NationStates Jolt Archive

Could anyone attepmt to answer this guestion, it is, is evil a real thing. This might be a chance for people to give their thoughts on it, so feel free to.

Nope, there's just stuff people does.

well where did it come from?

There is no evil, just hate and greed

haha..well yes, but..where did it come from, it must of started like everything else?

Depends how you define "evil". If you define it as "human actions that cause more harm than good", then of course. If you're talking about some kind of intangible property that some people possess and others don't, then I doubt it.

haha..well yes, but..where did it come from, it must of started like everything else?
Not if it doesn't exist, it musn't have.

Well, if evil is not real then neither is it's antithesis so good would not be real either. :rolleyes:

Evil is just a word the Church made up to scare people into submission.

Not really. He was played by Mike Myers.

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/qwantz-%20This%20is%20how%20the%20evil%20shall%20be%20punished%20in%20hell.PNG

There has always been hate and greed. The term evil is just a term they use to rationalize such human actions that would be considered "evil"

Evil is subjective.

Nope. Good and Evil are a social construct.

well what about God? did he make evil?

There is no good either. "Good" is just another way to rationalize human actions. Just like evil.

wait wait, no good and evil, so does that mean theres not right and wrong?

yes evil is real, but it is simply a by product of sin. becasue of sin we have all evil, sickness, hate, greed, pain, ect.

Evil does not exist except in the minds of its victims. Likewise, good does not exist except in the minds of those who are envious of it. Evil and good are social constructs, imperfect ideals created by a society which is unable to accept the fact that some things are inexplicable. Our world feels the need to label everything, so it creates fallacious divisions and applies names like evil to some and names like good to others. Evil comes from the minds of those who feel the need to categorize unrelated events which they falsely perceive as somehow connected.

I'm going to side-track from the post name
"is evil real" and switch it to "Is There Absolute Truth?"

wait wait, no good and evil, so does that mean theres not right and wrong?

Well, we create what is right and wrong, so no is doesnt.

And then there are things which are stupid, which you could objectively label as wrong, but leaving those out.

wait wait, no good and evil, so does that mean theres not right and wrong?
Just like good and evil, right and wrong exist merely as pathetic attempts to explain the sources of human emotion. They are mutable concepts defined by their time and place in history.

Waht is right or wrong are based on a persons own views. I think killing is wrong, the killer may think it's right.

I'll let you in on something.


There is no such thing as Evil, Evil is just the absence of God!

I'll let you in on something.


There is no such thing as Evil, Evil is just the absence of God!

So this is where the thread is going, oh...:headbang:

I'm going to side-track from the post name
"is evil real" and switch it to "Is There Absolute Truth?"
There is no absolute truth, although there is the perception of absolute truth. Truth is what people perceive it to be, and we all have our own perceptions and interpretations of the truth.

"Evil is just Live spelled backwards".

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Well, I suppose my question has been answered, if accidentally. That is how you define "evil". In which case, it must exist, since there is an absense of God - he doesn't exist.

There is no absolute truth, although there is the perception of absolute truth. Truth is what people perceive it to be, and we all have our own perceptions and interpretations of the truth.


One relpy...Are you Absolutly sure?

I'll let you in on something.


There is no such thing as Evil, Evil is just the absence of God!
Actually, the absence of God is a good thing. Ignorance of that absence causes more harm.

One relpy...Are you Absolutly sure?
Me? Yes, I am absolutely sure of my perception of the natureof truth. Doesn'tr mean it holds true for you, but it is my truth.

I think there is no truly evil person or being but I do belive there are evil thoughts, actions, words, ect and even some evil personalties and minds.

They are the darker impulses of the human brain.

well what about God? did he make evil?
Naw, there's just stuff God does.

Actually, the absence of God is a good thing. Ignorance of that absence causes more harm.


So the Absence of God is good. So evil is good? pain, suffering, death, murder are good?

I think there is no truly evil person or being but I do belive there are evil thoughts, actions, words, ect and even some evil personalties and minds.
What is a person but a personality? How can there be evil personalities but no evil people?

So the Absence of God is good. So evil is good? pain, suffering, death, murder are good?

He means that there is no God. And people who don't realise it cause harm.

Me? Yes, I am absolutely sure of my perception of the natureof truth. Doesn'tr mean it holds true for you, but it is my truth.


Your truth stands for nothing, The question was, is there truth?

So the Absence of God is good. So evil is good? pain, suffering, death, murder are good?
The absence of God is not death and murder. The absence of God is the beginning of a sense of responsibilty for one's own future and actions. God is a copout.

There are no evil people. Just people who think certain people are evil. I believe Hitler was evil. Some people mat say he's not.

So the Absence of God is good. So evil is good? pain, suffering, death, murder are good?

In the name of God or no?

The absence of God is not death and murder. The absence of God is the beginning of a sense of responsibilty for one's own future and actions. God is a copout.
To put a finer point on it, Egrev, "Faith" - faith with a capital "F" - is a cop-out.

Your truth stands for nothing, The question was, is there truth?
Truth for one is falsehood for another. Truth is only a perceptual reality. In the absence of someone to believe in it, it does not exist.

I hate it when people use God to justify their actions.

He means that there is no God. And people who don't realise it cause harm.
Thank you.

"Evil is just Live spelled backwards".

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Does that mean living backwards is evil? If I die first and end with being born I am evil?

The absence of God is not death and murder. The absence of God is the beginning of a sense of responsibilty for one's own future and actions. God is a copout.

The Absence of God is not death and murder and pain? What about the Fall, you can't be saying that all that came with the world?

To put a finer point on it, Egrev, "Faith" - faith with a capital "F" - is a cop-out.
That is true, but God is only Faith spelled with fewer letters. Both happen only behind closed eyes.

Does that mean living backwards is evil? If I die first and end with being born I am evil?
.ybab ,ti wonk ouY

Does that mean living backwards is evil? If I die first and end with being born I am evil?

No, but you'll be on an episode of Seinfeld. ;)

God is evil.

Yes, there is evil. And I spend most of my time talking with some fat old dude in the sky whose name has no vowels in it. Pass me that bong, 'k?

