E_muse

Greetings Zarathukya, and welcome to the boards. You said:

Of course, this begs a very obvious question. If you can't know anything for sure, how can you know for sure that your conclusion (that you can't know anything for sure) is correct? It is self refuting.

We draw conclusions on the basis of our experiences and what is meaningful to us on the individual level. We can never know for sure whether this relates to any external reality but we can only draw meaningful conclusions on the basis of what experiences our brains are giving us.

gruveguy

However conclusions on the basis of our experience cannot be considered truths, only patterns. To say that since I saw something happen at 1:00 for the last 10 days it will happen for the next ten 10 days at 1:00 or happened the 10 days before I saw it at 1:00 is obviously a fallicious statement.

Scientific laws, which most people would refer to as truths, are not necessarily truths, but merely observed patterns in the way things occur. There is no real law spelled out for us that says the law of gravity causes things to fall towards the ground when they are dropped, but we have formulated the law of gravitation because of observations. We cannot know truths based on observed occurances, only that things tend to act in certain ways.

The Christian believes that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and that the only truth is derived from God. That stance seems by far the most logical when viewed in light of the human capacity to know truth.

I'm exhausted so I apologize if my thoughts here are not coherent.

whouprog

The robot does not question its programming. Neither (to judge by the above) does the Christian. The Christian, therefore, is a robot. That stance seems by far the most logical when viewed in light of the sentient human's capacity to know truth.

Tribalgroove

I think that truth somewhat implies a universal standard transcending human experience. Human beings don't experience truth per se, unless one defines truth via the vehicle of perspective. In this instance truth becomes subjective. Objective truth can only be obtained by knowledgeable acquisition of all existence and possibility, effectively making one omniscient. Pragmatically we know this is absurd. We instead base our decisions on empirical vindication, statistical observation and reaction. We frequently apply the label "truth" to the result.

Talon

I really think you are over-complicating it. My truth is mine (and you can't have it ) and may not be shared by anyone else on the planet. But to me it is still truth.

Put aside for a moment the fact that anything a person believes has flaws and can be attacked on some level, it all comes down to personal choice. Just like xians, you and I made our choices to reject god or accept god and all it's concepts for reasons we see as "true". To say that we need to know everything is pointless because as humans we will probably never know "everything".

Assume for a second the EVERYTHING in the bible is true, you can still reject god based on his actions because your "truth" says to you "What god did/does is wrong."

We live in the here and now, one can only be cognizant of their own life. You can only make decisions on what you know at the time. If you thought euthanasia was right on today but learned it was wrong the next, would it change the consequences of your actions? Or just the way you feel about your actions? In other words, when you acted you believed it was "the right thing to do" at the time, would you put it off another day if you are concerned about the possible change of it's morality?

TALON

John Page

Try Moral Relativism: Being good means enjoying yourself while not feeling too guilty about it (or caught).

Tell your friends about it, have a party, invite some sheep....

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>