Veritas?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[2] Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969

This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true". Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b26

And how exactly, (and I mean exactly), are you going to go about defining and determining what "relationship to reality" means, what it is, how is it measured, and by what means you're going to use to conclude what reality is, (which you must do to make the judgement of "veracity), and what it means to say "relates to reality", and how you have gone about determining that you are even capable of that determination. I propose that since the actual "nature" of 95 % of this universe is at the moment "unknown", you may be wasting your time. But we all know you want to expose your Jebus again ... so why not just to it, and do the nasty deed now.

The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 06:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And how exactly, (and I mean exactly), are you going to go about defining and determining what "relationship to reality" means, what it is, how is it measured, and by what means you're going to use to conclude what reality is, (which you must do to make the judgement of "veracity), and what it means to say "relates to reality", and how you have gone about determining that you are even capable of that determination. I propose that since the actual "nature" of 95 % of this universe is at the moment "unknown", you may be wasting your time. But we all know you want to expose your Jebus again ... so why not just to it, and do the nasty deed now.

The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

Good for you. One anecdote. The questions remain unanswered.
So then ... you're willing to limit your definition of "truth" to what can be seen, and verified by multiple lines of evidence.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-05-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:07 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You assumed incorrectly and this is a red herring.

So this thread has nothing at all to do with whether or not god exists, or the bible is true? You have no intention what so ever of proving anything about the veracity of your religion? You will excuse me then if I am a bit skeptical. Where that the case, the philosophy board would have been a better place for this.

(30-05-2014 05:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If that is the case you never can claim that the Empire state building exists independently of those observing it which is absurd.

The Empire State building would exist even if no one lived near it to observe it.

The planet Saturn existed before we observed it through telescopes.

You made a philosophical assertion which I felt needed clarifying. I wouldn't argue that objective reality doesn't exist, only that no human being can be certain of it. After all, the instruments by which we perceive reality, our senses, are imperfect. You can think you see something when in "reality" you never saw it. You can be deceived into believing something based on false information. Our senses are electrical impulses carried to our brains by nerve endings, they are not an infallible reading of our external reality. I think it is an important distinction that people only experience reality in a subjective way.

For some heavy reading, I suggest you look into the writings of Descartes and Nietzsche. You can also find many contemporary philosophers mulling over the same topics.

That being said there is no particularly good reason to believe that the reality I perceive is significantly different from the reality your perceive. I have seen pictures of the empire state building, I have heard others speak of it, many more people say that the building exists than do others who say that it doesn't exist, therefore I have excellent reason to believe it does exist. It is not "true" in that sense that it denotes "absolute certainty" but it is true in that I have very good reason to believe it.

I have never felt troubled over the fact that a lot of things cannot be known with absolute certainty.

And no this thread is not about me proving the bible is true or God exists. Christians can have discussions without those two topics being mentioned. It is not a sin to talk about other topics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

Good for you. One anecdote. The questions remain unanswered.

Is it true that you just typed the sentence above?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:16 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

I can make a true statement that "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 10, 2001" and "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 12, 2001"

Pedantic I know but I am not the one throwing around absolutes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:16 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

I can make a true statement that "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 10, 2001" and "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 12, 2001"

Pedantic I know but I am not the one throwing around absolutes.

Neither of those statements are true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:21 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:07 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  So this thread has nothing at all to do with whether or not god exists, or the bible is true? You have no intention what so ever of proving anything about the veracity of your religion? You will excuse me then if I am a bit skeptical. Where that the case, the philosophy board would have been a better place for this.


You made a philosophical assertion which I felt needed clarifying. I wouldn't argue that objective reality doesn't exist, only that no human being can be certain of it. After all, the instruments by which we perceive reality, our senses, are imperfect. You can think you see something when in "reality" you never saw it. You can be deceived into believing something based on false information. Our senses are electrical impulses carried to our brains by nerve endings, they are not an infallible reading of our external reality. I think it is an important distinction that people only experience reality in a subjective way.

For some heavy reading, I suggest you look into the writings of Descartes and Nietzsche. You can also find many contemporary philosophers mulling over the same topics.

That being said there is no particularly good reason to believe that the reality I perceive is significantly different from the reality your perceive. I have seen pictures of the empire state building, I have heard others speak of it, many more people say that the building exists than do others who say that it doesn't exist, therefore I have excellent reason to believe it does exist. It is not "true" in that sense that it denotes "absolute certainty" but it is true in that I have very good reason to believe it.

I have never felt troubled over the fact that a lot of things cannot be known with absolute certainty.

And no this thread is not about me proving the bible is true or God exists. Christians can have discussions without those two topics being mentioned. It is not a sin to talk about other topics.

Ah, then this ought to be quite refreshing. This really does better belong in the philosophy board though.

(30-05-2014 06:16 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

I can make a true statement that "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 10, 2001" and "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 12, 2001"

Pedantic I know but I am not the one throwing around absolutes.

I think any discussion about "truth" is going to be difficult without explicitly acknowledging that no one can ever know something to be true with absolute certainty.

Also, I while I wouldn't suggest that more discussion on the topic is unwarranted or a waste of time, I am curious as to what more can be "known" about truth other than

1) Its philosophical definition
2) that truth can never be known with true certainty
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The statement: "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with an actual state of affairs in reality.

This is all that "true" means in the above sentence.

Good for you. One anecdote. The questions remain unanswered.
So then ... you're willing to limit your definition of "truth" to what can be seen, and verified by multiple lines of evidence.

i already gave you a definition for "truth". read it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:21 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never felt troubled over the fact that a lot of things cannot be known with absolute certainty.

And no this thread is not about me proving the bible is true or God exists. Christians can have discussions without those two topics being mentioned. It is not a sin to talk about other topics.

Ah, then this ought to be quite refreshing. This really does better belong in the philosophy board though.

(30-05-2014 06:16 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  I can make a true statement that "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 10, 2001" and "The World Trade Centers collapsed on Sept. 12, 2001"

Pedantic I know but I am not the one throwing around absolutes.

I think any discussion about "truth" is going to be difficult without explicitly acknowledging that no one can ever know something to be true with absolute certainty.

Also, I while I wouldn't suggest that more discussion on the topic is unwarranted or a waste of time, I am curious as to what more can be "known" about truth other than

1) Its philosophical definition
2) that truth can never be known with true certainty

are you certain that truth can never be known with certainty? no.

But so what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 06:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Good for you. One anecdote. The questions remain unanswered.
So then ... you're willing to limit your definition of "truth" to what can be seen, and verified by multiple lines of evidence.

i already gave you a definition for "truth". read it.

I read it bozo. I think it's crap. It's a meaningless pile of horseshit, without further clarification. I DO realize "further clarification" to a Presuppositionalist (not unlike yourself) is anathema. And as usual Germey refuses to define anything. Yawn.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: