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.

Debate 3: Whether there exists absolute truth.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 05/30/04 - 08:12 PM:	#1
Arguing the affirmative: Socrastein Arguing the negative: ThusSpokeZarathustra Debate Type: Turns Rounds: 5 It has been a long time coming, but I am hopeful that when it is all said and done, the experience will have been worth the wait. Anyone wishing to discuss this debate should do so here. Note: Socrastein has twenty-four hours to post his reply.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/30/04 - 08:15 PM:	#2
When it comes to the issue of absolute truth, as in, that which is known beyond any doubt whatsoever, I would agree that there is very little that a human mind can ever know with absolute certainty, but I would disagree that there is nothing that can be absolutely known. I will contend, as I have at various other times on this site, that be they few, there are statements of truth that one may make and never need question the validity of. 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. My statement is as follows: There is something. Now to they who have never spent much time pondering the idea of absolute truth and the possibility of such a thing, you may find this statement to be strikingly simple and almost a "duh". Of course, absolute truth could never be anything other than a "duh" statement I would never be so bold as to venture much further than to assert that there is at least "something", because it seems that the more specific one tries to become with their absolutes, they find their statments subject to infinite possible scenarios, however extraordinary, that give the statement the possibility of being wrong, and thus not absolute. I would never assert absolutely, for example, that there are apples in my refridgerator, for it is quite possible that they are nothing more than a dream, a figment of my imagination, the manifesation of some drug I am taking, or the rendering of some complicated software program designed to deceive and pacify human beings, for all you Matrix fans. So, it seems that only in the most general sense is one able to find absolute truth, and it is in such generality that I have found and proposed my statement of absolute truth. Few things can be said that are more simple than "There is something". Now, I fear that my opponent is going to have a rather difficult time trying to refute this statement or somehow show it to be the least bit relative. It seems that any attempt to disprove the statement "There is something" would unavoidably prove the very validity of the statement. Any words he speaks, thoughts he has, proofs he offers, indeed, his very opening post, all enforce the truth of the statement that something exists. It seems that his task is a self-defeating one, because there is quite simply nothing he, or anyone, can do to disprove such a simple statement of truth, for as I have said, to do so is to assert the very truth it's claiming. However, I would never claim, even relatively , to know all that much, and thus am very aware that my opponent may think of someway in which my statement of truth can be shown relative - the fact that I can think of nothing does not mean that he doesn't possess the mental superiority of being able to think of that which I cannot. I am eager to hear how my opponent will approach this statement. P.S. 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. Nobody could ever convince me absolutely that they think, or exist, because I am of course not subject to their thoughts, and recognize the possibility that everyone I know is nothing more than a massive psychological delusion. However, I believe that you can never find a concious being who wouldn't understand and completely accept the statement "There is something." I just thought I would leave this debate cogito-free, because I would have a tough time trying to convince my opponent, and anyone listening, that I absolutely exist. Edited by Paul on 07/29/05 - 01:33 AM
_____________________ "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

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/30/04 - 08:17 PM:	#3
There is no such thing as an absolute truth, all truths are relative. Observation 1: Since Human perceptions are relative to the human, any truth based around perceptions must be relative. Different people see different things in different ways. Due to the fact that each and every persons genetics is different, we get the idea that each and every persons biological development, and thus senses are different. Some people are colour blind, some people like the smell of gas, some people are sensitive to the cold, some people are sensitive to loud noises. The very idea that everyone experiences things through perception differently goes to show truths derived from perceptions are relative. Observation 2: Weather or not all humans, or no humans recognize something as being true, has no weight on weather or not the truth is absolute. Observation 3: The theory of relativity restricts the idea that space/time is absolute, in that it has mathematically proven that major changes in space/time occur depending on how fast the observer is going, and so any truth related or derived from space/time must be relative too. This can most easily be demonstrated with the idea of a photon clock. Imagine two plates