Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth » Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth

Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth

Page: 1 2

Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 06/01/04 - 07:52 PM:	#11
they are ALL something. Wrong, they all appear to be something. Which itself only appears to be something. Likewise existance of something requires that it is not apparent. Being by definition is not being if it is apparent, and thus existence cannot be shown if it is based around "apparent somethings". You are forgetting that for "there to be something", there must be existence and more specifically absolute "being". But as I have said, and you have not disagreed, there is only apparent being, which undermines your notion of "there is something". The problem is not with your logic of the topic, but with the fact that you are not considering what your statement means. While it is admittedly a very ambiguous statement, like you said you were aiming for, it nonetheless has foundation in other ideas and notions. Such as existance and absolute being. It doesn't matter how many apparents you strap on to this reality, or my assertions, or how far back you want to drag the apparents of awareness - it will always still be something. It will always only appear to be something. WE have no way of acheiving anything absolutely, we can only say this appears "thus and thus". Even your truth is only an apparent truth, based around apparent knowledge of apparent somethings. You have failed to provide adequate reasoning behind calling your truth absolute rather than apparent. You have only achieved "it appears that there is an apparent something", which is very different from "there is something" absolutely. Even if you had logically derived your truth, we still would have no cause for calling it absolute, as logic is not a means for achieving an absolute truth(as I've said before). A relative truth is still something, and thus "There is something" can ONLY be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, or ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I haven't argued the relativity of your argument, but rather your argument is based on things that have not been established. Such as existence and "being". Which you haven't even addressed, concequently your conclusions is superficial and nieve. Therefore, you have failed to realize that your task is NOT to show that my truth is relative, for that is an absurd task and completely impossible - your task is to prove that my statement is WRONG, in other words - you have to prove that there is NOTHING to win this debate. The criterian for the burden on me in this argument is to refute your statement as being absolute. To claim that the only way to do that is to negate it through contradiction, is to already presuppose that it is absolute. And obviously such an assumption cannot be used as argumentation for or against my argument, as it is founded on what you thought prior to this debate, not this debate itself. You cannot try and befuddle this topic with apparentness, and suppositions, and false realities, and anything else, because surely you must realize that you cannot destroy the idea of "something" with your own "somethings". I do not seek to destroy the idea of "something", simply the idea of "there is something". You have confused the two. if you can't somehow argue that there is NOTHING (a quite impossible task mind you) then you must accept that there is something, absolutely. You suppose that there must be an absolute truth in regards to weather or not there is something or nothing. It is a false assumption, and I have rightly shown that there may or may not be something, and concequently there may or may not be nothing. The fact is that we can only know what is apparent, not what is absolute. Something that you do not refute, but rather seek to railroad with application of already formulated "laws" that you suppose to be absolute, which actually have little application in the case presented. You cannot try and turn that statement into "a strong belief" because it can only be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, there is no middle ground, though you have tried more than once to create it and place my truth there. This debate cares little for the law of excluding middle, as it is a logical trick, which allows for A to be completely false. To use this you must first presuppose that A is true, which in this case has not been shown. It is little more than tautology. To reduce justification of your truth to little more than tautology, in which the A(your truth) doesn't even have to be true, for this logic trick to be used, is to admit that your truth has no foundations. And it is to suppose that logic can dictate truth, which has been shown to be wrong.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 06/02/04 - 10:28 PM:	#12
Both parties have agreed upon an additional round. Beginning now, in turn, each may publish a final post.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/04 - 05:34 PM:	#13
