What a waste of time. These two videos have too much wrong with them to list in one post. This guys logic is very backwards and doesn't see how all his answers are in complete paradox with himself.
I assume you think "Truth" is something that is universal and objective, so what's the universal, objective truth about the statement: "I've been sitting still for three minutes now"?
Is that statement objectively and universally true?
Well certainly the relativistic nature of this question (and all questions) must be apparent, so no; it's only relatively true for my frame of reference.
@TheObservationDeck My question was meant to elucidate the fact that applied truth is a function of circumstance; it's not categorical.
Something is contingently True in relation to an object of reference. There are of course tautological truths which one might argue are categorical, but those are not "truths" are much as they are redundancies.
Yes truth, in relation to everything i just said, is "relative".
I suppose you're trying to ask the question in relation to nothing though aren't you?
Too bad you know nothing about philosophy, cuz if u did, you'd realize how fallacious and manipulative your statements are. There's nothing self-refuting about a "secular" or "atheistic" worldview. However, your Christian alternative fails to even approach the standard of rationality that you're judging other beliefs on.
@TheObservationDeck Furthermore, my question was the example. It's more of a dialectic example whereby i'm attempting to show through a dialogue how the answer must invariably be "yes, truth (in this sense) is relative".
Of course, another more pertinent question to ask you first would be "What do you define as 'objective'?"
I would love to hear both your definition, and your take on whether my statement "i have been sitting still for 3 minutes" is objectively true, or only relatively true.
By objective truth I mean something is universally true for all people everywhere at all times. For example, it is objectively true that in North America there is one Wednesday in every seven day circulation. Or, humans need air and water to survive. These things are always true regardless of people's opinions and perspectives. Would you consider the above examples not truths but redundancies? If so, what do you mean by redundancies and how are they not truths?
@TheObservationDeck Well i'm glad you clearly defined 'objective' so we can at least be on the same page there, but i'm disappointed you didn't address whether you thought the statement "i have been sitting still for 3 minutes" is objectively true or not.
As for the examples you gave, i would say they ARE redundant because their truth is derived from their definition. In other words, needing air and water is contained within the definition of what it is to be human, and the same for "wednesday"
@TheObservationDeck What is at stake here are, to be more specific and clear, contingent proposition. In other words, proposition that have the possibility of being true or false depending on what we observe about them. For example, my statement "i've been sitting still for 3 minutes". That's not necessarily true (tautologically true) as in the case of wednesday occuring once a week. Wednesday is by definition a single day of the week, so it's not contingent on observation. See the difference?
Hmmm.. I didn't respond to your "sitting still for 3 min." example because I wasn't there to observe the truthfulness of it. What does "sitting still" actually entail? Does it mean your lungs and heart need also to be still for the 3 min.?
@TheObservationDeck "What does "sitting still" actually entail? Does it mean your lungs and heart need also to be still for the 3 min.?"
Now you're starting to ask the right questions.
And furthermore, sitting "still" in relation to what frame of reference?
The earth, after all, is whizzing through space, and so is our solar system and so on. In Relativity, it's not even clear who is doing the moving and who is not, not to mention the speed of that movement makes "3 minutes" itself relative
@Wittgensteinism As far as redundant truths, you say, needing air and water is contained within the def of being human. So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative (it's cold in this room). If it is a redundant truth that humans need air/water to survive due to the def of what it is to be human then cannot one change the def of what it is to be human whimsically and thus make the statement "all humans need air/water" not objectively true?
@TheObservationDeck "So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative"
Exactly. Truth as a function of subjective perception. We cannot, after all, be conscious of anything outside our own consciousness--- that would entail a contradiction.
What we can say is that words, sentences, match/mirror what is being experienced, given the correct set of definitions.
The definitions are relative, the experience is relative, and so is the Truth of it all
We agree on many things. But one thing I'm still struggling with concerning your "everything is relative" philosophy is the question I asked earlier which I will state again in different words.
Is it only relatively true that humans need air and water to live?
This seems more like an effort to frustrate people instead of having a simple discussion.
Is it really necessary to set reasonable expectations on reality and set definitions on what is truth, fact, and opinion before talking with another human being?
@robtbo It depends on what you mean. Both parties have to believe certain things about reality before communication is possible yes. Do you have to challenge a person's worldview in order to have a discussion? No. That's why this video is about apologetics, not any run of the mill conversation.
@cowboy4ev2 Personally, when I have a religious discussion with a religious person, I understand I'm speaking with a person of faith, who likely accepts miracles, etc. I can usually get to common ground and share thoughts.
If someone does NOT have an understanding of the difference in thought, it would be more forthcoming and honest to explain how faith allows you to accept concepts differently.
If the other participant can't acknowledge, there's no value in the discussion for either party.
What a waste of time. These two videos have too much wrong with them to list in one post. This guys logic is very backwards and doesn't see how all his answers are in complete paradox with himself.
