- Gman5434
- |
- Noble Heroic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
God?
Religion does not provide a sense of morality, but an obedience to authority.
Join Secular Sevens - A group for atheists, free thinkers, skeptics or theists looking for a good debate.
Posted by: TheDemonicBird O
Posted by: Gman5434
Posted by: TheDemonicBird O
You have a right to disagree but that does not stop me from understanding that all that 'evidence' is also derived from conception and perception. It does not stop me from realizing the empty nature of all things we perceive and conceive.
Applying logic to the external world will present you with a great number of evidence of specific 'facts,' but applying logic to truth will only present you with one ultimate, and that is, "there is something here and now, in this instant, objected. That is absolute. If there was not something here and now, in this instant, objected, then perception and conception would cease to exist.
I agree that the evidence we use to support our facts is based on our perception of reality. What I am saying is that it is possible that our perception of whether we exist and whether what we perceive is correct can be wrong and I support this in saying that no facts are absolute. But this doesn't imply that facts=opinions. I am only saying that facts cannot be absolute but they can be supported by so much perceived evidence that it would be perverse to deny them unless one assumed that our entire perception of reality was incorrect which in of itself makes everything pointless. I differentiate facts from opinions by saying that opinions are solely based on what we think is 'morally right or wrong' and not evidence that can be perceived.
Technically, what I have said implies that facts are equal to opinions and that facts are not equal to opinions as both concepts exist in the sphere of relatively. The actual definition of a fact is just as subjective as what it is equal to. The same applies for an opinion.
You say that facts are supported by so much perceived evidence that to deny them would be perverse. This 'fact' is truth, yes, but it is a relative truth. That means that this 'fact' may also not be true. why? It may be supported by a incredible number of evidence but there absolutely is not any reason as to why this 'fact' could not be perceived and conceived as something entirely different, so different, in fact, that is may very well be beyond our general spectrum of concepts we can fathom. Now, one might say that this unfathomable concept is just solely incorrect but whether or not that is true is just as subjective as the concept itself. What you believe is true as long as there is someone to view it as truth through logic. It is a relative truth. Subjective, as I have said. And that which is subjective cannot be objected. It cannot be absolute as in trying to define an absolute you, consequently, bring it into the sphere of relativity by subjecting it to your own perception and conception. The ultimate cannot be subjected and remain absolute.
There are such things as illusionary truths, though. Say a man believes, through his logic, that when he leaves his house he will be 'struck by lightning.' Now say this man actually does leave his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as he would define such an event. This is an illusionary truth. Through his logic he saw the 'truth' and the 'truth' did not actually agree with it. Now if this man walks out of his house and is not 'struck by lighting' as you would define such an event but is as he would define it then his 'truth' is thus a relative one. (keep in mind that the concept of being 'struck by lighting' is still subjective and can be defined as anything as long as there is an entity to define it as such. That means that if a man defines the the concept of being 'struck by lightning' as a dog tackling him and licking his face then such is truth. Relatively, of course.)
I see what you're saying and I agree with it but honestly I think we are looking far too deeply into this. For all intents and purposes of this thread one can say that facts are things that are supported by perceived evidence and opinions are based solely on people 'moral view' which cannot be right or wrong since morals cannot be defined with perceived evidence.