Wrong, they all appear to be something. Which itself only appears to be something. Like I already stated before, appearance of something is still something in itself. You've done nothing but repeat yourself, and I've been forced to repeat myself again. If you've ever seen A Beautiful Mind, then you are aware of the "apparent" people that the Crowe's character was seeing. They all appeared to be something, but didn't have physical being, however, those hallucinations, those apparent somethings, are still something in themselves. Being by definition is not being if it is apparent, and thus existence cannot be shown if it is based around "apparent somethings". You're wrong. Being can be apparent, and still be being. I find it funny that you would be confused about the definition of apparent and being, when they were the two words you actually bothered to define earlier. I also find it funny that you actually only posted a part of the definition of being, and just assumed that I wouldn't go out of my way to make sure you weren't trying to pull a fast one on me and everyone reading - however it seems you assumed wrong, because I did make sure to look up being, and you and the audience may be surprised to see what I found, in their entirety: These are both from Dictionary.com, the same place my opponent got them. Apparent Readily seen; visible. Readily understood; clear or obvious. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage. Being To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently? Used as a copula in such senses as: To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce). To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me. Now, I put the underline emphasis myself to bring attention to the fact that according to the definitions of the two words, the two words that my opponent is claiming are incompatible with each other, you can have "apparent being". You are forgetting that for "there to be something", there must be existence and more specifically absolute "being". The first definition of Existence, from Dictionary.com The fact or state of existing; being As I've already shown, being can be apparent or seeming, and existence doesn't have to be physical or material - like I said, if anything exists in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever; if anything exists in any conceivable way, then there is something. We know that something exists, because our awareness, be it "apparent" or not, is something. You cannot deny your awareness Thusspokezarathustra, anymore than anyone else reading this can, and you certainly could never prove to yourself or anyone else that you or they do not have awareness - Cogito ergo sum, my friend. But as I have said, and you have not disagreed, there is only apparent being, which undermines your notion of "there is something". I don't disagree that there's apparent being, but as I have shown using the definitions of the very words you're debating, I do disagree that this, in ANY way, undermines my absolute truth that "there is something." If you'd like to arbitrarily redefine the words to suit your argument, be my guest, but the definitions speak for themselves. The problem is not with your logic of the topic, but with the fact that you are not considering what your statement means. I know exactly what my statement means. The problem is not with my logic, nor with my understanding of "There is something", but rather with your attempts to specify the idea of "something" down until it only accounts for physical reality, tangible objects, or whatever else you think it should be confined to with the hope that "apparent" somethings no longer "count". I am not fooled, and I doubt anyone else is - the very fact that you can even call these "apparent somethings" such proves that they are still something. Absolute nothing cannot even be referred to, for to do so is to make it something, is it not? A fairly simple concept, and that is why I go all the way back to my opening post and state that you and anyone else would have quite a difficult time disproving that there is something, for any argument you give, proof you offer, logic you use, thoughts you have, text you write, awareness you experience, etc.; it all invariably proves that there is indeed something - it is a fruitless pursuit. If my statement was wrong, there wouldn't be anyone around to debate it, right? Because there would be nothing if there wasn't something, naturally. It will always only appear to be something. WE have no way of achieving anything absolutely, we can only say this appears "thus and thus". Even if that's all we can say, it is enough, for appearance is still something. Even your truth is only an apparent truth, based around apparent knowledge of apparent somethings. You have failed to provide adequate reasoning behind calling your truth absolute rather than apparent. Actually I did, but you decided it convenient for your argument to dismiss a fundamental rule of logic, the law of excluded middle, which I mentioned in support of the fact that my statement can only be right or wrong, not relative, and any awareness, any debate, any thoughts, anything whatsoever can and does prove the validity that there is indeed something. Had I known you intended to dismiss the rules of logic for this debate, I never would bothered entering into it. However, I disagree with your statement that my truth is an apparent truth, for it cannot only be such, for an apparent truth is still something, and that means that there is something, in which case my truth is not simply apparent, but rather absolutely true. I have provided enough reasoning, more than necessary, seeing as how your very awareness and the awareness of anyone I should try and convince of this argument conclusively proves the validity of that argument. Even if you had logically derived your truth, we still would