I hate it when people use God to justify their actions.

True dat

The Absence of God is not death and murder and pain? What about the Fall, you can't be saying that all that came with the world?
I exist without God. I have not died nor murdered. And note that the first four letters of Fallacy spell Fall. It is a nice myth, but no more than that.

.ybab ,ti wonk ouY
.ym hO

God is evil.


explain?

God is evil.
Neither of them exist.

I'm not gonna go as far to agree that God is evil.

I'm not gonna go as far to agree that God is evil.

Unlike some people..

That is true, but God is only Faith spelled with fewer letters. Both happen only behind closed eyes.
That depends on the concept of God you subscribe to. It's not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation, after all.

I, for example, happily believe in God, but I am precluded from copping out. See, as far as my God is concerned, Faith is the only true Sin. The only way to approach my God is to hold Doubt dear to your heart.

Good and Evil does not exist in any way,shape, or form. What does exist is our human nature and basic instinct. Breeding,fighting,killing,greed,lust,and especially hatred is all in our nature. This is a cruel truth but it is one that we should accept.

We human beings are terrible,terrible creatures...and I for one am proud of that.

I'm not gonna go as far to agree that God is evil.
The belief in God is evil, as much as anything is. It's passing the buck and failing to live for oneself and to take the credit and/or blame for the things we do of which we are proud/ashamed. That is as close to real evil as there is.

Neither of them exist.
I agree. Want to go get lunch or something?

Good and Evil does not exist in any way,shape, or form. What does exist is our human nature and basic instinct. Breeding,fighting,killing,greed,lust,and especially hatred is all in our nature. This is a cruel truth but it is one that we should accept.

We human beings are terrible,terrible creatures...and I for one am proud of that.
AMEN

I don't live my life by the Bible. I don't go to church musch, I sometimes eat meat on Fridays.

AMEN

STFU...

lol..jk

Love, compassion, humor are part of human nature as well. We're not ALL that bad.

I agree. Want to go get lunch or something?
mmm, lunch.

The Absence of God is not death and murder and pain? What about the Fall, you can't be saying that all that came with the world?
The absence of God is everything. Happiness, tragedy, war, peace, pain, pleasure, death, life, the physical and aphysical worlds. Everyone can and does live without God, without the world descending into anarchy.

KCX 2:44 And then the LORD saith unto Czardas, "Thou shalt go down into the world, for I must depart it now," 45and Czardas saith unto the LORD, "Fare thee well," and he descendeth unto the earth, and there he buildeth the largest dope farm in the universe, and he saw that it was good; 46and the LORD ascendeth unto the heavens, wherein he departeth the universe in a fit of spite; 47and unto this day the LORD has never returned to the world, for everything stemmed from the works of Man. 48And the Dei'a'i'koukou seeeth that the world flourisheth in the absence of the LORD, and They saw that it was good.
-- From the Lost Book of the Bible, Vol. I

Good and Evil does not exist in any way,shape, or form. What does exist is our human nature and basic instinct. Breeding,fighting,killing,greed,lust,and especially hatred is all in our nature. This is a cruel truth but it is one that we should accept.

We human beings are terrible,terrible creatures...and I for one am proud of that.

I'm not proud of the excessive killing. I think we should fuck more often.

Could anyone attepmt to answer this guestion, it is, is evil a real thing. This might be a chance for people to give their thoughts on it, so feel free to.
Depends on what you mean by 'real'.

I don't live my life by the Bible. I don't go to church musch, I sometimes eat meat on Fridays.


Eating meat on fridays, where does that come from in the bible?.

Also, doing these things/not doing them, has it made you life any better?
has it done anything to benefit you and people around you?

Love, compassion, humor are part of human nature as well. We're not ALL that bad.
Do u mean "not all of us are that bad", or that "all of us are not that bad"? Different things.

I don't live my life by the Bible. I don't go to church musch, I sometimes eat meat on Fridays.
Church musch sounds nasty *nod*

And that's lent, not a rule.

Good and Evil does not exist in any way,shape, or form. What does exist is our human nature and basic instinct. Breeding,fighting,killing,greed,lust,and especially hatred is all in our nature. This is a cruel truth but it is one that we should accept.

We human beings are terrible,terrible creatures...and I for one am proud of that.
Amen.

Want to go out on yet another suicide bombing spree? I'll get the C4, you bring the nitroglycerine.

mmm, lunch.
Great, where shall we go?

Every human being has to capacity for all. We can hate, we can love.

Amen.

Want to go out on yet another suicide bombing spree? I'll get the C4, you bring the nitroglycerine.
WOW...someone's a little bit intense!

So the Absence of God is good. So evil is good? pain, suffering, death, murder are good?
The absence of God is not evil - that's a bloody stupid answer to the problem of evil. Evil is not simply a lack of good. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm - a good online version of the problem of evil. I wish I had my Philosophy of Religion book home with me...) Defining evil as a privation doesn't mean that evil goes away. Call evil something different, and it's still there, just called lack-of-good...

(Of course, I'm assuming that God is good - that's because it's usually assumed in the argument (also that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.) Doesn't mean he is, just means we set up a baseline for the argument.)

EDIT: This page increased three pages while I was posting this. I may have missed something...

WOW...someone's a little bit intense!

Guys, we need more love. I'll get the lube.

Great, where shall we go?
Lots of Sikh temples have a free buffet 24/7, but it's often vegetarian, which is lame.:D

Depends on what you mean by 'real'.


Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

I'm not proud of the excessive killing. I think we should fuck more often.


Dont get the wrong idea about me. I think we should fuck more often as well :fluffle:

Dont get the wrong idea about me. I think we should fuck more often as well :fluffle:

Awww :fluffle:

The absence of God is not evil - that's a bloody stupid answer to the problem of evil. Evil is not simply a lack of good. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm - a good online version of the problem of evil. I wish I had my Philosophy of Religion book home with me...) Defining evil as a privation doesn't mean that evil goes away. Call evil something different, and it's still there, just called lack-of-good...

(Of course, I'm assuming that God is good - that's because it's usually assumed in the argument (also that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.) Doesn't mean he is, just means we set up a baseline for the argument.)