of metal standing still relative to you, and a photon bounces between them. Each time the photon makes one complete trip hitting each plate once, we can say that one second has passed. And imagine a second clock that is exactly the same as the first, only it is moving at high speeds relative to you. Since the speed of the photon is the same, the first clock would get to 1 second before the second clock would, because the second clock’s photon would have to “catch” up to the moving plates. Instead of traveling straight up and down, the photon would have to travel in a diagonal path, if it was going to hit the plates. So the photon would have to travel farther according to you, and thus it would take longer for it to reach the plates, than the first clock did. But if someone was on this second clock, [s]he would experience photon as bouncing straight up and down, and so time would seem normal to him/her. And as we can see the very foundation of time is based around relative motion, and thus is relative. We can easily imagine how this could be cross applied to special dimensions when we’re using time as a measurement for length(space). D=RT Observation 4: Numerical truths cannot be absolute, as they have foundations in sensory perceptions, and require special/temporal thinking. While they may seem true to all humans, in the sense of the universe they mean little, and can bee seen an infinite number of ways. For instant the popular idea that 7+5=12 is an absolute truth. In the number 5 there are an endless set of real numbers that we could multiply or times by to reach the 5. The fact that we see the cups as 5, instead of 3+2 or 1/3+4 2/3, is because of perception. We don’t see the one cup as (6/6)0+(2-1), because when we conceptualize the 1 cup(or anything else) we do it in terms of what we perceive. Similarly we don’t see the 5 cups(5 anything) as any of the other infinite possibilities because of sensory perception. More specifically we use eye sight. While none of the infinite viewpoints are wrong, they are all relative, by the fact that no two persons would necessarily see them the same, unless they had been taught to, or they had closely related sensory perceptions(like most humans). Similarly the fact that we add 5 to 7 and think of 12 is relative too. A different being, or even a different person could add 5 and 7 and see (2+2+2)*2. Although most people don't see it this way, it is not because of an innate way of looking at math, but rather because we are lazy and would rather see it in the least complex way(and sensory perception as already presented). Since there are an infinite amount of ways to reach 5, to reach 7, and to reach 12, the idea that 5+7=12 is a relative truth. While it may be agreed that some things are true, it does not necessarily make them absolute truths. For a truth to be absolute it must not rely on perceptions, space, time, popular belief, or numerical analysis. It is my position that for us to even consider the possibility of an absolute truth it must first be shown that it is independent of all these observations, and then argued from there. It will become clear that nearly all truths held as absolute have foundations in one of these things. Edited by Paul on 07/29/05 - 01:33 AM

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/30/04 - 08:34 PM:	#4
For a truth to be absolute it must not rely on perceptions, space, time, popular belief, or numerical analysis. It is my position that for us to even consider the possibility of an absolute truth it must first be shown that it is independent of all these observations, and then argued from there. The truth that "something exists" does not rely on the perceptions of an individual, but is simply validated by any and all perceptions by any and all minds - perception is of course "something". The only reliant thing is that the knowledge of the existence of "something" relies on someone being aware. I am not asserting that so and so knows something exists, I am simply asserting that something does exist - a truth not contigent on my perceptions or anyone else's, but simply a truth verified and known through anyone's perceptions. Also, the relativity of space and time have no bearing on my truth, for it doesn't matter if you're going fast or slow or from what reference point a person is at - they can always be sure that there is something. After all, relativity itself is something, is it not? To assert that everything is relative is to assert that something exists, and it is all relative Also, popular belief has nothing to do whatsoever with the validity of my truth. If I were the only concious mind in existence, which is possible, I would still be fully convinced that there is something. Quite obviously also, I am not bothering with mathematics. Since "something" is not reliant on but only known through perception, is not affected by any fluxations or variations in space or time, is true both if 1 or 1,000 people assert it, and has nothing to do with numerical analysis, I would like to see you counter the claim that "something exists", and figure out a way to prove that your post and thoughts don't support my assertion. It will become clear that nearly all truths held as absolute have foundations in one of these things. By the way, I agree that nearly all truths are founded in and reliant on relative means, but I don't agree that mine is one of them.
