StarGateWars Forums

Thriller wrote:Pooka your arguments rest on only flawed understanding on quantum mechanics...

Thx!

Thriller wrote:I mean i could show you on how your wrong and how systems based on observable relationships can be used to understand and proof the mechanics of the world around us but it would be quite boring.

Actually, I'm genuinely interested. Please go ahead.

Thriller wrote:Your understanding of proof is wrong. Yes in your make believe scenario you can't prove anything. But in the real world when we discuss proof, my definition applys. Practicality and context are important when working in "the real world", join us pooka.

Proof is evidence which is sufficient to establish something as true. Objectively and in the world of logic, this implies 100% certainty. This, in and of itself, is not make-believe. It's a question of wording and vocabulary. Of course, the word has less stringent meanings which define it in more subjective terms. For example, evidence that convinces one that something is true is also defined as proof. This is where one begins to explore the difference between objective reality and subjective reality. I shouldn't need to point out that there are people who are convinced that something is true without this being the case. I never said that proof is always necessary, nor did I say the opposite. I simply defined the term. Your appeal to me to "join" you in what you call reality is uncalled for.

Thriller wrote:What your discussing is omniscience not proof, mathematical proofs, such as two plus two, rest on the observable fact of quantity in three dimensional space. It's fairly straightforward to understand (1+1=2) but when you really try to understand the system you can get a good example of the observer relationship (that you were referring too) in context. The base principle of algebra only applies in three dimensional space and is based upon how we interact with it. It does acount to the entirety of creation because we do not experience that nor do we have the knowledge to fully understand it. But that does not mean that the relationship is not proven. Because proof has always rested on our understanding of observable relationships.

I get where you're coming from, but please note that my issue is just one of wording. Logically, we can only prove that we perceive something as being thus and that we perceive ourselves as interacting with our environment in such and such a way. That's comparatively very easy to prove with 100% certainty. However, as you said, we are not necessarily aware of the entirety of that which exists, nevermind the nature of its existence. As we admit that our perception is limited, we imply that it is flawed insofar as it is incomplete. We can define and prove our subjective realities, but objective reality, if there is such a thing, would require omniscience.

Thriller wrote:So in a perfect world pooka your definition is right, but i'm a realist.

I suppose that by "perfect world", you mean "objective reality"? If this is not the case, feel free to elaborate and define your terms. As for being a realist, I understand that in terms of you not requiring 100% certainty to practically interact with your perceived environment. If this is the case, we share this point of view.

Thriller wrote:When you and others observe an event there is proof that it occurred. Even though i didn't witness it, it logical for me to believe you because so many others can testify to it's existence and the event will always leave some observable impact upon the world around it (foot prints, burned house, radiation).

You have proof that it was perceived as occuring.

Thriller wrote:But my understanding of the world knows that the observers will have slightly different descriptions and that i can analyze the events impact and markings on the world around us to get the best possible idea of what actually occurred. By using the best application of human understanding i can prove the event did occur, the circumstances are a different story.

All within the spectrum of a subjective (perceived) reality, which I've established to be in contrast to a theoretical objective reality.

Thriller wrote:Proof is just the reasoning behind truth (accumulation and analysis of evidence), it does not imply the latter. But your right that the perfect proof does.

Proof
–noun
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Thriller wrote:It seems like you want to get into epistemology.

Yep.

Thriller wrote:I will leave you with this than.
"For something to exist it must first be observed"

That's true - in subjective reality!

Thriller wrote:

What's the point of a fulfilling existence, again?

If you have to ask this, i feel sorry for you

No, I just wanted to know what you think the point is. This in no way implies that I believe that there is no point - or that there is one. It's simply a question and you should take it that way without responding with emotional fluff such as "I feel sorry for you".

Cordially,

Me

Oh damn, i knew you might go there when i posted my answer, If we get into subjective and objective understanding we will have derailed this thread right off the tracks. If you wish to discuss it then make an appropriate thread.

Although that discussion would be informative, it's really not all that fun.

PS. 100% percent certainty does not imply perfect understanding.
People try to prove lots of things without any knowledge with 100% percent certainty.

bonus if you get the double entendre

You have to admit that this discussion was already doomed to going nowhere.

Bible group: The Bible is the truth, man! Look, it's filled with forgiveness, how can't it be true?

Your group: It contradicts itself.

[Insert my posts, which the Bible group rarely replied to. Of their own admittance, they were looking for easier points to contradict.]