have no cause for calling it absolute, as logic is not a means for achieving an absolute truth It's not eh? I'll come back to that one later. I haven't argued the relativity of your argument, but rather your argument is based on things that have not been established. Such as existence and "being". Which you haven't even addressed, consequently your conclusions is superficial and naive. Well your understanding of my argument has been naive so far, which is why I spelled it out with the definitions and relations of Apparent, Being, and Existence, proving with the very words that you believe to rebut my claim that Apparent Being or Apparent Existence or Apparent something's all still have being and existence, and are very much something. The criterion for the burden on me in this argument is to refute your statement as being absolute. To claim that the only way to do that is to negate it through contradiction, is to already presuppose that it is absolute. And obviously such an assumption cannot be used as argumentation for or against my argument, as it is founded on what you thought prior to this debate, not this debate itself. Completely false. My claim that you must either accept it as true or reject it as false is based on the Law of excluded middle, the law you so quickly dismissed as nothing more than a trick of logic. I thoroughly explained how you cannot claim my truth to be a relative one, for a relative truth is something, and thus proves the absoluteness of my truth - my truth can only be wrong, meaning that there is nothing, and that can never, ever, ever, ever hope to be proven by anyone or anything, because any proof would require "something" and consequently destroy itself. Something vs. nothing - I'm claiming something, you're saying I'm wrong, so the burden is to argue nothing, a horrendously impossible task, as you and anyone else can hopefully see. I do not seek to destroy the idea of "something", simply the idea of "there is something". You have confused the two. You've lost me with your rhetoric. If you can't destroy or disprove the idea of something, than that idea is something, and there is something. I don't think I've confused the two, I think you've unnecessarily separated the two. You suppose that there must be an absolute truth in regards to weather or not there is something or nothing. It is a false assumption, and I have rightly shown that there may or may not be something, and consequently there may or may not be nothing. The nature of absolute truth doesn't require us to understand or assert it for it to be true, and yet you have falsely assumed that such is the case. If there was something, then "There is something" would be an absolute truth. If there was nothing, then "There is nothing" would be an absolute truth. There is something, and it is quite a simply truth to understand and know, and I have thusly asserted it as thinking being. And no, you have not, and cannot possibly, show that there may be nothing, because anything you do, anything you say, anything you think, etc. will all invariably prove that there can't be nothing, and must be something. It is really quite simple, I believe you overcomplicate the idea or rather misunderstand it. The fact is that we can only know what is apparent, not what is absolute... When the truth statement is validated by apparent knowledge (which is something) then you are quite wrong, for we can know absolutely that there is something, even if only through apparent awareness/experience/means. ...Something that you do not refute I refute it adamantly. See above This debate cares little for the law of excluding middle, as it is a logical trick, which allows for A to be completely false. To use this you must first presuppose that A is true, which in this case has not been shown. Maybe you don't care to use logic in what should be a logical debate, but I do. As well, as a fairly reasonable person I take offense that you would call one of the most fundamental laws of logic little more than "a logical trick." Why must I presuppose A to be true? Even if I presuppose A to be false, the law still applies. For example: Either God exists in actuality, or God doesn't exist in actuality. I presuppose that he doesn't exist, in other words, ~A. Does that mean that the law of Excluded middle vanishes magically, and I am free to assert that he half exists, or half doesn't exist, or something equally absurd? You are completely wrong to think I must presuppose A true to "use" the law. It is little more than tautology. To reduce justification of your truth to little more than tautology, in which the A(your truth) doesn't even have to be true, for this logic trick to be used, is to admit that your truth has no foundations. From Dictionary.com again: Tautology Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow. Either there is something, or there is not something. Duh? Well, this is the only tautology I can think of that applies to what I've been saying, though I admit that my knowledge of the word is limited to that very definition. However, this isn't my truth. If you recall, my truth is and has been that "There is something." According to the definition, that is not a tautology. For you to accuse it of such and then conclude that my argument has no foundations is very weak and offensive if you ask me. And it is to suppose that logic can dictate truth, which has been shown to be wrong. That's funny. If you will recall, you said something similar earlier which