_____________________ "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

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/31/04 - 09:53 AM:	#5
When it comes to the issue of absolute truth, as in, that which is known beyond any doubt whatsoever, I would agree that there is very little that a human mind can ever know with absolute certainty, but I would disagree that there is nothing that can be absolutely known. Since I don't want to start an argument about definitions, I will tentatively accept your defintion, although I think it is a bit abusive toward my side. With this said I reserve the right to question this definition at another time, as I see fit. There is something. An alternative understanding of this statement, that would not change it's meaning would be "something exists". As for there to be something, that something would have to exist. And for this statement to be absolute it would have to be proven that this "something" that exists does not simply have the appearance of existing, but can be absolutely proven to exist. And "something exist" presupposes being. And here in lies a problem. This is not an absolute truth, but rather an apparent truth. To be completely honest the statement should read "it appears that there is the appearance of something", or "something appears to exist". "something" supposes "being", and for us to know if "being" was real or apparent, we would first need to know what "being" is. Consequently any appeal to "being" is not an appeal to absolute truth, but rather an appeal to a metaphysical hypothesis. Likewise we have no reason to grant our hypothesis' absolute truth, even if they are logically required for the capacity for the hypothesis. There must first be a absolute definition of �being�, and that the "being" we know is absolute rather than apparant. We can do neither with any faculty of our mind, and so we cannot call your truth absolute, only apparant. It also presupposes that our reality is an absolute reality, which cannot be proven, and which appeals the notion of perceptions being absolute. Which was shown to be flawed in my OP. Because if we want to call the �being� that we know absolute, we would first have to show that our reality is THE reality, not an apparent reality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - It is also flawed in that what we know as "something" is not determined by an absolute process, but rather preservation of our species. And as such what we know as "something" cannot possibly be absolute, unless our system of preservation was an absolute system that rendered absolutes. In which case it would not be a system of preservation at all, and would be a system of truth. Preservation as a meeans to what we see as "something" can be shown with our senses. The fact that we interpret only the spectrum of light that goes from 400-700 demonstrates the idea that we we know as "something" is about preservation. Although we know that other wavelengths exist, it is indirect knowledge, based around the limited faculties that we have. This can easily be cross applied to the faculty of knowledge, as it too is a result of the same process as eyesight is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The notion that everything I say or do, that all my arguments affirm your position is an appeal the idea that �something must be held as true", not that �something is true�.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/31/04 - 01:51 PM:	#6
And for this statement to be absolute it would have to be proven that this "something" that exists does not simply have the appearance of existing, but can be absolutely proven to exist. My friend, I think you are taking the term "something" to far. Unless I am mistaken, your argument against my truth seems to rely on the possibility that it is only an "apparent something", and since we can't prove whether it is an "apparent something" or an "absolute something", it is a relative truth. However, I think you are either confused as to the meaning of "something", or are simply forgetting the fact that an "apparent something" is still something. If anything whatsoever exists in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever, then there is something. An apparent something is still something, an absolute something is also something. If the universe is one big delusion, that is something. If this is one big hologram and what we perceive to be reality is only "apparent reality", then that is all still something. I know I said that I would leave "Cogito ergo sum" out of this, but it seems that I must bring it in to reenforce my point. Assuming that your mind actually exists, for I can only know that mine does, you know absolutely that you are aware, and thus you know absolutely that something exists, for that awareness is something, is it not? I know that something exists because I know that I think, that I am aware - thus my thoughts and my awareness both confirm that there is something. To see more clearly, let's look at the opposite of this truth, There is nothing. It becomes immediately apparent to any and all aware beings that this is an impossible statement. To even assert such a statement is to disprove it. Logically, the law of excluded middle says that either There is something or there is not something, i.e., there is nothing. Cogito ergo sum affirms that there is not nothing, but rather that there is something, because our thoughts, our awareness, is something, not nothing. There quite obviously couldn't be anything, no space, no time, no mind, no truth, no relativity, nothing at all, if there is nothing, or there is not something. Again, there is a possibility of two truths, that there is something, or that there is nothing. Our awareness absolutely affirms the former and disproves the latter. It does not matter in any way whether this something is "apparent" or not, that is a straw man fallacy; you conveniently forget the fact that be it apparent or not, relative or not, delusional or not, holographic or not, it is all still something, and my truth still stands.
