)

Anyways, as DOM assumes that relativity defeats itself by its own contradiction, I can apply the same statement to him as well.

Yes, its self defeating. No, you cannot apply skepticism to absolutes to defeat itself. Claiming absolutes does not contradict itself.

He defeats himself as well because we live in a relative world and his absolute logic is relative.

Wow, my head just slammed on my keyboard.

1) Is that absolutely true, Bryan?
2) How do you KNOW that?

Here we are again from where we started.

Correct, so, do you now see how you are arguing in a circle? You have yet to bring a single shred of evidence for your position.

Do you see a baby learning using logic and reason? A small baby doesn't use logic and reason to understand pretty much anything. He just uses experience that stacks up, imitation of others around him and environment conditioning.

Yes, actually. Babies only know 1 thing from the very start. Cry. They don't cry indiscriminately. They cry for a REASON. They had to use LOGIC for that.

They begin to advance from that. They then begin to learn events that logically follow. For example, my 4 month old has figured it out a couple months back that when a bib is put on her that, it LOGICALLY follows that the food comes afterward. She STOPS crying and STOPS moving her head WAITING for food.

Of course people need to learn on experience.Thats how we learn. Never did I or anyone suggest that people are born with knowledge. Thats just silly.
Imitations of others requires that you commit the person to a fallacy. Thats called the appeal to popularity.
Environmental conditioning also requires that you commit the person to a fallacy. Thats called the genetic fallacy OR naturalist fallacy.

In order to provide a definition for relativity, you have to assign a value of truth to a concept. The fact that you can say you have a definition for relativity in the first place means that you do have knowledge about relativity.

Sure. the truth value of relative/subjective/pluralism in propositional statements is 0. In other words, not true. Its does not reflect anything in concrete physical reality.

[jlay]

Wow. I hope Bryan gets this.

I don't mean to sound insensative, but I think this is exactly the battle we face today. Darkened minds. If I had to guess, Bryan is 22-27 years old. Not that age has anything to do with this, but this generation that is now post university seems to have a real struggle with this one. I saw a similar exchange like this recorded on a Frank Turek seminar where a college student kept making these kinds of claims regarding relative vs. objective.

For example, he would say, "You can't make these kinds of claims to know the truth." Which of course Frank would reply, "but you are making a truth claim yourself." No matter how many times it is pointed out, the kid couldn't or wouldn't get it.

The fact that you can say you have a definition for relativity in the first place means that you do have knowledge about relativity.

Sure, we can also have a definition of Hinduism. Is doesn't mean Hinduism itself is true. Dom isn't saying that relativism as a belief doesn't exist. Only that it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

[BryanH]

Hey guys I will tell you one funny thing that is going through my mind right now: the fact that you believe in God and argue so much that there is absolute truth and knowledge...

Just saying...

Can God change every absolute truth in your life? Well, he is said to be almighty and could do virtually anything.

All people die at some point (this is one absolue truth, right). Could he make all people immortal? Yes...

IF there is someone who can change the value of truth for an absolute statement, is that statement relative or absolute?

[Byblos]

Hey guys I will tell you one funny thing that is going through my mind right now: the fact that you believe in God and argue so much that there is absolute truth and knowledge...

Just saying...

Can God change every absolute truth in your life? Well, he is said to be almighty and could do virtually anything.

All people die at some point (this is one absolue truth, right). Could he make all people immortal? Yes...

IF there is someone who can change the value of truth for an absolute statement, is that statement relative or absolute?

Seriously Bryan? That's all you could come up with? Do you honestly think you just came up with an original argument that no Christian philosopher or apologist has ever contemplated?