EDIT: This page increased three pages while I was posting this. I may have missed something...
Philosophy of religion......AARRGGHHHH! Been there. What's your take on the Riddle of Epicuris?

Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
Is love real?

WOW...someone's a little bit intense!
Meh... I'm a hopeless sarcast.

Dont get the wrong idea about me. I think we should fuck more often as well :fluffle:
But violently! ;)

Awww :fluffle:
Is this gonna be a group thing?

Guys, we need more love. I'll get the lube.
Mmmm baby!

Lots of Sikh temples have a free buffet 24/7, but it's often vegetarian, which is lame.:D
We could go to Denny's, but.. I'm in the mood for Cracker Barrel. It's up to you.

Is love real?
U really in Edmonton?
And love is like good and evil and right and wrong and truth. It exists inside of us. In the absence of one's perception and belief, it fails to continue. No emotions truly exist except inside of us, and What's love, but a second-hand emotion?

Mmmm baby!

Oh fuck you. I meant it as an expletive, dammit. :D

Anyways :fluffle:

Is this gonna be a group thing?

Maybe...:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

We could go to Denny's, but.. I'm in the mood for Cracker Barrel. It's up to you.
Cracker Barrel has the best country gravy. Yum. But Denny's does have smily pancakes! I am Nowhere near a Cracker Barrel. *sniffle*

Never heard it called that before (though I may have missed that lecture or missed that bit), but I have read it before.

It's not exactly water-tight. Able but not willing does not imply malevolent, merely non-omnibenevolent (I think this describes the Abrahamic God.) And neither willing nor able doesn't imply non-God - especially if you're talking God as first cause rather than God as Biblical God.

Free Will Defence? What's your position on that?

U really in Edmonton?
And love is like good and evil and right and wrong and truth. It exists inside of us. In the absence of one's perception and belief, it fails to continue. No emotions truly exist except inside of us, and What's love, but a second-hand emotion?
Yes.

I wasn't talking about the emotion of being in love, but love itself --the thing that poets wax poetic about, and musicians have sung about since time immemorial.

(immemorial - cool word, eh?)

Never heard it called that before (though I may have missed that lecture or missed that bit), but I have read it before.

It's not exactly water-tight. Able but not willing does not imply malevolent, merely non-omnibenevolent (I think this describes the Abrahamic God.) And neither willing nor able doesn't imply non-God - especially if you're talking God as first cause rather than God as Biblical God.

Free Will Defence? What's your position on that?
LOL....missing lectures is fun. Free will is not evidence of God, it's another plea to the lack of reason. He made it so we could exist and operate without him, in order to prove that we need him. That's the free will PoV, right? Didn't do great in the class. Bayesianism is too frustrating.

Oh fuck you. I meant it as an expletive, dammit. :D

Anyways :fluffle:
:fluffle:

Oh yeah, forgot this:
Dunno about elsewhere, but in Ireland it's still common for the more religious folk not to eat meat on a Friday (such as my girlfriend's mum). It was compulsory up until relatively recently - 60's I think (although pregnant women and the like were excluded, I believe). Hell, my mum used to mostly give us fish on a Friday, and she was very young when it was changed.
I think Lent was more sever - you used to have to fast on a Friday. I think this just meant no snacks and nothing but water between your three meals, although I think there was something about only eating bread and drinking water on those days. Not entirely sure...

Really doesn't fit in with the thought of dinner, does it? Any chance we can go somewhere they have ribs?

Cracker Barrel has the best country gravy. Yum. But Denny's does have smily pancakes! I am Nowhere near a Cracker Barrel. *sniffle*
Ahh the humanity.

I think that this is confusing because of the language being used. Evil and good are adjectives and all adjectives are relative. For example, we could also argue about whether short or tall exists, too. Is someone who is six foot three tall or is that person just different because that person would be short compared to someone who is seven foot six. This is unfair to people who say that evil does not exist. We should use nouns instead. On another note absolute truth does exist. To say that there is no absolute truth is a truth in itself and thus contradictory.

Yes.

I wasn't talking about the emotion of being in love, but love itself --the thing that poets wax poetic about, and musicians have sung about since time immemorial.

(immemorial - cool word, eh?)
Immemorial looks funny but sounds cool. I think that poets (and I kind of am one) are all out to lunch. They see as extant everywhere things that are not real, and they make up what they don't see but wish they could. No, love does not exist as some cosmic force.
I'm in Edmonton too. U watching the Oilers? What's the score?

God did create evil, because there has to be an equal balance of everything, even good and evil.

If one individual dies, so they are no longer able to feel love, does love die? If all of humanity dies, does love die with it? If all life-forms everywhere die, does love itself die?

The belief in God is evil, as much as anything is. It's passing the buck and failing to live for oneself and to take the credit and/or blame for the things we do of which we are proud/ashamed. That is as close to real evil as there is.

For the most part I agree with Egrev's statements, however, saying that merely having a belief is evil, that's just silly. I believe I am responsible for my own actions. I also believe in a god... sort of... but that is neither here nor there. Some people believe all of our actions are just realistic simulations created by the Matrix (seriously! :D Google it!). If you use a religion, or non-religion... or a cult... as a positive role model for your life, then said belief is good... subjectively.... However, I agree passing the buck to anyone else for your actions, good or bad, that's pretty close to being evil.

:rolleyes:

I think that this is confusing because of the language being used. Evil and good are adjectives and all adjectives are relative. For example, we could also argue about whether short or tall exists, too. Is someone who is six foot three tall or is that person just different because that person would be short compared to someone who is seven foot six. This is unfair to people who say that evil does not exist. We should use nouns instead. On another note absolute truth does exist. To say that there is no absolute truth is a truth in itself and thus contradictory.
To say that there is no absolute truth is not a truth...it is a statement of my perception of the truth. You must love Schroedinger, if you're going to make arguments like that. Evil, as a noun, does not exist. If it does, define it for me.

