Originally posted by Grampy Bobbywhat is this "he" this and "he" that bull?...Your ignorance is astounding...Until their is proof, lets keep god "it"..you can make "it" capital, if it makes you feel any better.
Think you miss the central point. Perhaps my failure to use language plainly. God provides all human beings with volition. Though He knows
the choices we will all make, allowing them to be made is critical to the purpose of human history. Decisions have major consequences.
🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow do you address your assumptive acceptance of the bits you like and the bits you don't?
How do you address your father, Joe?
The bible refers to god as a he and as a father or other male authority figure like king etc. (patriarchical agricultural societies tended to do that). Are you saying that the use of the word "father" is a litereal reference to gods gender?
If not, calling it "it" is a fair request, given that it makes the least assumptions. But then, reducing the number of assumptions made seems to be something you either don't have much practice at, or simply refuse to do.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Not so. Truth is never relative.
1+1 = 10 (is true in the binary system, but false in the decimal system).
I find it harder to give an example of 'absolute truth', I even doubt wether there are any that can be formulated. Perhaps one can 'believe' in an absolute truth, but it will remain logically undefined.
1+1=10 does not have a truth value unless it is placed in a system (decimal or binary). Once placed in a system, it is no longer the same statement.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou said ".... does not have a truth value unless it is placed in a system ...". Doesn't that mean exactly the same as " .... has a truth value only when placed in a system ...", which is in my opinion a good definition of in-context truth = relative truth?
Not so. Truth is never relative.
1+1=10 does not have a truth value unless it is placed in a system (decimal or binary). Once placed in a system, it is no longer the same statement.
edit. can you give an example of a 'truth' statement?
Originally posted by Mephisto2I think one could say that a statements truth value is relative to its context. But it would be incorrect to claim that 'truth is relative'. It is not the truth that changes with context, it is the truth value of the statement.
You said ".... does not have a truth value unless it is placed in a system ...". Doesn't that mean exactly the same as " .... has a truth value only when placed in a system ...", which is in my opinion a good definition of in-context truth = relative truth?
edit. can you give an example of a 'truth' statement?
To say a statement is "the Truth" only holds meaning when the context is given.
The "Truth" is never relative.
But then again, maybe I am just confusing myself.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFair enough. Just the remaining question: can you formulate 'a truth' or 'the truth' that would be absolute?
I think one could say that a statements truth value is relative to its context. But it would be incorrect to claim that 'truth is relative'. It is not the truth that changes with context, it is the truth value of the statement.
To say a statement is "the Truth" only holds meaning when the context is given.
The "Truth" is never relative.
But then again, maybe I am just confusing myself.
Originally posted by Mephisto2I am now not really sure what it means to be relative or absolute in this case.
Fair enough. Just the remaining question: can you formulate 'a truth' or 'the truth' that would be absolute?
For example I believe 1+1=10 in the binary counting system to be true for all observers (calculators?). But does the word 'absolute' here have any meaning if the statement cannot be put into any other context that affects in any way?
I think part of the problem I am having is the confusion between logical truth, and statements about reality, which are called 'the Truth' when they accurately describe reality.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have the same difficulty. The 'absolute' truth as opposed to 'in-context truth' has only a vague and 'esoteric' meaning, not a logical one. It may apply for 'believers' in something (whatever that 'something' may be), but is (il)logical nonsense for everybody else.
I am now not really sure what it means to be relative or absolute in this case.
For example I believe 1+1=10 in the binary counting system to be true for all observers (calculators?). But does the word 'absolute' here have any meaning if the statement cannot be put into any other context that affects in any way?
I think part of the problem I am having i ...[text shortened]... tatements about reality, which are called 'the Truth' when they accurately describe reality.
Bayes' Theorem already tells us that if you are a 100% believer (= a priori probability 100% ) then any measurement or fact will only confirm your belief and give you an a posteriori probability of 100%. And in the mind of the believer that means 'absolute'. In the mind of rational obervers that just means 'bias'.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am a bit confused, too. But I think what you and Mephisto are getting at with “context” is good, and perhaps the best question is: What is a non-contextual truth versus a contextual one? (By contextual, I mean context-dependent for it’s truth-value.)
I am now not really sure what it means to be relative or absolute in this case.
For example I believe 1+1=10 in the binary counting system to be true for all observers (calculators?). But does the word 'absolute' here have any meaning if the statement cannot be put into any other context that affects in any way?
I think part of the problem I am having i ...[text shortened]... tatements about reality, which are called 'the Truth' when they accurately describe reality.
Under a correspondence theory of truth, as LJ and Starrman recently hammered into me, a statement S is true to the degree that it corresponds with the facts of the referenced reality—the world, as Wittgenstein said, is made up of facts, about which we can make true or false statements (or have true or false thoughts).
This wiki article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ) summarizes various theories of truth, and makes this remark: “Absolutism in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either true in all times and places or false in all times and places: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras.”
Under one schema: analytic truths—statements that are true by definition, or by their own terms—might be seen as non-contextual with regard to the external world of facts. Synthetic truths depend upon real-world correspondence. However, some philosophers (e.g. Quine) reject the analytic/synthetic distinction. The question might be: are analytic truths context-dependent or not? There is also the distinction between a priori—not dependent on empirical observation—and a posteriori—dependent on empirical observation.
Looking at Grampy’s three so-called “absolute” truths—
1. is an empirical observation that is true so long as the facts remain as they are; if the ecological facts change (and there is no reason to believe that they couldn’t), then the statement may become false. Clearly it is context-dependent.
2. is true as a statement about the game of chess; however it is really a statement of rule or convention. As Wittgenstein put it, if I change that rule I am not playing chess badly: I am now playing a different game, regardless of what I choose to call it. Therefore, I would put this in the category of being true by definition.
But I would not call it an “absolute truth”: outside the game of chess, the statement “the queen always begins on a square of her own color” would have no meaning at all. Suppose I have never learned chess, but am standing in the presence of the queen of England, and somebody asks me if it is an absolute truth that the queen always begins on a square of her own color—I am confused, since the only context I have from which to answer that question is the behavior of the woman seated on the throne and wearing a crown on her head.
3. seems to me to be an inductive inference—one that certainly seems indisputable, but an inductive inference nevertheless. There is no logical bar on humanity finding the secret of immortality; there may be a nomological bar by virtue of the actual laws of nature. Nevertheless, an inductive inference (proposition) is, by definition, context-dependent and not absolute.
Which makes me wonder if sometimes what gets mixed in isn’t logical versus nomological necessity. Then, with regard to his three “absolutes”: 1. neither logically nor nomologically necessary; 2. not sure the concept applies here; 3. nomologically, but not logically, necessary.
_____________________________________________
At bottom, I see two possibilities:
(a) Context-dependent statements whose truth depends on their correspondence with the world of fact.
(b) Non-context-dependent statements that are true just by definition.
The third possibility—non-context-dependent statements that are nevertheless true “synthetically”, and not just by definition—I am unsure about. This would seem to be Kant’s “synthetic a priori”. An example he used was 7 + 5 = 12. But this is disputable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori. None of Grampy’s examples fall into this category.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCrap. The first one is relative to the definition of 'man' (e.g. an individual homo sapiens, still living is more than likely to die one day in the future). The second and third are just statements of belief.
Let's cut to the quick. Three absolute truths: It is appointed unto man once to die, then to stand before judgement
and then to reside at one of two addresses for all eternity. To which of those destinations is your ticket punched?
🙂
Originally posted by agrysonEven though I am not a theist, I disagree. The Bible does not suggest that God is literally a man, with all the attendent genitelia. However, as the Bible does refer to God predominantly as Father, and uses masculine demonstrative pronouns to refer to God, then that is a precedent for how Christians should refer to God - as a he. And if one further accepts that Jesus is God (as Grampy Bobby does) then it is reasonable to refer to God as a he.
How do you address your assumptive acceptance of the bits you like and the bits you don't?
The bible refers to god as a he and as a father or other male authority figure like king etc. (patriarchical agricultural societies tended to do that). Are you saying that the use of the word "father" is a litereal reference to gods gender?
If not, calling it "it" ...[text shortened]... made seems to be something you either don't have much practice at, or simply refuse to do.
And even if one could argue compellingly that both 'he' and 'she' are legitimate, 'he' is the proper pronoun to use in English. Generally, when the gender of a person is unknown, 'he' is used. For example, "the person with his back to me walked from the room." We would not say "with its back". I believe this is because 'his' used to be the equivalent of "its" in middle English, and because "it" generally refers to an object and not a person. Thus, if God is a person, then even if the gender is ambiguous, 'he' is still the better pronoun.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCatholics and Orthodox Churches believe in the third option of purgatory. I am there right now.
Let's cut to the quick. Three absolute truths: It is appointed unto man once to die, then to stand before judgement
and then to reside at one of two addresses for all eternity. To which of those destinations is your ticket punched?
🙂
Originally posted by Conrau KActually I'd say "The person with their back to me walked from the room", but I'm not a grammarian. I was not so much making a point as defending the earlier point that grampy refers to god as a he, a father etc as it is put in the bible, yet rejects other parts. Simply as a further illustration of grampies picking and choosing of the parts he likes.
Even though I am not a theist, I disagree. The Bible does not suggest that God is literally a man, with all the attendent genitelia. However, as the Bible does refer to God predominantly as Father, and uses masculine demonstrative pronouns to refer to God, then that is a precedent for how Christians should refer to God - as a he. And if one further accepts ...[text shortened]... son, then even if the gender is ambiguous, 'he' is still the better pronoun.
As to unknown gender I accept your point of "he" being the better pronoun (While "their" may have been suitable for the specific example you gave, it is obvious to both of us that their does not fit in other examples that could be given), though I would question whether this ambiguity is the reason grampy refers to god as a he.