I saved my response for until now. I shall repaste it and then address. Even if you had logically derived your truth, we still would have no cause for calling it absolute, as logic is not a means for achieving an absolute truth Now, I have finished getting all the dirty work out of the way, spelling out definitions and addressing your misunderstandings and what not, but now it is my distinct pleasure to pull an ace out of my sleeve that you so kindly gave to me at the very beginning of your debate. If you can't recall your VERY FIRST line of your VERY FIRST post, I shall repaste it now, so that you and everyone else can see just how efficiently you sealed your own doom from the very beginning: There is no such thing as an absolute truth, all truths are relative. My goodness, what a peculiar statement Now, I'm going to go ahead and just assume that you had no idea that damage you were dealing to your own position when you wrote this, and consequently I'm going to make sure and spell it out for you clearly and concisely. This whole debate, all 5 of your posts so far, and I'm sure including the post that will follow this one, have all revolved around your use of logic to argue against my claim and come to truth, which you, so very ironically, said could not be done. If logic is not a means of achieving absolute truth, how on earth did you ever come to this conclusion then?: There is no such thing as an absolute truth, all truths are relative. My friend, I see a slight problem with this statement. It seems that you have made a most grievous mistake in this debate - you have countered the claim that there exists absolute truth with your very own absolute truth! You contradict yourself, for you cannot claim absolutely that there is no absolute truth. You have no way to debate this, and I trust that everyone reading will see so. Thusly, I propose an additional truth that I have been saving, that I would like to add to my first, since you didn't find it satisfactory - not only "There is something", but "There is absolute truth". You have claimed the opposite of the latter, and unwittingly destroyed your entire argument. Nice debating with you my friend
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 06/03/04 - 07:04 PM:	#14
If you've ever seen A Beautiful Mind, then you are aware of the "apparent" people that the Crowe's character was seeing. They all appeared to be something, but didn't have physical being, however, those hallucinations, those apparent somethings, are still something in themselves. Your analogy presents a very important idea, that also happens to be the limiting factor of your argument. You see, in your analogy, there is a supposed "real world", and so you are right in assuming that in this very closed case the "apparent somethings" are something. As the "apparent somethings" are manifestations in the supposed "real something". Likewise for the "apparent somethings" in our argument to actually be "something", they would also need a "real world" where they are manifestations. But unfortunately a "real world" is untenable, for the very reason that we must call everything apparent. And so your notions of "apparent somethings" infact being something, and thus upholding your absolute truth, falls because it supposes(as your analogy does) a real world where the apparent somethings are infact manifestations. Now, I put the underline emphasis myself to bring attention to the fact that according to the definitions of the two words, the two words that my opponent is claiming are incompatible with each other, you can have "apparent being". Interesting to note that you had to go to the very last definition provided by Dictionary.com, and disregard the one using the context of cogito, which you argued earlier. I agree that defintions exist that link the two, but the context we are using them in, as presented by you and by the acclaimed "dictionary.com" both cite cogito. So while it may fit your goals to skip this imperative implication, it in no way makes the very last definition concurrent with the one we should be using, when we have to skip the defintion linked with cogito to use it. You and the dicitonary used the cogito context of being, and so we MUST use that defintion. In which case everything I've said about "absolute being" stands, as it was refuted on grounds of definition not substance. And the contrived definition attack has been debunked As I've already shown, being can be apparent or seeming, and existence doesn't have to be physical or material - like I said, if anything exists in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever; if anything exists in any conceivable way, then there is something. We know that something exists, because our awareness, be it "apparent" or not, is something. You cannot deny your awareness Thusspokezarathustra, anymore than anyone else reading this can, and you certainly could never prove to yourself or anyone else that you or they do not have awareness - Cogito ergo sum, my friend. Cogito is nothing more than a childs game, in which a prime fallacy of "I" is posited as absolute being. Anyway cogito can rightly be reflected out to "I think 'I think therefore I am"'. In which case it is strong belief not absolute truth. "I" is the "think", my friend If you'd like to arbitrarily redefine the words to suit your argument, be my guest, but the definitions speak for themselves. The definition provided that is cogent with your arguments will due. Which happens to