the problem of absolute knowledge

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

the problem of absolute knowledge

Home // Atheism Versus Religion

Makeroni
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: the problem of absolute knowledge

"9/11 was an inside-job! No really! Look at this evidence: [blablablablablablablabla]"

Ok, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (which I tend to believe), but the point is: It is hard to *know* what really happened.

Did some guys really meet aliens in their backyard? Was this Jeshua-dude really miracle-enabled? Has he ever even lived?

Does Japan exist?

You see: I am getting phenomenological. What can be known?

Do I know that Japan exists? Yes, of course. I have seen many photos, also I would have to believe in some kind of global conspiracy if I would claim that it doesn't.

Again, do I know that Japan exists? Of course not. I have never been there. And even if so, how would I know that the people around me telling me that yes this is really Japan are not making fun of me? Could be a flash-mob or something. Or I see signs stating "Japan" that are just mislabelled. Or I confuse some other Asian country with Japan.

I demonstrated that the definition of "knowledge" is not clear at all. The first example would be one of practical knowledge. The second one shows the problem of *absolute* knowledge. In the light of the second example (which is a bit extreme), the first one demonstrated that knowledge is sometimes merely belief.

A person collects much data during its lifetime. This data becomes its perspective of the world. But this data is all relative.

Sometimes, the person comes into contact with data that totally shakes its perspective of the world, even turns it upside down.

Maybe tomorrow you wake up in a futuristic looking room with sci-fi-tech looking equipment and several 2-meter-humans in white uniforms which pretend that you have been in a simulation your whole life, that the movie "Matrix" was even made *especially for you* so that you would have a concept of the situation that you find yourself in (the whole life until then - just a simulation). If this would happen to you, your whole perspective of the world and of yourself would change dramatically.

Maybe tomorrow you experience a true miracle: You accidentally break a finger so that it even has a weird angle (OUCH!), but then you see some kind of blur and feel some warm feeling in that finger, and it is straight and sound again. Impossible? Yes, I would say so. But do I absolutely know that it is impossible?

If such a thing would happen to one of the weak atheists which are just rational and therefore (lack of evidence, lack of reason to believe except for a fairy tale and mass schizophrenia) do not believe in the truth-claims of any religion, such a person's world view would surely be shaken - maybe God demonstrated his existence. Which would then cause the follow-up problem: Which religion got it right? Follow Jesus? Or think that he was just a prophet, become a Muslim? Maybe none of it got it right, there still is a God? Or because of the experience, you will begin a new branch of Science that will change the world as we know it. Or a few days later someone will call you and reveal to you that there is a society of real psychics (not like 100% of todays which are just charlatans... at least I believe that...), and they invite you to join. And so forth.

All knowledge is relative. Or let's say that it isn't: I know that I exist. I also know that I don't want to burn my hand on that hot plate again. But these things are true for atheists as for theists as for scientologists.

But knowledge like "There is a God!!1" or "There is no reason to follow Jesus." or "It was an inside job!"... that is more or less totally arbitrary.

One person has collected this kind of data, another person has collected that kind of data... Both believe in objective reality (Hot plate!), but apart from that, they live in some kind of phantasy world. And their data is their subjective perspective. Perception without interpretation is impossible for human beings. Mind that the next time the newspaper headline reads: "Police finally caught the sex offender". Until the judge has rendered his verdict, the person is innocent. After that, you still don't know.

And there is no way to really tell... is Satan here, deceiving everyone as much as possible? Or is that just part of a religious scam? Or is Satan here, and religion is part of his scheme? To some: Unthinkable. To others who believe religion to cause much evil (e.g. mental child abuse and perpetuated mass schizophrenia), religion is surely satanic evil.

You could even say that a person who has never heard of God or for example of Christianity would be kind of an atheist. So it's the natural state, that must be the right way! Well, and then Christianity comes along and says that this person must immediately become a club-member or it will be tortured forever, which is just part of the infrastructure of existence, we just wanna save you, you know.

It's an inescapable problem.

Everyone has to make up their own goddamn mind.

Science! It brought us the computer, right? It is demonstration of the truthfulness of the way of Science. But no, that is Satans deceptive work. And so forth. How can you know.

Can you believe me that I truely believe to be God, the creator of the universe? I am not making this up (but you have to decide if you believe me this claim).

The data that I collected during my life and that makes up my perspective of the world and of myself led me to believe that I completed the forming of the universe in August 2001. I realized that I myself had been the universe with all its galaxies and even the people until that moment. I believe that I am reemerging from the world that I once was as its creator. When the process began in August 2001 on one day, I even saw God, the holy truth, with my mind's eye. Later I realized that this is me.

That's of course totally nuts to anyone who reads it. But the data that I have, the perspective, the theories, the construct, all that *forces* me to believe that I am that one. Of course I see my everyday life through that belief-filter, and my model is, like that of some religions (e.g. Christianity), *so* complete, that there is nothing that could possibly get me out of this conviction. Like a Christian, I interprete even contradictory data as affirmation.

But most Christians who read this would like to have me sent to a psychiatrist, right. I mean, what's more insane: To believe in God? Or to believe that you yourself are God? One's beliefs inform one's actions. Well, I don't pray in churches. I don't drink "the blood of Christ". I don't proselytize people (Children, motherfuckers! Don't you see *anything* wrong with this?) into my ill belief. All I do is wait - and sort out my mind. Observe the effects that my consciousness has on the world.

Others who have understood what this posting is actually saying/demonstrating would rather ignore my ill beliefs as long as I stay the social animal. Who cares.