Emotions are weak

:fluffle: :sniper:

I'm in Edmonton too. U watching the Oilers? What's the score?
I'm not watching. I root for the Habs. ;)

LOL....missing lectures is fun. Free will is not evidence of God, it's another plea to the lack of reason. He made it so we could exist and operate without him, in order to prove that we need him. That's the free will PoV, right? Didn't do great in the class. Bayesianism is too frustrating.
Mine was just a first year survey course - nine lectures, and that's it. One of my favourite parts of the year, that, political philosophy, and philosophy of mind. (At least in philosophy.)
I don't think the free will defence is about proving that we need God, just a way of explaining evil. I think it works fine for explaining human actions (I don't see a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God as incompatible with human-caused evil) but it falls down at natural evil like volcanos and the like.
Haven't touched Bayesianism yet - first year ended yesterday (although I didn't go. Bloody boring history of philosophy classes, why bother going when you can just read their books?)

God did create evil, because there has to be an equal balance of everything, even good and evil.
Who said there has to be a balance in all things? If that were the case, explain population growth, deforestation, desertification, ozone depletion, child poverty in Africa, and why there are so many unfunny sitcoms on TV?

I'm not watching. I root for the Habs. ;)
YYAAAAAYYYYYYY I thought I was the only one in this frigging town!!

Mine was just a first year survey course - nine lectures, and that's it. One of my favourite parts of the year, that, political philosophy, and philosophy of mind. (At least in philosophy.)
I don't think the free will defence is about proving that we need God, just a way of explaining evil. I think it works fine for explaining human actions (I don't see a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God as incompatible with human-caused evil) but it falls down at natural evil like volcanos and the like.
Haven't touched Bayesianism yet - first year ended yesterday (although I didn't go. Bloody boring history of philosophy classes, why bother going when you can just read their books?)
Mine was a 2nd year PHIL/REL class. ended last week. Spent most of the year on Bayesianism, and I still only half get it. Google it, and have a laugh. Politics and Economics is my thing.

Emotions are weak

:fluffle: :sniper:
No. Only the inability to overcome emotions is weak. Emotions can be a very useful tool in self-motivation.

No. Only the inability to overcome emotions is weak. Emotions can be a very useful tool in self-motivation.
Why do they need to be overcome as a show of strenth, then?

To say that there is no absolute truth is not a truth...it is a statement of my perception of the truth. You must love Schroedinger, if you're going to make arguments like that. Evil, as a noun, does not exist. If it does, define it for me.

If you are a person who agrees with the statement "there is no absolute truth" is not a truth but merely a perception of the truth than by default what your saying is that you don't if there is absolute truth or not because all you have are perceptions. While evil does not exist as a noun, its synonym wickedness does. To be wicked is to act against one's inherent impulse to love.

Emotions are weak
Incorrect. Emotions are harmful and dangerous to the human's reasoning ability. The inability to overcome emotions is weakness; the truly strong feel nothing and act on pure reason.

Evil comes from the Devil.

If you are a person who agrees with the statement "there is no absolute truth" is not a truth but merely a perception of the truth than by default what your saying is that you don't if there is absolute truth or not because all you have are perceptions. While evil does not exist as a noun, its synonym wickedness does. To be wicked is to act against one's inherent impulse to love.
Absolute Truth would be true for everybody. It would be accepted and acknowledged as true by all. I do not acknowledge it, therefore it is not universal and absolute, therefore it does not exist. There are few absolutes. It is a very dangerous word.
What if one has no inherent impulse to love, can they perform acts of wickedness?

Who said there has to be a balance in all things? If that were the case, explain population growth, deforestation, desertification, ozone depletion, child poverty in Africa, and why there are so many unfunny sitcoms on TV?
-if a population expands exponentially, it will either balance w/ the world around it, or suffer a population crash from starvation, disease, etc.
-deforestation follows exponential growth... in reverse
-earth originally had no ozone... then it gained some... now it's losing again cycles=balance
-child povertypoverty proves my take on exponential growth to be true
-can't tackle the last problem...
I believe in an overall balance- doesn't mean no changes, doesn't mean there won't be problems... but our Earth has lived for 4.5 billion years- are we so stupid as to think we can end it... and if we do, then how will we get the chace to destroy the Martians?
:confused:

Why do they need to be overcome as a show of strenth, then?
Emotions need not always be overcome, and never merely as a show of strength. There are, however, times when one must overcome one's emotions to do what they intellectually know must be done. Failure to do so in that case is weakness.

I still maintain steadfastly that there's just stuff people does.

Evil comes from the Devil.
From whence came the Devil?

Evil comes from the Devil.

Evil comes from Weevil

Wait, what was the point again?

No. Only the inability to overcome emotions is weak. Emotions can be a very useful tool in self-motivation.
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!!

Mine was a 2nd year PHIL/REL class. ended last week. Spent most of the year on Bayesianism, and I still only half get it. Google it, and have a laugh. Politics and Economics is my thing.
Bayesianism is something to do with philsophy of mathematics and probability calculus and the like, yeah?

Absolute Truth would be true for everybody. It would be accepted and acknowledged as true by all. I do not acknowledge it, therefore it is not universal and absolute, therefore it does not exist. There are few absolutes. It is a very dangerous word.
What if one has no inherent impulse to love, can they perform acts of wickedness?

Absolute truth would apply to everybody and can be understood by everybody, but that doesn't mean that they have to acknowledge it. Sometimes the truth hurts so people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. For example despite all the evidence for evolution some people still believe in creationism. AND Please give me an example of someone who has no impulse to love or be loved. Babies that are not loved die.

Evil comes from Weevil

Wait, what was the point again?
That's just 'cause he's rEVILed in some old book.

Evil comes from the Devil.
Evil comes from [COLOR="Red"]ELVI[/COLOR="Red"]S...

-if a population expands exponentially, it will either balance w/ the world around it, or suffer a population crash from starvation, disease, etc.
-deforestation follows exponential growth... in reverse
-earth originally had no ozone... then it gained some... now it's losing again cycles=balance
-child povertypoverty proves my take on exponential growth to be true
-can't tackle the last problem...
I believe in an overall balance- doesn't mean no changes, doesn't mean there won't be problems... but our Earth has lived for 4.5 billion years- are we so stupid as to think we can end it... and if we do, then how will we get the chace to destroy the Martians?
:confused:
That's a VERY long-run view to balance....there once was nothing, there will eventually once again be nothing. I guess in those terms, yes, there is balance. But balance does not require good/evil, god/devil, or love/hate. None of those things have any effect on your long-run equilibrium.

Evil comes from [COLOR="Red"]ELVI[COLOR="Red"]S...
OH MY GOD ELVIS WAS THE DEVIL!!!!!:eek:

That's just 'cause he's rEVILed in some old book.

Are you saying Neville Chamberlain was a bad guy?

Absolute Truth would be true for everybody. It would be accepted and acknowledged as true by all. I do not acknowledge it, therefore it is not universal and absolute, therefore it does not exist. There are few absolutes. It is a very dangerous word.
Is that true?

That's a VERY long-run view to balance....there once was nothing, there will eventually once again be nothing. I guess in those terms, yes, there is balance. But balance does not require good/evil, god/devil, or love/hate. None of those things have any effect on your long-run equilibrium.
bingo. btb, nice political freedoms.

Absolute truth would apply to everybody and can be understood by everybody, but that doesn't mean that they have to acknowledge it. Sometimes the truth hurts so people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. For example despite all the evidence for evolution some people still believe in creationism. AND Please give me an example of someone who has no impulse to love or be loved. Babies that are not loved die.
Please tell me how one could understand what they did not acknowledge. And by the way, most of the evidence for evolution, at least Darwinian evolution, has been refuted with a large amount of success. There are many people with no capacity to love any but themselves. Extreme Narcissism. Babies that are not FED die. Babies that are not loved grow up to be serial killers.

Is that true?
Is what true? That absolute is a dangerous word? Or that there are very few absolutes? Both are true.

bingo. btb, nice political freedoms.
What's wrong with my political freedoms?

All generalizations are false. :cool:

Is what true? That absolute is a dangerous word? Or that there are very few absolutes? Both are true.
Is "Absolute Truth would be true for everybody" true?

Is "Absolute Truth would be true for everybody" true?
Absolutely. How else would it be Absolute? What would you define as Absolute Truth, except as something that were true for everybody?

Is "Absolute Truth would be true for everybody" true?
No size fits all.

Just sayin'.

Bayesianism is something to do with philsophy of mathematics and probability calculus and the like, yeah?
Yeah, and it SUCKS!!!

Your nation doesn't have any political freedoms, Egrev. Now just destroy the civil rights.

Absolutely. How else would it be Absolute? What would you define as Absolute Truth, except as something that were true for everybody?
So it is true for everybody, then? So why do you not acknowledge absolute truth (as you said earlier that you didn't)?

All generalizations are false. :cool:
groan:headbang:

Your nation doesn't have any political freedoms, Egrev. Now just destroy the civil rights.
Fully intend to

No size fits all.

Just sayin'.
hmmm... if "no size fits all", fits all situations, then it doesn't... but then it could have exceptions, and then... :headbang:
nevermind.

So it is true for everybody, then? So why do you not acknowledge absolute truth (as you said earlier that you didn't)?
I do not acknowledge Absolute Truth because I do not believe there is anything that is true to everybody everywhere all the time.

I do not acknowledge Absolute Truth because I do not believe there is anything that is true to everybody everywhere all the time.
Not even the fact that "absolute truth is true for everybody everywhere all the time"?

Not even the fact that "absolute truth is true for everybody everywhere all the time"?
I do not believe that evrybody everywhere all the time woukld recognize that fact, no. Nice try though.

I do not believe that evrybody everywhere all the time woukld recognize that fact, no. Nice try though.
Ahhh... then it's not true?

Ahhh... then it's not true?
It's not Absolutely True. Nothing is.

It's not Absolutely True. Nothing is.
So... what other kind of true is it?

must, you try?! Egrev wins. give it up.

So... what other kind of true is it?
It is true to me.

must, you try?! Egrev wins. give it up.
lol...it's not about winning or losing, it's about how many people you convince along the way!

How about "Absolute truth, if it exists, would be absolutely true for everyone all the time."
Is that an absolute truth?

must, you try?! Egrev wins. give it up.
Ahh, but what he wins is illusory. So does Egrev really win?

:p

It is true to me.
Okay, let's recap. The fact that Absolute Truth has to be agreed upon by everyone to be absolute is true to you.

I'm okay with that.

it is my relative truth that he does (win, that is)

How about "Absolute truth, if it exists, would be absolutely true for everyone all the time."
Is that an absolute truth?
No, because not everyone would agree that it were true.

How about "Absolute truth, if it exists, would be absolutely true for everyone all the time."
Is that an absolute truth?
How about, "Absolute Truth, were it to exist, would be absolutely true for all people, at all times, throughout all points in Time and Space"?






















(Except that's patently absurd)

Ahh, but what he wins is illusory. So does Egrev really win?
I have won the satisfaction of the words "Egrev wins" and that is all I require

or would they?

No, because not everyone would agree that it were true.
Ok then, how about "Absolute truth, if it exists, would be absolutely true"?

Is it true that things can be true regardless of us knowing them?

[QUOTE=Dobbsworld]How about, "Absolute Truth, were it to exist, would be absolutely true for all people, at all times, throughout all points in Time and Space"?

Nope. Not everyone would agree.

Is it true that things can be true regardless of us knowing them?
42.

Is it true that things can be true regardless of us knowing them?
No. Truth is a perception. Without knowledge, there is no perception.

evil exists otherwise i would be abble to get my hands on that nuke ive had my eye on for SUCH A LONG TIME!

No. Truth is a perception. Without knowledge, there is no perception.
Unless you believe in absolute truth, in which case things CAN be true without our knowing it.

No. Truth is a perception. Without knowledge, there is no perception.
So if there was a world where other life existed, it wouldn't true that there is a world where other life existed until we knew about it?

Ok then, how about "Absolute truth, if it exists, would be absolutely true"?
that's very tautological. 4 is more than 3 because 3 is less than 4. You'll have to do better.

There is no good or evil, only choices.

Philosophically, I believe it was Socrates who said that, "what is true, is true, and will always be true." 2+2 = 4

there is a difference between evil, and stupidity. don't bother talking if you can't understand that (in response to a certain individual in search of a nuke)

So if there was a world where other life existed, it wouldn't true that there is a world where other life existed until we knew about it?
That existence depends not upon our ideas of truth for its existence. It exists unperceived. It is not true to us, which does not mean it is not there.

Unless you believe in absolute truth, in which case things CAN be true without our knowing it.
Please define Absolute Truth for me then. I have been proceeding upon the definition of it as what is true always for everyone everywhere. If we do not know something, we have no perception of it. Without perception, there can be no truth.

that's very tautological. 4 is more than 3 because 3 is less than 4. You'll have to do better.
Just because it's tautological means it can't be an absolute truth?

That existence depends not upon our ideas of truth for its existence. It exists unperceived. It is not true to us, which does not mean it is not there.
So our hypothetical world that exist has an existence that is true even though we do not perceive it?

(/me is a fan of Socrates)

there is a difference between evil, and stupidity. don't bother talking if you can't understand that (in response to a certain individual in search of a nuke)
Thank you so much, Sithz

ack. this is way deep. btb, wasn't this originally about evil, not truth?
... not that I really care...

From whence came the Devil?
Which came first? The Deviled eggs or the rooster?

Please define Absolute Truth for me then. I have been proceeding upon the definition of it as what is true always for everyone everywhere. If we do not know something, we have no perception of it. Without perception, there can be no truth.
Truth is absolute. Things are either true or they are false.

Just because it's tautological means it can't be an absolute truth?
It means you can't prove Absolute Truth by saying if it were real, it would be absolutely true. Besides which, NOT EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE EVERYWHEN WOULD ACCEPT ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Sorry, but I am getting tired of having to type that. Until there appears a better definition of Absolute Truth, it does not exist.

Thank you so much, Sithz
Nonono, Thank You!

That's just 'cause he's rEVILed in some old book.
We have a winner!! You may select from any prize on the lower shelf. :D

Please define Absolute Truth for me then. I have been proceeding upon the definition of it as what is true always for everyone everywhere. If we do not know something, we have no perception of it. Without perception, there can be no truth.
Pretty much the same. I'm assuming that if you believe in absolute truth, things that are absolutely true are true even if you don't know them. I think that was what it was defined as. (I'm pretty sure I did this/read about this at some point this year. Possibly philosophy of mind? No idea, I remember very little.)

So our hypothetical world that exist has an existence that is true even though we do not perceive it?

(/me is a fan of Socrates)
Socrates is good. Plato outshone his teacher, though. It exists if it exists. That existence is NOT true to us, nor does it depend upon us

Truth is absolute. Things are either true or they are false.
Nope, or there would never be disagreement. Truth is relative.

It exists if it exists. That existence is NOT true to us, nor does it depend upon us
So, there is a truth that is not dependent upon our perception of truth.

Well... here's a bit of wisdom from St. Augustine... I haven't bothered to read the thread cause I'm in the preparation to head out to a party...

But evil is just a deprivation of good. Like coldness is a lack of heat.

=)

Which came first? The Deviled eggs or the rooster?

It would be the eggs. Since roosters don't lay eggs.

Speaking of eggs -

Where will the eggs be served? In the city or the village?

ack. this is way deep. btb, wasn't this originally about evil, not truth?
... not that I really care...
Yeah originally we were on evil, but we got sidetracked into truth. Too many philosophy students on here :)

Nope, or there would never be disagreement. Truth is relative.
Truth subjectively perceived is relative. Everything subjectively perceived is relative.

"to me" = subjectively perceived

There is more than one perspective.

So, there is a truth that is not dependent upon our perception of truth.
No, there is an existence which is not dependent upon our perception of truth. Existence and truth are not the same.

No, there is an existence which is not dependent upon our perception of truth. Existence and truth are not the same.
But then that existence is not true?

It means you can't prove Absolute Truth by saying if it were real, it would be absolutely true. Besides which, NOT EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE EVERYWHEN WOULD ACCEPT ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Sorry, but I am getting tired of having to type that. Until there appears a better definition of Absolute Truth, it does not exist.
The only people who say that a tautology is not true are those who are answering irrationally or are wilfully answering incorrectly. I assumed that truth would be rational...
Ok, if you don't want to take that one, how about "Something exists"? That one, as far as I can tell, is true for everyone everywhere everywhen everyhow.

Truth subjectively perceived is relative. Everything subjectively perceived is relative.

"to me" = subjectively perceived

There is more than one perspective.
Are you conceding, then, that truth depends upon perception?

But then that existence is not true?
It is neither true nor false. It merely is.

Well... here's a bit of wisdom from St. Augustine... I haven't bothered to read the thread cause I'm in the preparation to head out to a party...

But evil is just a deprivation of good. Like coldness is a lack of heat.

=)
wow. we covered this, like, 3 pages back...

Are you conceding, then, that truth depends upon perception?
No, I'm making my point that truth subjectively percieved is not the same as the object "truth".

Are you conceding, then, that truth depends upon perception?
I see him only conceding subjective truth - after all, absolute truth does not preclude the existence of subjective truth. (An analogy being the Forms and objects.)
EDIT: As he said just a smidgin before me...

It is neither true nor false. It merely is.
So, there's a third state apart from things being true or false? What is it?

But then that existence is not true?
it is true to those within that plane of existence...

The only people who say that a tautology is not true are those who are answering irrationally or are wilfully answering incorrectly. I assumed that truth would be rational...
Ok, if you don't want to take that one, how about "Something exists"? That one, as far as I can tell, is true for everyone everywhere everywhen everyhow.
There are people with severe mental incapacity who are not capable of making even that realization, or who wilfully believe otherwise due to mental or emotional instability.
I never said your tautology were wrong, just that it was inadequate as proof of Absolute Truth. At least that's what I intended to say....I have several streams of argument going on in my head here.

Are you conceding, then, that truth depends upon perception?