be the definition associated with cogito, which I originally used. The problem is not with my logic, nor with my understanding of "There is something", but rather with your attempts to specify the idea of "something" down until it only accounts for physical reality, tangible objects, or whatever else you think it should be confined to with the hope that "apparent" somethings no longer "count". I have simply specified that the "somethings" must be shown to exist, not have apparent existance, or apparent being, but actual existance in an actual reality. Something you overlooked throughout the whole debate. I am not fooled, and I doubt anyone else is - the very fact that you can even call these "apparent somethings" such proves that they are still something. The very "fact" that I appear to be calling these "apparent somethings", simply shows that they are "apparent apparent somethings". The rule of apparence does not break simply because we're appearing to be talking about something that has already been established as apparent. Absolute nothing cannot even be referred to, for to do so is to make it something, is it not? A fairly simple concept, and that is why I go all the way back to my opening post and state that you and anyone else would have quite a difficult time disproving that there is something, for any argument you give, proof you offer, logic you use, thoughts you have, text you write, awareness you experience, etc.; it all invariably proves that there is indeed something - it is a fruitless pursuit. If my statement was wrong, there wouldn't be anyone around to debate it, right? Because there would be nothing if there wasn't something, naturally. All noble observations that disregard the fact that for "there is something" to be true, there must be absolute reality, and your statement must exist in it. If there is no existence as i've argued and there is no reality as i've argued, then there cannot be something. Even if that's all we can say, it is enough, for appearance is still something. Which takes me back you your analogy in that you are supposing that these "apparent somethings" are manifestations in a "real something". Were it true you might be right, but it is simply metaphysical hypothesis, speculation, and apparence. Actually I did, but you decided it convenient for your argument to dismiss a fundamental rule of logic, the law of excluded middle, which I mentioned in support of the fact that my statement can only be right or wrong, not relative, and any awareness, any debate, any thoughts, anything whatsoever can and does prove the validity that there is indeed something. Had I known you intended to dismiss the rules of logic for this debate, I never would bothered entering into it. Had I known that you would hold rules of logic as a path to absolute truth I never would have bothered entering into it. But really, logic is a tool of preservation, not a tool of achieving the absolute. And your law of excluding middles is a linguistic trick based in tautology, in which A doesn't even have to be true. "Bob's hair is either black or it is not black"(your law) Bob's a hairless cat you moron!!!(flaw in your law) The flaw limits it from having absolute conclusions and absolute authority over this discussion. However, I disagree with your statement that my truth is an apparent truth, for it cannot only be such, for an apparent truth is still something, Only when you are deluded by notions of "real reality" and "absolute being". Well your understanding of my argument has been naive so far, which is why I spelled it out with the definitions and relations of Apparent, Being, and Existence, proving with the very words that you believe to rebut my claim that Apparent Being or Apparent Existence or Apparent something's all still have being and existence, and are very much something. My naive understanding that you had to steal and turn against me. . .LOL So then this argument comes down to a definitions war. In which case I'm using the one that is concurrent with argument you yourself made, and you are using the one at the bottom of the list. It's at the bottom of the list for a reason mind you. My claim that you must either accept it as true or reject it as false is based on the Law of excluded middle, the law you so quickly dismissed as nothing more than a trick of logic. You act as if there are logical proofs which aren't tricks I thoroughly explained how you cannot claim my truth to be a relative one, for a relative truth is something, and thus proves the absoluteness of my truth I don't claim your truth to be relative, only apparent.(for now) I'm claiming something, you're saying I'm wrong, so the burden is to argue nothing, a horrendously impossible task, as you and anyone else can hopefully see. The ultimate falsity: IF there is not absolute something, there must be absolute nothing. Each position is as absurd as the other. If you can't destroy or disprove the idea of something, than that idea is something, and there is something. I don't think I've confused the two, I think you've unnecessarily separated the two. I don't seek to destroy the idea of something, because it is conditional and a human construct. It can be piled into all the other "apparent somethings". It is no exception. The nature of absolute truth doesn't require us to understand or assert it for it to be true, and yet you have falsely assumed that such is the case. If there was something, then "There is something" would be an absolute