_____________________ "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 05/31/04 - 07:44 PM:	#7
Apparent: Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality If this "something" is apparent, then it is not actual, and thus violates the definition of "being". And since "there is something" is the same as "something exists" which presupposes being; if it cannot be shown that there is being absolute, then it cannot be shown that there is "something". For "there is something" to be absolute, there would have to be an absolute being, as shown in my earlier post. So while "apparent something" may or may not suppose a "apparent something", it certaintly does not suppose an absolute being(existance of something). I think you are either confused as to the meaning of "something", or are simply forgetting the fact that an "apparent something" is still something. The "apparent something" os it itself is also an apparent something, to call it anything else is metaphysical hypothiesis, not absolute truth. It is only apparent that "apparent something" is something(ad infintium). If anything whatsoever exists in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever, then there is something. An apparent something is still something, an absolute something is also something. If the universe is one big delusion, that is something. If this is one big hologram and what we perceive to be reality is only "apparent reality", then that is all still something. But if it cannot be shown that their is being, then it cannot be shown that something exists, and it cannot be shown that "there is something". You are pre-supposing that apparent something is something, which is not truth, but rather hypothesis. IF everything is apparent and nothing is real, your "something" has no foundation in what exists. And if your "somethings" have no foundation in actual existance, then you cannot suppose that "there are somethings". Assuming that your mind actually exists, for I can only know that mine does, you know absolutely that you are aware, and thus you know absolutely that something exists, for that awareness is something, is it not Cogito is a linguistic trick that tries to create a subject where there is none. "I think therefore I am" presupposes a falsity. That since there is thought, there must be a thinker. It is nothing more than a wrongful cross-application of a "doer for every deed". While it may generate a very strong belief in oneself, it does not generate an absolute truth. The "thinker" is nothing more than the representation of objects, not an absolute truth. I Think I think, therefore I am. I know that something exists because I know that I think, that I am aware - thus my thoughts and my awareness both confirm that there is something. Do you know you are aware, or do you think you are aware? Cogito ergo sum affirms that there is not nothing, but rather that there is something, because our thoughts, our awareness, is something, not nothing. Cogito ergo sum affirms that you think that you think thoughts. "It is apparent that I think thoughts". It also is a linguistic trick that posits the "I" as a subject. It does not matter in any way whether this something is "apparent" or not, that is a straw man fallacy; you conveniently forget the fact that be it apparent or not, relative or not, delusional or not, holographic or not, it is all still something, and my truth still stands. If you have not shown that anything exists, how can your truth stand that supposes absolute existance? Your truth supposes existance which supposes being, which requires an absolute reality of sorts, according to the above definition. If we do not know what it means to "be", how can we know if anything actually exists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I agree that your truth is strong, it nonetheless supposes certain "somethings", which supposes certain beings, which supposes a true reality of sorts. Likelwise, if we can only know "apparent somethings", how can we say that "there is somthing" with absolute certainty? The fact is that we cannot, instead we are bound by "it appears that there is something", which itself is an apparance.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 05/31/04 - 11:54 PM:	#8
Apparent: Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality If this "something" is apparent, then it is not actual, and thus violates the definition of "being". And since "there is something" is the same as "something exists" which presupposes being; if it cannot be shown that there is being absolute, then it cannot be shown that there is "something". "Something" does not have to exist in actuality, physically, to still be something. For example, unicorns do not exist, they have no "being" PHYSICALLY, however, the idea of a unicorn, which we all can conceive of, is STILL SOMETHING. I said it before, I'll say it again, an apparent something is still something - it is not nothing, so it is something - it can only be one or the other, and to even speak of it is to validate the fact that it is not nothing. As well, your own definition supports even "apparent somethings", for even "apparent