Why? How? - ultimate truth

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would have thought it was unscientific for anyone to limit what science is in pursuit of.

Are you saying that science is interested in the subordinate truths that eminate from whatever lies at the heart of existence but not the ultimate truth itself?

Isn't that a bit like wanting to talk to the monkey whilst ignoring the organ grinder?

What I'm saying is that this "ultimate truth" you keep prattling on about likely falls outside of the scientific realm. Science can give us an accurate description of what happens in the universe, but not necessarily why it happens. As I said, that is more the realm of metaphysics than of science.

You seem to have this conception that since science has undermined religion's ability to answer the question of "ultimate truth" that it should be able to step in and provide an answer of its own. It may very well be the case that it cannot. It may be the case that if there is some grand "ultimate truth" (and there may not be) that it will remain unknowable.

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister

[b]Your mistake is that it is impossible for ultimate truth to not exist because the non-existence of ultimate truth would be...erhem...the ultimate truth.

Maybe, but all this really reveals is that "ultimate truth" is itself an artificial concept; it only exists in our own imagination, and is not an actua ...[text shortened]... cribe a universe that is infinite, even if it has a distinct beginning and end.[/b]

What becomes clear then is that ultimate truth may well be beyond rational explanation or at least defy rational explanation. However , if the ultimate truth was a lie and true at the same time , isn't that the ultimate truth then?

Another question is that if there is no limits to waht science can discover then life will always remain a mystery wihtout rational explanation. Maybe the mytics were right all along? Science can never give us the whole truth , and neither can the intellect?

I think you are missing the profound nature of these questions. To say that ultimate truth exists is an assertion of logic in itself. It is to say there is such a thing as ultimate truth. You might say "no there is no such thing" but such a claim could be shown to be self contradictory.

It can, but that's my point - the universe may in fact be contradictory. Our conceptions of logic and rationality are based on our experience, but they may not be fundamental aspects of the fabric of existence. The universe may itself have never arrived and a final, unalterable, "ultimate" truth. It may be instead be a paradox - an idea that negates itself, so that no final truth can ever really be settled on.

Here's another problem with the idea that ultimate truth is a logical absolute.

Suppose you and I are both right - suppose the universe is a paradox, and that this fact, unknown to us, is the "ultimate" truth. Then suppose, at the same time, that there's a pencil sitting on my desk. I know the pencil is there; I can see it. So there are two truths: the universe is a paradox, and there's a pencil on my desk.

The universe doesn't care that I know one of these truths. The universe itself does not place more importance on one truth than the other. Because the universe, itself, is not a conscious entity. As far as it's concerned, both of these truths - its paradoxical nature, and the pencil on my desk - are equally important and equally unimportant. So what makes one of them "the ultimate truth"? Nothing, except my own subjective limited knowledge of the universe. I might imagine that the paradox of existence is the "ultimate" truth, but that status only really exists in my mind.

In objective terms, all truths - those that are known to us, and those that aren't - are equal in importance. None are really "ultimate."

Originally posted by darthmix
Here's another problem with the idea that ultimate truth is a logical absolute.

Suppose you and I are both right - suppose the universe is a paradox, and that this fact, unknown to us, is the "ultimate" truth. Then suppose, at the same time, that there's a pencil sitting on my desk. I know the pencil is there; I can see it. So there are two truths: the u ...[text shortened]... o us, and those that aren't - are equal in importance. None are really "ultimate."

In objective terms, all truths - those that are known to us, and those that aren't - are equal in importance. None are really "ultimate." --darth---

No . Some truths are more important than others because some truths rely on other truths in order to be true. The truth about the laws of physics/matter and energy that existed at the time of the big bang are very important compared to the truth of your pencil on you desk because your pencil relies on the other more ultimate truth and would not even exist if the other truth (the big bang) had not existed.

If life could be shown to have come into existence all at the same time then your pencil would be just as important , it didn't though , so the big bang is ultimately behind all the other truths in the universe. Cause and effect causes us to look for the source of whatever truth we are looking at to a deeper , more fundamental source- ie the ultimate truth of all truths.

I would have thought this obvious.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think so. The ultimate truth to me is when we scrape something down to it's bare bones , right down to it's core. For example , the ultimate truth of all biology could be said to be carbon (maybe we could go further) but there must be a point where we can go no further and explanation stops , science then stops as well and rational enquiry too.

I don't really care for your terminology. But I think I understand what you are talking about in this thread. I think at bottom you are inquiring about the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which shoulders some common formulations of the Cosmological Argument. Unless you have some better statement of the PSR, let's take it to be the following:

PSR: There must be an explanation of the existence of any being and of any positive fact whatever.**

So, your principal question in this thread seems to boil down to whether or not we should accept the PSR. Or, would there be anything wrong with stating, contrary to the PSR, that there is at least some brute fact or being that has no explanation? Personally, I see no good reasons to accept the PSR, and I don't see anything wrong with the existence of a brute fact.