Erm, no. It's true that all bachelors are unmarried men irrespective of whether anyone perceives all bachelors or not.

it is true to those within that plane of existence...
So, if we discover 100 years down the road this new and marvelous inhabited planet, is it untrue now that it exists?

There are people with severe mental incapacity who are not capable of making even that realization, or who wilfully believe otherwise due to mental or emotional instability.
I never said your tautology were wrong, just that it was inadequate as proof of Absolute Truth. At least that's what I intended to say....I have several streams of argument going on in my head here.
roses are red,
violets are blue,
I have Split Personality Disorder,
And so do I.

There are people with severe mental incapacity who are not capable of making even that realization, or who wilfully believe otherwise due to mental or emotional instability.
I never said your tautology were wrong, just that it was inadequate as proof of Absolute Truth. At least that's what I intended to say....I have several streams of argument going on in my head here.
Can they be considered rational?
I think it is. But even so, what about the one "Something exists"?

Erm, no. It's true that all bachelors are unmarried men irrespective of whether anyone perceives all bachelors or not.
gay couples (male). some view, on their own accord, both to be bachelors, but I assure you, many gay couples would disagree.

Erm, no. It's true that all bachelors are unmarried men irrespective of whether anyone perceives all bachelors or not.
That's defintional truth, not Absolute Truth. It's also always true that far is farther than near, but that is what we have imposed upon those words. Not a very good argument.

At a galactic scale yes but at a human scale no, it is just a mere perception of morales.

Can they be considered rational?
I think it is. But even so, what about the one "Something exists"?
so it exists. so WHAT. George Washington would not, in all likelyhood, consider my future existence to be a truth. But I am here... I think.

Can they be considered rational?
I think it is. But even so, what about the one "Something exists"?
"SomethingExists" is not recognizable by all. People in a vegetative state are still people, and they perceive nothing (That we can demonstrably prove) so they would not see that something exists, thererfore, not even that is an Absolue Truth (hereafter referred to simplay as AT)

At a galactic scale yes but at a human scale no, it is just a mere perception of morales.
Hunh?:confused:

Hunh?:confused:
Evo Morales, professional boxer. ;)

"SomethingExists" is not recognizable by all. People in a vegetative state are still people, and they perceive nothing (That we can demonstrably prove) so they would not see that something exists, thererfore, not even that is an Absolue Truth (hereafter referred to simplay as AT)
earlier you quoth something about persons just being physical personalities. people in vegetative states hardly have personalities... if at all.

Truth depends upon perception. Osama bin Laden's truth is vastly different from Dick Cheney's....or at least it is slightly different. Without knowledge or awareness, there is no perception. Without knowledge or awareness, there is no truth. There may be things which exist outside of our awareness, but their existence does not make them true to us.

The perception of truth is not truth, any more than the idea of a thing is that thing.

I must run. Have a good weekend.

Evo Morales, professional boxer. ;)
- and EVO WINS!

earlier you quoth something about persons just being physical personalities. people in vegetative states hardly have personalities... if at all.
OUCH. That hurts. Give me a minute here, I'm staggering under the weight of arguing with so many people at once.

The perception of truth is not truth, any more than the idea of a thing is that thing.

I must run. Have a good weekend.
You have a good weekend too. But truth exists only in our minds.

It would be the eggs. Since roosters don't lay eggs.

Speaking of eggs -

Where will the eggs be served? In the city or the village?
Yeah, but you can't have eggs without a rooster. :eek:

Yeah, but you can't have eggs without a rooster. :eek:
...Umm, actually CH...

OUCH. That hurts. Give me a minute here, I'm staggering under the weight of arguing with so many people at once.
oh, deal with it baby. I'll cover your arguments for a while if need be.

"SomethingExists" is not recognizable by all. People in a vegetative state are still people, and they perceive nothing (That we can demonstrably prove) so they would not see that something exists, thererfore, not even that is an Absolue Truth (hereafter referred to simplay as AT)
But are they rational?
Also, just because people in a vegetative state are unable to perceive anything does not mean that they do not believe that something exists - there is still some neural activity up until brain-death, and it is possible that they may think.

I'm guessing from your opposition to absolute truth that you don't believe in Forms/universals either?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
The perception of truth is not truth, any more than the idea of a thing is that thing.

I must run. Have a good weekend.

You have a good weekend too. But truth exists only in our minds.-Egrev

Good is also only in our minds, remember?

"Something Exists." This is true for you and I, and all the people we know. There are people who suffer from severe mental disability or personality disorders who are incapable of acknowledging that something exists. They are not vegetative, they have personalities and are therefore "people" but they make no distinct acknowledgement of the fact that something exists. Therefore, even that statement is not AT.

*yawn*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
The perception of truth is not truth, any more than the idea of a thing is that thing.

I must run. Have a good weekend.

You have a good weekend too. But truth exists only in our minds.-Egrev

Good is also only in our minds, remember?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

AT? please define for our less intellectual readers... like me...

But are they rational?
Also, just because people in a vegetative state are unable to perceive anything does not mean that they do not believe that something exists - there is still some neural activity up until brain-death, and it is possible that they may think.

I'm guessing from your opposition to absolute truth that you don't believe in Forms/universals either?
I haven't made up my mind on all the Forms. I'm still reading. I know that sounds paradoxical, given the current argument, but I'm OK with that.

AT? please define for our less intellectual readers... like me...
AT. Absolute Truth. I said a while back I was tired of typing it out.

But they're not rational, are they?
(I have a good argument that I need to try and bring over from the problem of universals - not sure how I would do this. It is pretty much water-tight if it can be applied here - the Russell Paradox I think - recursion of relationships in universals. I did an essay on the bloody things last week, now I'm gonna be thinking about em AGAIN!)

But they're not rational, are they?
(I have a good argument that I need to try and bring over from the problem of universals - not sure how I would do this. It is pretty much water-tight if it can be applied here - the Russell Paradox I think - recursion of relationships in universals. I did an essay on the bloody things last week, now I'm gonna be thinking about em AGAIN!)
What is the relevance of rationality to truth?

ahhhh... are we really still on ABSOLUTE TRUTH?!!!:sniper:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Russell Paradox.

"The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A.


What's it got to do with this?