Some might even consider for a second: "Is he... the one?" Yes, I am. At least, that's what I believe. My concepts predict that the whole human world will change dramatically due to my coming, which will manifest really absolutely undeniable evidence for every human being to experience. Apart from the heavenly bliss in feeling, presence, experience that will be omnipresent forever. And death will die, of course. Sickness? Pff, don't like that. Old age? Begone! Etc., you get the picture. Just wait and see. I don't expect anything from the people until I have proven myself to the whole world by *manifested reality*. That's a sane maniac, isn't he.

Well, I am probably just a misguided fool even though I absolutely believe that this is not so. Just like most religious people on this planet. Or maybe like everyone who believes to know that there is no god. And so on.

Whaddaya know.

Portland
Newbie

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 15

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:16 am Post subject:

Very interesting topic, but you failed to understand one thing.

All you need to do is ask one simple question.

Is there absolute truth? If you ask that question, you reach a problem. If you say there is NO absolute truth, you have just made that absolutely true. Therefore, there must be absolute truth.

If something is absolutely true, that must mean something created it. If something created that absolute truth that creator must be absolutely constant. The Absolute cannot contradict the Absolute.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject:

Portland wrote:

I'd prefer to simply link to a thread on the richarddawkins.net forums, where a formal debate is going on between an absolute moralist and a moral relativist. The moral relativist claims that this claim is irrelevant. http://richarddawkins.net/foru.....mp;t=69072

Portland
Newbie

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:46 pm Post subject:

I am not dealing with the absolute morality in this for that assumption you must go to that argument. I am talking about Absolute truth which can lead to a believing in a absolute morality.

A absolute truth always is true. Meaning if I drop a rock while standing on the surface of the earth it will fall to the ground. what is the variable or not-absolute is how the rock in question is shaped or where I drop it. It is not-absolutely true if I drop the said rock that it will fall on my foot. If I am wise my feet will be out of the way.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:21 pm Post subject:

Portland wrote:

I am not dealing with the absolute morality in this for that assumption you must go to that argument. I am talking about Absolute truth which can lead to a believing in a absolute morality.

It's the same argument. Did you read it?

Makeroni
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject:

Portland wrote:

[...]ask one simple question.

Is there absolute truth? [...] Therefore, there must be absolute truth.

If something is absolutely true, that must mean something created it. If something created that absolute truth that creator must be absolutely constant. The Absolute cannot contradict the Absolute.

That is quite some facepalm.

I agree that there is absolute truth. Because if, for example, I said that nothing is certain (maybe even not that), that would be an absolute statement. If I would say that I am not sure of anything, not even of that, I would still look at it and realize: There is some certainty there. My consciousness is aware of its state of being, and this awareness proves to me that truth exists, only its shape might be fleeting, always changing.

But: "If something is absolutely true, that must mean something created it." That and the rest is just word salad.

Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Is there absolute truth? If you ask that question, you reach a problem. If you say there is NO absolute truth, you have just made that absolutely true. Therefore, there must be absolute truth.

This is a common argument by absolutists that seems perfectly true upon first glance, but when you really think about it, you realize that it's circular reasoning.

See, logic can either be absolutely true or not absolutely true. And you're making a logical argument.

If you assume logic to be absolutely true, then you're already being circular (proving absolute truth by assuming it to exist).

If you assume logic to not be absolutely true, then your proof is only as true as logic, so therefore if logic is not absolutely true, then your proof is not absolutely true, hence your conclusion that "there must be absolute truth" is also not absolutely true.

Either way, argument doesn't work.

And it's not surprising. Logic is a mode of reasoning we human beings created/adapted into through interpreting causal relationships in our experiences. Logic is a model of natural phenomenon that we use to solve problems. Without human beings (or any other rational beings capable of thinking rationally), there would be no logic. And if the rational beings themselves are not absolute entities without limits, then how can logic be such an entity? If you're asking the question of absolute truth, then you're pushing the boundary of logic, and half of the time you'll be evaluating logical expressions outside the logical domain.

Makeroni
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:19 am Post subject:

Anonymous wrote:

[...]

This is a common argument by absolutists that seems perfectly true upon first glance, but when you really think about it, you realize that it's circular reasoning.

See, logic can either be absolutely true or not absolutely true. And you're making a logical argument.

If you assume logic to be absolutely true, then you're already being circular (proving absolute truth by assuming it to exist).

If you assume logic to not be absolutely true, then your proof is only as true as logic, so therefore if logic is not absolutely true, then your proof is not absolutely true, hence your conclusion that "there must be absolute truth" is also not absolutely true.

Either way, argument doesn't work.

And it's not surprising. Logic is a mode of reasoning we human beings created/adapted into through interpreting causal relationships in our experiences. Logic is a model of natural phenomenon that we use to solve problems. [...]

I disagree in several ways.

First: You used logic to disprove the absoluteness-logic-claim that you quoted. By using logic to do that you approve of the absoluteness of logic - or you think of your logical disproof to be just word salad (which it isn't).

We are dealing with a paradox here, and whatever we do logically, we cannot touch it. What we can do is acknowledge that there is something that logic is dealing with, that the mechanism of logic is dancing around. We know that as sure as we know that we are conscious.

The proof of absoluteness stands.

Second: In my opinion, logic is cause&effect manifested in thought. It is not a mere human construct.

Makeroni
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:23 am Post subject:

Btw., your error is very common: It happens to anyone when they think about a paradox. Always you come across a situation when you fall for the impression that you're on to something.

Then you think some more and you're at zero again.

Paradoxes are an endless fountain of logic, but at the same time, they are untouchable.

	LVC Home // Atheism Versus Religion	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory