So I get the futility in responding to an OP that isn't posting here talking about people that aren't posting here but I'll explain my objections to this.

Leaving aside the obvious objection, how does Aron Ra know this, what is he doing to support this. Where is the supporting argument? What distinguishes the truth of 2+2+4 which presumably I can know from the absolute truth of 2+2+4 which I can't. What degree distinguishes the truth from the absolute truth?

Surely the point is we don't know anything about anything if absolute whether pertaining to truth or certainty is the standard and it is continually out of reach

This is what he's aiming at and this is presumably why the OP saw fit to post in RGT, his target isn't really all beliefs or all things we hold true his target is beliefs that can only be taken on faith. But the sophisticated theist can raise evidence in support of their beliefs, sure faith will often play a role but it is not the only factor in the theists belief. In essence he's opened the door for a radical sceptical dismissal of all claims to know in order to target a small section of beliefs and missed even those. It's a string of unsupported assertions no more interesting than any stoner philosophy and less enlightening than much of that.

It is about religion, where else would I post it?





How would someone not know this? If you are experiencing the world with your senses you are prone to error. This does not mean you are "always in error" this means you can be in error and in a way its kind of circular. We assume our senses work because our senses tell us they do. It is pointless to assume otherwise, I agree. But this is addressed at people who claim to have some level of knowledge that is not possible. 2+2=4 is not a claim about the existential world.


That is not the point. The point is we don't know everything about anything.


Well it could be attributed to anyone who has blind faith in any assertion and is unwilling to change their mind. This is not just religious faith but I posted it here because the OP is addressing religion in his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

It's barely about religion.

If you read the text provided, there is no claim specific to creationism provided, and it really has very little to do with creationism at all. It mentions "faith" but not in any way that's specific to creationism.

The quote itself is mostly just an empty ramble.

I should have posted this in the OP but this is where the quote is from.

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/3rdffoc.html

Hopefully this puts things in better context.

Have you considered the title you chose for this thread? Have you considered the arguments you've presented in this thread regarding our propensity for error? This is about not knowing anything about anything and that you don't actually recognise this when it is pointed out to you supports my belief that this is a particularly poorly thought out OP.

It would have been better, but it still isn't a great OP. Just posting a quote isn't sufficient for a good OP. Having the link doesn't really address the issue of the fact that the quote still isn't directed at religion in particular and is not particularly interesting.

Also, you posted a quote with no commentary expecting people of a specific description to step up and say something. This is very ineffective. If you post a quote with no commentary, the general idea would be that you're using this quote to open the floor to ANYONE of ANY perspective to comment on it. It's really odd that you start off posting nothing and only later to say "I was addressing only certain people." Such an intention was completely unclear.

These are things to think about when you start threads.

Lol.. Jeez you guys. Didn't mean to mess up the pretty forum you have here. I will step back and quit starting threads. Mods lock this up to prevent further pitchforking from RGT,

Go ahead and start threads. Just put a little more thought into them.

There is absolutely an antichrist, false prophet, and a just God which you can only be saved through his son Jesus. Just compare what the bible says about Israel and the end-times. Then compare it to todays latest news headlines. BTW Benjamin Netanyahu has told all Jews to return to Israel.

Can you lay out the comparison for me and tell me what you're talking about?

Don't play the victim it makes you look immature.

The thread is not great, you didn't put much thought into it nor did the person whose words formed the entirety of the OP and now you are claiming to be pitchforked because this has been pointed out to you.

If I see a thread I don't like I generally... Don't comment on the thread. I think many of the threads on the front page are pointless. Especially all the ones that have 0 responses. The first few responses in this thread agreed with OP so I think there is a discussion to be had. A discussion you don't want to be a part of but are commenting on anyway. You are being silly imo.

Where have I said I do not wish to be a part of this thread?

I have pointed out that the premise of the OP is flawed, and I have pointed out that your understanding of the philosophical points raised is lacking. I have also raised substantive disagreements with your understanding of analytic propositions and understanding of the law of non contradiction. This is not just me posting saying that the OP is poor.

My assumption based on what you and Aaron have said is this is a bad thread. Why do you want to participate in bad threads? Threads that "isn't directed at religion in particular and is not particularly interesting"

I understand your objections to the thought process of the op and I understand given the context it may have been difficult to understand who he was addressing. I assumed you guys were familiar with aron ra since this is a theology forum. With that assumption I also figured you guys were at least vaguely familiar with the "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" I agree my op could have been more clear.. So what? I have clarified the point of the OP at this point, if you still don't find the topic interesting then find something more suited for your time? lol.