That's defintional truth, not Absolute Truth. It's also always true that far is farther than near, but that is what we have imposed upon those words. Not a very good argument.

1) And what is it that makes it not a very good argument? The mere fact that we define bachelors as being unmarried men does not detract from the fact that it is always true that unmarried men are bachelors, nor does it detract from the fact that we can infer such absolute truth independent of experience. Either explain how it fails and operationalize your definition of "Absolute Truth", or admit you're engaging in a No True Scotsman argument.

2) If you really don't like definitional truths, then try this one on for size: the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. That isn't a definitional truth, as we define a triangle by the number of sides it has, and only later inferred from the nature of a three-sided object that the sum of the interior angles must be 180 degrees. It is also the case that I've never observed a triangle in my life, as if Einstein's general relativity theory is correct, all I've ever seen is curvalinear contours drawn over a four-dimensional space-time surface. Nevertheless, it's still always true that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle always, always add up to 180 degrees.

ahhhh... are we really still on ABSOLUTE TRUTH?!!!:sniper:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
What would you rather move on to?

1) And what is it that makes it not a very good argument? The mere fact that we define bachelors as being unmarried men does not detract from the fact that it is always true that unmarried men are bachelors, nor does it detract from the fact that we can infer such absolute truth independent of experience. Either explain how it fails and operationalize your definition of "Absolute Truth", or admit you're engaging in a No True Scotsman argument.

2) If you really don't like definitional truths, then try this one on for size: the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. That isn't a definitional truth, as we define a triangle by the number of sides it has, and only later inferred from the nature of a three-sided object that the sum of the interior angles must be 180 degrees. It is also the case that I've never observed a triangle in my life, as if Einstein's general relativity theory is correct, all I've ever seen is curvalinear contours drawn over a four-dimensional space-time surface. Nevertheless, it's still always true that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle always, always add up to 180 degrees.
only in eucladian geometry... now try spherical

What is the relevance of rationality to truth?
All philosophy is based on rational thought, yeah? If it is (and I think it is) then only the opinions of rational beings count for absolute truth.
I'm going to abandon that line of reasoning now, though, because I think it's probably something that we may never agree on, and try to work out how to get Russell's Paradox to apply. Wish I had my books at home with me...

What is the relevance of rationality to truth?

Rationality provides the "standard viewing conditions" necessary to define what truth is.

What would you rather move on to?
oh, no, truth is fine, AT I just consider to be covered. besides which, I have to go now anyway... so have a... a... dang it! I already killed that farewell.
*!* that's it! Fare thee well, one and all. (I realize that well is subjective... so shoot me.)

1) And what is it that makes it not a very good argument? The mere fact that we define bachelors as being unmarried men does not detract from the fact that it is always true that unmarried men are bachelors, nor does it detract from the fact that we can infer such absolute truth independent of experience. Either explain how it fails and operationalize your definition of "Absolute Truth", or admit you're engaging in a No True Scotsman argument.

2) If you really don't like definitional truths, then try this one on for size: the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. That isn't a definitional truth, as we define a triangle by the number of sides it has, and only later inferred from the nature of a three-sided object that the sum of the interior angles must be 180 degrees. It is also the case that I've never observed a triangle in my life, as if Einstein's general relativity theory is correct, all I've ever seen is curvalinear contours drawn over a four-dimensional space-time surface. Nevertheless, it's still always true that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle always, always add up to 180 degrees.


#1) We define unmarried men as bachelors. Not everyone everywhere and everywhen does. 4000 years ago, they would not have agreed with your defintion of the word "bachelor" as they had no such word. Go back further in time, before the institution of marriage, and your thesis falls apart even more. Because the truth of your defintion in malleable, it is not absolute.

#2)Not everyone everywhere everywhen is aware of this fact, therefore it is not absolutely true. Refer back to earlier contentions that truth is dependent upon perceptions, and an unperceived reality may ber reality but is not necessarily truth. Truth, reality, and existence are NOT THE SAME THING!

Follow along or stay out of it.

only in eucladian geometry... now try spherical
well done. And enjoy your weekend

Rationality provides the "standard viewing conditions" necessary to define what truth is.
To define truth, yes, but not to be affected by it or to affect it.

will do.

All philosophy is based on rational thought, yeah? If it is (and I think it is) then only the opinions of rational beings count for absolute truth.
I'm going to abandon that line of reasoning now, though, because I think it's probably something that we may never agree on, and try to work out how to get Russell's Paradox to apply. Wish I had my books at home with me...
Really? Only the opinions of rational people count for AT? That's more elitist than I would have expected from you. Even so, do you think that Thomas Aquinas and I would agree on what constitutes AT? How about Adolph Hitler? Or Idi Amin? Or Charles Manson? Are they not rational? What about Plato? What about my poli sci professors? Even only accounting for "rational" people, you need to define rational for me.

I fear I am going to have to leave and prepare supper. But I will be back here tomorrow to check on this, so if you can put forth more argument, keep it coming. I'm willing to take it up again ASAP. This is fun. Have a good evening everybody.

#1) We define unmarried men as bachelors. Not everyone everywhere and everywhen does. 4000 years ago, they would not have agreed with your defintion of the word "bachelor" as they had no such word. Go back further in time, before the institution of marriage, and your thesis falls apart even more. Because the truth of your defintion in malleable, it is not absolute.

#2)Not everyone everywhere everywhen is aware of this fact, therefore it is not absolutely true. Refer back to earlier contentions that truth is dependent upon perceptions, and an unperceived reality may ber reality but is not necessarily truth. Truth, reality, and existence are NOT THE SAME THING!

Follow along or stay out of it.

Allright, to recap our argument:

Your claim: All truth is grounded in subjective experience.
My claim: No it isn't, because of a counterexample involving definitional truth.
Your claim: Definitional Truth doesn't count.
My claim: First, why the hell not? Second, there are universal truths that don't depend upon definitional claims.
Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!

My summation of your argument: You are begging the question.

Is it your honest contention, for instance, that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton derived the mathematical formulation for it?

Or for that matter, if I percieve you as being a dumbass, does that make you dumbass?