That might be "unsatisfactory" on some level, but the alternative seems even more unsatisfactory to me. The alternative seems to be to recognize "either explained by another/others or explained by nothing" as a false dichotomy. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument might say that "explained by itself" is another possibility. The PSR could hold if there exists some self-existent being whose existence is explained by itself. This seems to be a core element of many theistic concepts -- that God is a self-existent being in that his existence is accounted for or explained by his very nature. I am not sure if I am misreading you, but you seem to be suggesting that God's existence would have to be brute and explained by nothing. However (and not that I agree with them in the slightest, but), some would argue with your sentiment that "Surely if ultimate truth can be explained then it stops being ultimate because we have found a reason for it to exist. Then it would not be ultimate truth any more but the truth that explains the ultimate truth would become the ultimate truth instead". They would probably say that in your noting this problem of regress, you are somehow missing the possibility of self-existence: that God's existence IS explained -- but explained, they would say, by his very own essence. To me, what you say seems to preclude the PSR (again, I might be misreading you); whereas, this particular theistic conception doesn't seem to preclude the PSR.

But at any rate, I don't see how the idea of self-existence makes any sense whatsoever -- it makes less sense to me than a brute fact. How could existence be part of essence? I think such a notion would have to fall to considerations that show that existence is not a first-order predicate. But if the self-existence idea doesn't fly, then I think we are left with entertaining brute, unintelligible articles of reality. For example, even if one were to say that each and every being is explained by some set of other beings, stretching back in infinite regress, I think that still simply won't satisfy the PSR. I think we are left failing to provide non-ersatz explanation for at least one otherwise brute fact: that there are and always have been dependent beings (dependent in that their existence relies on causal activity of other beings).

So I'm not really sure how to read you here. But if your contention is that there are not good grounds for accepting the PSR, then I agree. If your contention is that there exist at least some brute articles of reality, I think I would also agree. But I would have thought that you take God to be "self-existent" in the way described above, such that in principle you have full explanation. Or maybe you are smarter than I give you credit and you already understand this "full explanation" to be illusory? 😛

-------
**This is how WL Rowe states it in The Philosophy of Religion, 1978.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In objective terms, all truths - those that are known to us, and those that aren't - are equal in importance. None are really "ultimate." --darth---

No . Some truths are more important than others because some truths rely on other truths in order to be true. The truth about the laws of physics/matter and energy that existed at the time of the big ba ...[text shortened]... ntal source- ie the ultimate truth of all truths.

I would have thought this obvious.

The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe.

If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I don't really care for your terminology. But I think I understand what you are talking about in this thread. I think at bottom you are inquiring about the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which shoulders some common formulations of the Cosmological Argument. Unless you have some better statement of the PSR, let's take it to be the following:

P ...[text shortened]... *This is how WL Rowe states it in The Philosophy of Religion, 1978.

I think that it's logical that there is some self existent , uncause reality which is the ultimate reality of everything. For some it may be the long sort after Grand Unification Theory , for others it may be something else . For me it is God. However , God aside , the idea that there is a supreme reality upon which all other realities eminate from is pretty likely and I think you agree with this.

My point is that nothing could be said about this reality in terms of why? , or how? , because no explanation is possible - it just IS. This means in effect that science will never be able to explain it or understand how it was caused or why it is the way it is. This could be an uncomfortable idea for some.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe.

If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game.

The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe. ---ringett--

Maybe , maybe not , but if the big bang doesn't bang then there's a heck of a lot of things that would not happen (lol). Virtually everything depends upon it , therefore (quantum singularities aside) it's pretty much the supreme fact of the universe. Why do you think it isn't (bearing in mind that you would not be here thinking about it without the big bang)

Originally posted by rwingett
The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe.

If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game.

If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game. - ringwett-

My goal is to show that there is almost definitely something that cannot be explained and to which the questions how? and why? cannot be addressed meaningfully.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game. - ringwett-

My goal is to show that there is almost definitely something that cannot be explained and to which the questions how? and why? cannot be addressed meaningfully.

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe. ---ringett--

Maybe , maybe not , but if the big bang doesn't bang then there's a heck of a lot of things that would not happen (lol). Virtually everything depends upon it , therefore (quantum singularities aside) it's pretty much the supreme fact of the universe. Why do you think it isn't (bearing in mind that you would not be here thinking about it without the big bang)

What came before the Big Bang, if anything? We don't know. The Big Bang is just as far back as we're able to peer in time. If our description of the Big Bang is accurate then it answers a lot, but certainly not everything.

Originally posted by rwingett
What came before the Big Bang, if anything? We don't know. The Big Bang is just as far back as we're able to peer in time. If our description of the Big Bang is accurate then it answers a lot, but certainly not everything.

The last I heard, before the Big Bang was the Tiny Blip.

I mean I heard that by some querk (no pun intended) of quantum physics particles fluctuated out of nothingness to existence. Now don't laugh.

Someone explained how the most microscopic and basic particles popped into existence. I saw the diagrams. I called it the Tiny Blip which preceeded the Big Bang.

Does anyone know about this theory? Ultra-small elemental particles "fluctuated" back and forth until they popped into the existence side of the universe??

Originally posted by rwingett
The Big Bang is not behind all the other truths of the universe.

If your goal here is to say that 'god' is the "ultimate truth of all truths", then just get to the point and quit playing your transparent cat-and-mouse game.

Why are you so rude to mostly everyone?

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Good , then you will agree that asking a question like "how was God created?" would be pretty dumb?