somethings" have reality, which makes them have being according to your definition. The unicorns have a mental reality, not a physical one, for they are an idea but not a physical entity - but this is all still "something", and the statement is still true. Even if the universe has no physical reality, i.e. its one huge mental projection or manifested idea or whatever possibility you are thinking of, that is all still something. I never said "There is physical something" or "There is something that you can touch" or "There is something that is solid and has mass". I simply said that there is something, as opposed to there is nothing. All your apparent realities and "apparent somethings" are quite obviously not nothing, and thus something. If we do not know what it means to "be", how can we know if anything actually exists. Again, it does not matter in what way, shape, or form anything exists - be it physically, spiritually, metaphysically, mentally, or what not - that is ALL still SOMETHING. You cannot disprove the claim with the idea that the "something" may not have "absolute being", because whatever existence, or being, or way, or shape, or form it has, it is all still something. Again, I did not say "There is physically something" or anything like that - simply that there is something. Your awareness is something; I wonder how you convince yourself that it is not? You know absolutely that you think, and thus you know that those thoughts are something, and thus you know, absolutely, as all concious minds do, that something exists. Do you know you are aware, or do you think you are aware? I know that I'm aware. Cogito ergo sum is one of the most, if not THE most, tautologically sound statements in existence. To doubt it is to affirm it. The second I consider your question, I have validated the answer that I know I'm aware. When I ask myself "Hmmm, do I know if I'm aware, or do I just think it?" I prove the validity of my own awareness. You cannot simply think you are aware, for to think you are aware is to be aware, naturally. While I agree that your truth is strong, it nonetheless supposes certain "somethings", which supposes certain beings, which supposes a true reality of sorts. It does not suppose something - there is something, absolutely. There is no need to "suppose". The moment you "suppose" anything, you've already validated the truth of the statement. A supposition is something, is it not? If my truth were a relative truth, it would be something, which would make it an absolute truth. My statement cannot possibly be relative, do you not see that? It can only be completely false, in which case there would be nothing, which is absolutely not true, and so I say again - my statement still stands.
_____________________ "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 06/01/04 - 11:00 AM:	#9
"Something" does not have to exist in actuality, physically, to still be something. For example, unicorns do not exist, they have no "being" PHYSICALLY, however, the idea of a unicorn, which we all can conceive of, is STILL SOMETHING. You suppose that this "idea" is absolute, but it itself cannot be discerned from what is apparent. Calling an idea apparent is no different than calling anything else apparent. The idea that the unicorn is apparent, is itself only apparent. If we can never discern a reality, than we can never clai to have a "something". "However the idea of a unicorn, which we all think we can concieve of, has the apparence of being something". I said it before, I'll say it again, an apparent something is still something - it is not nothing, so it is something - it can only be one or the other, and to even speak of it is to validate the fact that it is not nothing. The idea of "apparent something" is no exception to the "rule". It is also only apparent. Which is why I said at the beginning that your truth would be shown to be "it appears that there is the appearance of something". The very idea that "there is something" is only apparent to us. It cannot be seperated like everything else, we have no reason besides metaphysical hypothesis to say that it is absolute. It is apparent. A strong belief, not an absolute. The unicorns have a mental reality, not a physical one, for they are an idea but not a physical entity - but this is all still "something", and the statement is still true. Does a unicorn being idea make it any less apparent, and any more real? This is an "apparent something". Even if the universe has no physical reality, i.e. its one huge mental projection or manifested idea or whatever possibility you are thinking of, that is all still something. Why do you suppose that thoughts have a deeper foundation in reality than what is physical? All your apparent realities and "apparent somethings" are quite obviously not nothing, and thus something. You appeal to absolute being, you try to say that "it is absolute that they are 'apparent something'", but what you are forgetting is that it is only apparent that they are apparent somethings. You cannot disprove the claim with the idea that the "something" may not have "absolute being", because whatever existence, or being, or