Bible group: Where?

Your group: Here.

Bible group: That's actually not a contradiction, according to this Bible website.

Your group: Yes, because in terms of objective sources, a bible website is very unbiased towards the bible at aallllll.

Bible group: Exactly!

Your group: We were being ironic.

Bible group: We were still right.

Your group: No you weren't.

I then derail the thread.

PS. 100% percent certainty does not imply perfect understanding.
People try to prove lots of things without any knowledge with 100% percent certainty.

I figured you'd say something along those lines. Note the difference between a person believing that they are 100% certain of something and a situation being 100% certain in that no alternative is even theoretically possible from what objective truths are known of it.

PS. 100% percent certainty does not imply perfect understanding.
People try to prove lots of things without any knowledge with 100% percent certainty.

I figured you'd say something along those lines. Note the difference between a person beieving that they are 100% certain of something and a situation being 100% certain in that no alternative is even theoretically possible from what objective truths are known of it.

Lol i do get that, but you didn't get the two different ways you can read that sentence. Objectively and Subjectively and each way tries to proof the opposite.

Honestly, you were missing commas.

PS. 100% percent certainty does not imply perfect understanding.
People try to prove lots of things without any knowledge with 100% percent certainty.

Are the people without knowledge? Are the things without knowledge? Is the knowledge with 100% certainty? Are the people with 100% certainty? Are they attempting to prove with 100% certainty? In which way? Etc, etc.

There were just too many semantic and syntactic possibilities.

Agapooka wrote:Honestly, you were missing commas.

PS. 100% percent certainty does not imply perfect understanding.
People try to prove lots of things without any knowledge with 100% percent certainty.

Are the people without knowledge? Are the things without knowledge? Is the knowledge with 100% certainty? Are the people with 100% certainty? Are they attempting to prove with 100% certainty? In which way? Etc, etc.

There were just too many semantical and syntaxic possibilities.

Statement read:
Objectively---- uninformed people believe things with 100% percent certainty
Subjectively ----- I know people will try to prove things without understanding the issue with 100% certainty

But both of those are subjective, except that in the one you labelled "objective", you are referring to people who believe that their subjective reality is an accurate representation of objective reality.

Agapooka wrote:But both of those are subjective, except that in the one you labelled "objective", you are referring to people who believe that their subjective reality is an accurate representation of objective reality.

yes i know that's the point, subjective is read as a statement about my believe while the objective refers to the beliefs of other's.

But in glad you pointed out that are both really subjective because in the end it all coming from me the observer. I was really trying to lead you to this to make my final point concerning objective and subjective understanding. Objectivity is impossible because human knowledge is always derived from personal perspective. The only way to broaden our understanding and limit the observer effect is by adding more subjective observation and analysis from different observers. This process of adding additional viewpoints is an attempt at objectivity but ultimately will never reach it's goal because we will never have the ability to account for every point of reference.

This why i said your argument wasn't based in reality. Wasn't a personal attack, it's just the way it is.

I am extremely informed on history in general including the history of the Christian Church thank you very much.

ernest wrote:I am extremely informed on history in general including the history of the Christian Church thank you very much.

Lying is a sin.

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Facts are facts regardless of what site their on; the same information can be found and verified on many other sites. If you want to act like a dolt be my guest.

facts are not facts when they are lies. for example a fact about the west on an islamist website is not really going to be a fact now is it.

Look up the definition of 'fact'.
Read what you quoted me on.
Read your reply.

A fact about the West on an Islamic website it is a fact.
A lie about the West on an Islamic website it is a lie.
A fact about the West on an Islamic website it is a not lie.
A lie about the West on an Islamic website it is a not fact.
A fact on any site is a fact.
A lie on any site is a lie.
A fact is a fact otherwise it would not be a fact but a lie.

why do you miss the point they are not fact's because they are not true. I can say it's fact that I'm a big giant blue elephant, Do you believe that now?

Thriller wrote:

Agapooka wrote:But both of those are subjective, except that in the one you labelled "objective", you are referring to people who believe that their subjective reality is an accurate representation of objective reality.

yes i know that's the point, subjective is read as a statement about my believe while the objective refers to the beliefs of other's.