I mixed up terms, yes. Both logical absolutes talked about in the thread still apply to an anaylitical proposition though. Even if saying "tom is a bachelor" is intended to be synthetic when we apply it to "tom". I am using "Tom" as an arbitrary name. There is not really a "tom" I am referring too and the only reason we know this example is "true" Is because we have concluded that the opposite is false. This is anayltical. Synthetic propositions are determined to be correct by different methods. We can not simply determine if a claim to existential reality is true by thinking really hard about it.

This is a totally different claim than a claim about "absolute certainty" (the title of this thread), "absolute truth" (from the quote in OP), which is also different from the claim that "we don’t know everything about anything."

Saying "this is a bad thread" isn't the same as "don't start any more threads." Just slow yourself down and think and all this will become clear.

Me saying a thread is bad does not mean I do not wish to contribute whether to criticise in order to improve the thread or merely to state my objections.

Now within my contributions to this thread are some take aways for you, you have a better understanding of the law of non contradiction and you should be pleased with that. You do not have a grasp yet on analytic propositions so I will endeavour to clarify further.

This is not how we mark the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.

P1 Tom is a bachelor
P2 All bachelors are unmarried
C Tom is unmarried.

This as Aaron said earlier is a syllogism*, it has two premises P1 and P2 and a conclusion C. It is valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion is true but we must identify whether P1 and P2 are true before it is cogent.

P1 is a synthetic statement that refers to Tom, if you are using Tom as an arbitrary name then it is not truth apt, there is no Tom which we can investigate to see whether he is a bachelor. It is not however an analytic statement, there is no way we can think about the premise and see that it is true. Tom does not mean bachelor.

P2 is an analytic statement, if we have the meaning of bachelor and unmarried then we know that the proposition is true, we do not need to go out and interrogate any unmarried men to see if they are bachelors, we know this without recourse to empirical inquiry.

*this is something else you may have a better grasp on because of Aaron's contribution and so to criticise us for contributing to this thread when you should have benefitted from that contribution is silly.

I know all this already? The statement is still not synthetic because "tom" doesn't exist. He is just a label I used to show that when we reach the first conclusion we can show the second to be false. The "truth" about the statement, in the sense that there is no room for error is that he can't be both. Whether he is a bachelor or married can always have some degree of error. So in this example the synthetic proposition can be wrong while the analytical truth is consistent.

Also, it doesn't feel like you guys are in this thread to educate or to engage in discourse. It feels like you're here to waive your Philosophical Knowledge around.. May be a bad read on my part but that is the vibe I get.

It seems not.

In the example above there is 1 conclusion and two premises so what conclusions do you think first and second?

What you do have is a conditional.

If Tom is a bachelor he is unmarried.

Tom here can be replaced by X right because he doesn't exist. So you have

If X is a bachelor X is unmarried.

This is the same as

P2 All bachelors are unmarried.

Now what you seem to be arguing is that we can be wrong about

P1 Tom is unmarried

Because this is a proposition about existential reality whereas we can not be wrong about

P2 All bachelors are unmarried

Because this is an analytic proposition. But this doesn't seem to stand up, if we can be deceived to the extent we are wrong about whether we have hands then we may be deceived to the extent we are wrong about the meaning of words.

You can read whatever vibe you want to read.

The only thing of value in this thread is the discussion of getting the philosophy right. The underlying quote and premise in OP are dull and uninteresting. It is either interpreted in a way that makes it trivial, or it's obviously wrong. This particular quote leaves very little room for something in between.

"Now what you seem to be arguing is that we can be wrong about

P1 Tom is unmarried

Because this is a proposition about existential reality whereas we can not be wrong about

P2 All bachelors are unmarried"

Exactly, the second argument is an argument from the mind. It is based on how we define words and use them. It can not be wrong. If I define unmarried as "tremblepots" it is still logically consistent and 100% true that "tremblepots" can not be married. But this tells us nothing about reality.

"Because this is an analytic proposition. But this doesn't seem to stand up, if we can be deceived to the extent we are wrong about whether we have hands then we may be deceived to the extent we are wrong about the meaning of words."

How so?

"The only thing of value in this thread is the discussion of getting the philosophy right. The underlying quote and premise in OP are dull and uninteresting. It is either interpreted in a way that makes it trivial, or it's obviously wrong. This particular quote leaves very little room for something in between."

I happen to like the OP. But whatever.

I'm not here to educate I am here to engage, I'm engaging now.

If you are posting philosophical arguments then people who are interested in them will engage with them. Posters who believe that you are mistaken will point it out, whether you take anything away from that or not is not really my concern but those points are available to you in any case.

Okie dokie.

You can be "logically consistent" but that doesn't mean the same thing as "100% true."