way, or shape, or form it has, it is all still something. The very idea of existence, being, way, shape, and form; is only apparent. You wrongly appeal to these notions as fulfilling an absolute. But these are all descriptions humans have given what we see, they are the result of organization, not absolute truth. And anyway, something with apparent being by definition has no being at all, and thus does not exist, and thus cannot be a something. You can assign any attribute you want to it, you can call it hard, rough, and spherical, but none of these grant it being, or the quality of fulfilling "there is something". our awareness is something; I wonder how you convince yourself that it is not? I know my awarness because I am aware of it. It doesn't have to be absolute being for me to be aware of it. It only has to appear to me as existing for me to be aware of it. Therefore it appears that I'm aware of my apparent awareness. You know absolutely that you think, and thus you know that those thoughts are something, and thus you know, absolutely, as all concious minds do, that something exists. I am aware that I think, but that in no way means that me thinking is absolute. It only means that it appears that I think. Cogito ergo sum is one of the most, if not THE most, tautologically sound statements in existence. As if tautology is a way to absolute truth? Even if such a statement were to be logically irrefutable, does that mean it is absolute truth? HOw can logical analysis give rise to absolute truth?(definition argument may arise). How can something that was developed for preservation be called a gateway to the absolute? Cogito assigns a subject where there is none. The "thinker" for every thought is a false extension of the false "doer for every deed". "Hmmm, do I know if I'm aware, or do I just think it?" I prove the validity of my own awareness. You cannot simply think you are aware, for to think you are aware is to be aware, naturally. We are aware of many things, and yet that does not mean they are absolute. So how does being aware that you are aware grant absolutely that you are aware? As if being aware of something means that it exists absolutely. It does not suppose something - there is something, absolutely. There is no need to "suppose". The moment you "suppose" anything, you've already validated the truth of the statement. A supposition is something, is it not? If my truth were a relative truth, it would be something, which would make it an absolute truth. My statement cannot possibly be relative, do you not see that? It can only be completely false, in which case there would be nothing, which is absolutely not true, and so I say again - my statement still stands. You have rendered a strong beleif, not an absolute truth. The problem is that you wrongly break the chain after one supposition. If I suppose something, that supposition is itself a supposition. You only suppose that your statement is true, you only think that your statement is true. Your final falsity is that belief or supposition is a means of achieving the absolute. "well the belief that supposition is a means of achieving absolute, affirms my "there is something'". You are forgetting that, that too is a supposition, the result of a strong belief.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 06/01/04 - 01:10 PM:	#10
My friend, if there is anything, there is something. Apparent something, apparent apparent somethings, apparent apparent apparent somethings, ad infinitum - they are ALL something. If I am aware of anything, if I am apparently aware of anything, if I am apparently apparently aware of anything, ad infinitum again - it is ALL something. 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. I said it before, and apparently you didn't take heed, so I will propose it as a direct challenge instead of a subtle suggestion: My statement cannot possibly be a relative one. A relative truth is still something, and thus "There is something" can ONLY be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, or ABSOLUTELY WRONG. In other words, you've been trying this whole time to show that my truth is relative, but it is the nature of my truth that it cannot be relative - only wrong. 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. 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 say again, law of excluded middle: Let A = There is something A v ~A Now I have spelled out what you have either completely missed, or purposely avoided throughout this whole debate - 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 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.
_____________________ "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 06/01/04 - 08:52 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 - 11:28 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: 43
Total Posts: 2180

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/04 - 06:34 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 - 08:04 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 - 11:22 PM:	#15
This debate is now concluded. Thank you, gentlemen.

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