ChaseParkison 4 weeks ago
I don't need water or air to live. "A man doesn't live on bread alone but on every word that's issued forth from the mouth of god."
iliveasif 1 month ago
I assume you think "Truth" is something that is universal and objective, so what's the universal, objective truth about the statement: "I've been sitting still for three minutes now"?
Is that statement objectively and universally true?
Well certainly the relativistic nature of this question (and all questions) must be apparent, so no; it's only relatively true for my frame of reference.
Wittgensteinism 9 months ago
@Wittgensteinism
Are you saying that all "truth" is relative?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck My question was meant to elucidate the fact that applied truth is a function of circumstance; it's not categorical.
Something is contingently True in relation to an object of reference. There are of course tautological truths which one might argue are categorical, but those are not "truths" are much as they are redundancies.
Yes truth, in relation to everything i just said, is "relative".
I suppose you're trying to ask the question in relation to nothing though aren't you?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
Too bad you know nothing about philosophy, cuz if u did, you'd realize how fallacious and manipulative your statements are. There's nothing self-refuting about a "secular" or "atheistic" worldview. However, your Christian alternative fails to even approach the standard of rationality that you're judging other beliefs on.
Wittgensteinism 9 months ago
@Wittgensteinism
I see assertions but do you have any examples to justify them?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck Furthermore, my question was the example. It's more of a dialectic example whereby i'm attempting to show through a dialogue how the answer must invariably be "yes, truth (in this sense) is relative".
Of course, another more pertinent question to ask you first would be "What do you define as 'objective'?"
I would love to hear both your definition, and your take on whether my statement "i have been sitting still for 3 minutes" is objectively true, or only relatively true.
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism
By objective truth I mean something is universally true for all people everywhere at all times. For example, it is objectively true that in North America there is one Wednesday in every seven day circulation. Or, humans need air and water to survive. These things are always true regardless of people's opinions and perspectives. Would you consider the above examples not truths but redundancies? If so, what do you mean by redundancies and how are they not truths?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck Well i'm glad you clearly defined 'objective' so we can at least be on the same page there, but i'm disappointed you didn't address whether you thought the statement "i have been sitting still for 3 minutes" is objectively true or not.
As for the examples you gave, i would say they ARE redundant because their truth is derived from their definition. In other words, needing air and water is contained within the definition of what it is to be human, and the same for "wednesday"
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck What is at stake here are, to be more specific and clear, contingent proposition. In other words, proposition that have the possibility of being true or false depending on what we observe about them. For example, my statement "i've been sitting still for 3 minutes". That's not necessarily true (tautologically true) as in the case of wednesday occuring once a week. Wednesday is by definition a single day of the week, so it's not contingent on observation. See the difference?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism
Hmmm.. I didn't respond to your "sitting still for 3 min." example because I wasn't there to observe the truthfulness of it. What does "sitting still" actually entail? Does it mean your lungs and heart need also to be still for the 3 min.?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheObservationDeck "What does "sitting still" actually entail? Does it mean your lungs and heart need also to be still for the 3 min.?"
Now you're starting to ask the right questions.
And furthermore, sitting "still" in relation to what frame of reference?
The earth, after all, is whizzing through space, and so is our solar system and so on. In Relativity, it's not even clear who is doing the moving and who is not, not to mention the speed of that movement makes "3 minutes" itself relative
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism As far as redundant truths, you say, needing air and water is contained within the def of being human. So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative (it's cold in this room). If it is a redundant truth that humans need air/water to survive due to the def of what it is to be human then cannot one change the def of what it is to be human whimsically and thus make the statement "all humans need air/water" not objectively true?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck "So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative"
Exactly. Truth as a function of subjective perception. We cannot, after all, be conscious of anything outside our own consciousness--- that would entail a contradiction.
What we can say is that words, sentences, match/mirror what is being experienced, given the correct set of definitions.
The definitions are relative, the experience is relative, and so is the Truth of it all
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism
We agree on many things. But one thing I'm still struggling with concerning your "everything is relative" philosophy is the question I asked earlier which I will state again in different words.
Is it only relatively true that humans need air and water to live?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
This seems more like an effort to frustrate people instead of having a simple discussion.
Is it really necessary to set reasonable expectations on reality and set definitions on what is truth, fact, and opinion before talking with another human being?
robtbo 1 year ago 2
@robtbo It depends on what you mean. Both parties have to believe certain things about reality before communication is possible yes. Do you have to challenge a person's worldview in order to have a discussion? No. That's why this video is about apologetics, not any run of the mill conversation.
cowboy4ev2 1 year ago
@cowboy4ev2 Personally, when I have a religious discussion with a religious person, I understand I'm speaking with a person of faith, who likely accepts miracles, etc. I can usually get to common ground and share thoughts.
If someone does NOT have an understanding of the difference in thought, it would be more forthcoming and honest to explain how faith allows you to accept concepts differently.
If the other participant can't acknowledge, there's no value in the discussion for either party.
robtbo 1 year ago