truth. If there was nothing, then "There is nothing" would be an absolute truth. There is something, and it is quite a simply truth to understand and know, and I have thusly asserted it as thinking being. Again you overlook all notions of reality and existance. And no, you have not, and cannot possibly, show that there may be nothing, because anything you do, anything you say, anything you think, etc. will all invariably prove that there can't be nothing, and must be something. It is really quite simple, I believe you overcomplicate the idea or rather misunderstand it. "Existance" requires existance, do not forget it. When the truth statement is validated by apparent knowledge (which is something) then you are quite wrong, for we can know absolutely that there is something, even if only through apparent awareness/experience/means. See your analogy about "A Beautiful mind" I refute it adamantly. See above I guess if you call definition clashing refutation As well, as a fairly reasonable person I take offense that you would call one of the most fundamental laws of logic little more than "a logical trick." What else would you have me call it? An illogical trick perhaps? See above. You are completely wrong to think I must presuppose A true to "use" the law. See bob the hairless cat. However, this isn't my truth. If you recall, my truth is and has been that "There is something." According to the definition, that is not a tautology. For you to accuse it of such and then conclude that my argument has no foundations is very weak and offensive if you ask me. My accusations reach to and stop at "The law of middle exclusion". This whole debate, all 5 of your posts so far, and I'm sure including the post that will follow this one, have all revolved around your use of logic to argue against my claim and come to truth, which you, so very ironically, said could not be done. If logic is not a means of achieving absolute truth, how on earth did you ever come to this conclusion then?: My conclusion is the logical conclusion, not the absolute conclusion. The conclusion that logic is not a means to absolutes is a logical conclusion, not an absolute conclusion. It seems that you have made a most grievous mistake in this debate - you have countered the claim that there exists absolute truth with your very own absolute truth! You contradict yourself, for you cannot claim absolutely that there is no absolute truth. That statement was admittedly the result of logic of sorts. And I claimed that logic is not a way to an absolute, you cannot claim that this statement claims to be absolute. I do not claim it absolutely, only logically. Thusly, I propose an additional truth that I have been saving, that I would like to add to my first, since you didn't find it satisfactory - not only "There is something", but "There is absolute truth". You have claimed the opposite of the latter, and unwittingly destroyed your entire argument. Nice debating with you my friend Your fallacy to precede all fallacies: "The faculty of knowledge/reason/logic is something other than a tool for preservation" Just for everyone's enjoyment I would like to present four simple quotes that show how intellectually dishonest you have been throughout this debate Since it is my task to prove the existence of absolute truth, I need only present one, and if it can not be somehow shown to be relative in the least way by my opponent, then I believe that my task will be a successful one. Thusly, I propose an additional truth that I have been saving, that I would like to add to my first, since you didn't find it satisfactory - not only "There is something", but "There is absolute truth". And [QUOTE]Note all who would read this that I did not, and would not, assert "I think therefore I am" as a statement of absolute truth, for though its very true that any concious mind can be absolutely certain of its own existence, it seems that such a claim is only absolute for that one, the one with the mind. I know that I'm aware. Cogito ergo sum is one of the most, if not THE most, tautologically sound statements in existence. [/quote No but seriously I have one final thing to say. Your truth requires a "true" world, an "absolute reality" for two reasons, and for this reason you cannot win. A. It and all other things(according to me positing logical necessities upon your logic)claim to exist in such a world even if the world doesn't exist, by virtue of only being apparent in all other "worlds". B. It requires that "apparent somethings" are only apparent by virtue of "existing" outside this absolute "world". Without this absolute world they are not apparent, but simply non-existant. So without this world they don't exist at all. And so By law of middle exclusion your own truth that has been shown to be dependent upon a "higher", more real "reality", and thus is shown to be incorrect. You truth "exists" in this "real world" or outside this "real world". But as we can see this "real world" does not exist, so your truth and all other things exist outside this "real world", which means that they do not exist at all, as for them to exist they would require manifestation in the "real world", which is actually "no world". And thus the only remaining logically produced conclusion is that THERE IS NOTHING

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 06/03/04 - 10:22 PM:	#15
This debate is now concluded. Thank you, gentlemen.

Page: 1 2

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.