But in glad you pointed out that are both really subjective because in the end it all coming from me the observer. I was really trying to lead you to this to make my final point concerning objective and subjective understanding. Objectivity is impossible because human knowledge is always derived from personal perspective. The only way to broaden our understanding and limit the observer effect is by adding more subjective observation and analysis from different observers. This process of adding additional viewpoints is an attempt at objectivity but ultimately will never reach it's goal because we will never have the ability to account for every point of reference.

This why i said your argument wasn't based in reality. Wasn't a personal attack, it's just the way it is.

You mean, according to our current understanding and in our current state of existence, we are uncapable of what some might argue to be ideal levels of objectivity. See, it's possible to be objective if you use specific language. Essentially, being objective is not necessarily knowing everything, although one needs to know everything to be objective about everything. Simply stating that "my understanding, which is supported by the observations allowed by my perception, is that statement A is true..." instead of "statement A is true" is making an objective statement about one's inherently subjective conclusion.

You've mentioned before that my writing can look like poetry for lawyers. This is because I value wording more than other aspects of debate. I haven't used this against anyone, because it oft seems to be perceived as "grasping at straws", but if I interpreted every sentence in this thread strictly from the wording and punctuation, many would not make sense. It is a lawyer's game to play with the technical meaning of a sentence as opposed to the intended meaning. This is, of course, not a problem if the intended meaning and the actual (technical) meanings are the same.

Perhaps I should start arguing with what people are actually saying, instead of tickling their fancy by assuming that their statements even mean anything, syntactically speaking.

On this note, watch this.


EDIT: for Nemesis

n3M351s wrote:

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Facts are facts regardless of what site their on; the same information can be found and verified on many other sites. If you want to act like a dolt be my guest.

facts are not facts when they are lies. for example a fact about the west on an islamist website is not really going to be a fact now is it.

Look up the definition of 'fact'.
Read what you quoted me on.
Read your reply.

A fact about the West on an Islamic website it is a fact.
A lie about the West on an Islamic website it is a lie.
A fact about the West on an Islamic website it is a not lie.
A lie about the West on an Islamic website it is a not fact.
A fact on any site is a fact.
A lie on any site is a lie.
A fact is a fact otherwise it would not be a fact but a lie.

Essentially, what I believe Thriller to be saying is the following:

1. You calling something a fact does not make it a fact.
2. Because a statement about the Bible is made on a Bible website, the likelihood that it will be favourable to the Bible will be much higher.
3. The above premise implies bias, which is very subjective in nature.

Also, if you read my above argument with Thriller, you may notice that objectivity is a difficult ideal to attain and we are only capable of being objective by stating that we are subjective and conveying information as being our own perspective, at which we were only able to arrive subjectively.

"Facts" become "subjectively and popularly supported opinions". How can one prove the past if they were not there? Even if they were there, one'd have to rely on their own flawed perception, but now we rely on the preservation of others' flawed perceptions.

Thriller wrote:why do you miss the point they are not fact's because they are not true. I can say it's fact that I'm a big giant blue elephant, Do you believe that now?

Did you read those sites I pointed you too?

You can say that its a fact that you're a big giant blue elephant but that wouldn't make it a fact would it. You can't call something that's a lie a fact and in return you can't call something that's a fact a lie.

I'm not saying that if someone says somethings a fact then it is a fact. I'm saying if something IS a fact (a truth), it can be nothing other than a fact.

I thought you would be able to see that... as opposed to LiQuiD; hence my post.


Edit: For Agapooka

I understand what Thriller was trying to say but it's him that doesn't understand what I was getting at (see above). Remember we are talking about the Bible, the people that understand it the most are naturally Christians. Therefore it is generally Christians that do the research with their finding being put on their Christian orientated sites, where else would it go?

It is people such as Thriller that bring contradictions and the likes to everyone's attention. Though it seems pretty stupid to me that whenever anyone tries to answer these contradictions, with reasonably and researched explanations and references, that every non-Christian disregards everything they say. Some contradictions can be sorted out by carefully reading the Bible, the answers are there in black and white. (70 year Exile for example) Its just a matter of research. Thriller and Liquid have both disregarded information that any Linguist can prove to be correct, this because of what site its on (now that is bias if ever I've seen it).

It seems quite bizarre to me that people go out of their way to jump on the tiniest of things to try to disprove [things in] the Bible. If the rest of the Bible is historically accurate then I doubt a few contradicting points would be wrong, especially when there are reasonable explanations for them which fit perfectly into the sequence.

Its as you said: "Facts [have] become, subjectively and popularly, [the] supported opinions".

true but i dont lie about myself.