Truth "for me"

[Zhavric]

It has been recently asserted by certain members of volconvo that certain issues can be "true for certain individuals while not true for others". This is another way of suggesting that truth is subjective.

Truth is not subjective. Truth is absolute. Truth often seems subjective because individuals will change the context of an assertion.

For example, let's say at exactly 12:00 noon John Doe sets his wristwatch to say 12:30 pm. We know it's actually 12:00 noon because the sun is absolutely overhead. If we ask John "what time is it?" he'll always answer with the actual time plus thirty minutes.

Does this mean that John is miraculously living 30 minutes into the future? Does it mean we've ripped a hole in timespace? Does it mean that it's 12:30 for John and 12:00 for the rest of the world?

No.

The actual time is 12:00. John's watch says 12:30. These are two absolute statements with different context. John may think it's 12:30, but that doesn't make the actual time 12:30.

Now, what John thinks is a topic for another debate. We cannot debate "John thinks X* " because what John thinks is a matter for John and John alone / is a change of context. What we can debate is the validity of X. Thus, the following two statements are valid:

1) John believes it is 12:30pm.
2) It is not 12:30pm.

*X = (wrong) time of day

[RickSp]

Saying that a particular viewpoint is "true for me" is just another way of saying that one believes something because it feels good. It is an emotional response that explains most of religion.

[Autolykos]

Indeed, debating a proposition's validity presupposes the concept of validity in the first place. This means that the existence of an objective physical reality is already assumed to exist.

- Rob

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Autolykos Indeed, debating a proposition's validity presupposes the concept of validity in the first place. This means that the existence of an objective physical reality is already assumed to exist. - Rob

True, but that's really outside the universe of discourse of this discussion. For the op, it's assumed that time, watches, noon, etc all exist.

EDIT: Point being, arguing the wisdom of assuming a physical reality isn't a matter for this thread.

[Autolykos]

Time, watches, and noon are all part of physical reality, yes?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Autolykos Time, watches, and noon are all part of physical reality, yes?

I would agree with that.

Quote by: RickSp Saying that a particular viewpoint is "true for me" is just another way of saying that one believes something because it feels good. It is an emotional response that explains most of religion.

Interesting way of putting it.

I would offer that anything based on emotion has no absolute truth. It's all subjective.

Since there is no way to prove God physically, then God is only provable emotionally.

Since emotions are subjective based on the individual, then emotional proof and emotional truth can be individual.

The opening post is trying to apply an emotional concept to physical reality. Two different things that cannot cross.

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric EDIT: Point being, arguing the wisdom of assuming a physical reality isn't a matter for this thread.

Then why would people say that certain issues are "true for certain individuals while not true for others".

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai I would offer that anything based on emotion has no absolute truth. It's all subjective. Since there is no way to prove God physically, then God is only provable emotionally. Since emotions are subjective based on the individual, then emotional proof and emotional truth can be individual. The opening post is trying to apply an emotional concept to physical reality. Two different things that cannot cross.

I reject the concept of "emotional truth".

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto I reject the concept of "emotional truth".

... and others accept it.

Sorta illustrates the point, don't you think?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Since there is no way to prove God physically, then God is only provable emotionally.

Absolutely false. You'd do well to listen to your own writing:

...[you are] trying to apply an emotional concept to physical reality. Two different things that cannot cross.

If god cannot be proven physically, he cannot be proven. There is absolutly no way to prove god "emotionally". The tri-omni being that theists envision (allegedly) isn't an emotion.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think it illustrates that some people refuse to accept the physical world, in PERSONAL prefrence of some created, subjective mythical world, which clearly doesn't exist.

To say that a person "hears god" is to call a person insane.

To admit to "hearing god" is to admit insanity.

Why would we not apply that to religion, as we do people who see "black helicopters" which in actuality exist?

Why would we not apply that to religion, as we do people who claim of conspiracy in government?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready To say that a person "hears god" is to call a person insane. To admit to "hearing god" is to admit insanity.

Theists (the sane ones, anyway...) don't do anything so dramatic. They've simply been taught by the previous generation that good feelings they experience are "god"... which is an ingenious way to perpetuate a religion. It encourages individuals to shun actual evidence in favor of specific emotions... emotions which all humans (theists and non-theists) experience. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and simply focus on how good you feel...

[Fonceai]

Let me summarize the entire post for you, since you only quoted enough to illustrate your disagreement for others.

God cannot be proven or disproven physically.
The physical answer is "unknown"
God can be proven and disproven emotionally.
But emotions are subjective for each individual.
Therefore God is only true or false in an emotional context.
And since emotional contexts are individual...

Then each individual has a true answer regarding the existence of God.

You choose to base your emotional truth on physical evidence, but you are taking a one-sided approach and then committing the fallacy of calling it anything resembling logic. It's still emotional.

Also...

Quote by: Z The tri-omni being that theists envision (allegedly) isn't an emotion.

You keep isolating the perception of a concept to one specific representation of it. That's a fallacy in and of itself. But if it makes you feel good to say that no oak trees exist in a pine forest and then conclude that trees don't exist, that's your business. Personally, I'd drop such a limited view of something that is anything but limited.

---

But to take this away from just God, all emotional truths are like this.

Consider the truth in the following situation...

Love can be proven and disproven emotionally.
But emotions are subjective for each individual.
Therefore love is only true or false in an emotional context.
And since emotional contexts are individual...

Then each individual has a true answer regarding the existence of love for others.

You can what-if this to death if you want, but it doesn't change that emotional truths are subjective, and therefore true "for me" but not "for you".

Quote by: Z Theists (the sane ones, anyway...) don't do anything so dramatic. They've simply been taught by the previous generation that good feelings they experience are "god"... which is an ingenious way to perpetuate a religion.

Repeat after me, and I'll use small words.

Not all people who believe in God do so for the reason you just stated.

I'm definitely going to post the Special Debate now, with a poll, so I can demonstrate that your point always fails miserably.

[Osborn F Enready]

To clarify something.....

To say you believe in Santa, is harmless.
To say you believe in Unicorns, is harmless.

There is a difference between beliefs as above, and beliefs in religion.

Religion entails a begginning and an end, that affects those who believe.

Those beliefs also carry over ONTO non-believers when those who believe start making laws, and holding power.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zhavric said: Theists (the sane ones, anyway...) don't do anything so dramatic.

Is Bush a theist?
Is Baker a theist?
Is the pope a theist?

Zhavric said: They've simply been taught by the previous generation that good feelings they experience are "god"... which is an ingenious way to perpetuate a religion.

Agreed, some do that also while still claiming to talk to a god though, and believing it.

Zhavric said: It encourages individuals to shun actual evidence in favor of specific emotions... emotions which all humans (theists and non-theists) experience. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and simply focus on how good you feel...

It also gives people the idea that "at some times" it is ok to put personal belief over reality, even if it DOESN'T only affect them.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Os To say you believe in Santa, is harmless. To say you believe in Unicorns, is harmless. There is a difference between beliefs as above, and beliefs in religion.

In relation to truth, you make a great point here.

I would argue, though, that even believing in God or some other emotion truth is harmless.

Here's why (and I'm going to try to see if I can put this in words)...

All actions are perceived differently by different people.

Actions motivated by a personal truth are up for interpretation by others based solely on their own truth related to the same issue.

Take belief in Santa, for instance. A kid who believes in Santa behaves himself so he'll get presents at Christmas time. A kid whose personal truth is similar sees those actions as a good thing and agrees. A kid whose personal truth is in opposition sees those actions as stupid and disagrees.

Here's the part I want to try to write clearly...

Any time a person takes action based on a personal (emotional) truth they have crossed into the subjective realm of multiple interpretations.

Believing in a religion or God is harmless.

If you choose to act on that truth, be it praying in public before eating a meal or donating money to charity or waging war against the dark-skinned Moorish savages, your actions are going to receive just as many interpretations as there are people.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Let me summarize the entire post for you, since you only quoted enough to illustrate your disagreement for others. God cannot be proven or disproven physically. The physical answer is "unknown"

Nope. "Unknown" is not the logical default for claims like god. We know god defies the known laws of reality. We know that humans invent gods. The "physical" answer is "false until proven true".

God can be proven and disproven emotionally. But emotions are subjective for each individual.

If emotions are subjective for each person, they cannot be used to "emotionally prove god". In effect, you are asserting that individuals have the ability to convince themselves god is real. This is akin to setting a watch to 12:30 when it's 12:00. The watch may say 12:30, but that doesn't make the time 12:30.

Therefore God is only true or false in an emotional context. And since emotional contexts are individual...

... This is textbook case of delusion.

Then each individual has a true answer regarding the existence of God.

The above statement is false. Each individual may make a claim about god (which can be falsified by others) and each individual may make a claim that they believe in god (which cannot be falsified, but does not establish god's existence in any way).

You choose to base your emotional truth on physical evidence, but you are taking a one-sided approach and then committing the fallacy of calling it anything resembling logic. It's still emotional.

I've yet to see any argumentation on your part establishing the existence of "emotional truth". You're going to want to present that.

You keep isolating the perception of a concept to one specific representation of it. That's a fallacy in and of itself.

Straw man. I have pointed out that changing the context of a claim to make a new claim doesn't cause the original claim to be true. Setting your watch to 12:30 doesn't make the time 12:30 when it's actually 12:00.

But if it makes you feel good to say that no oak trees exist in a pine forest and then conclude that trees don't exist, that's your business. Personally, I'd drop such a limited view of something that is anything but limited.

Red herring. Please stay on topic.

But to take this away from just God, all emotional truths are like this. Consider the truth in the following situation... Love can be proven and disproven emotionally. But emotions are subjective for each individual. Therefore love is only true or false in an emotional context. And since emotional contexts are individual... Then each individual has a true answer regarding the existence of love for others.

If you apply this reasoning to god, then you agree that god (like love) is an emotion and not real. This is an excellent argument for an atheist to make.

You can what-if this to death if you want, but it doesn't change that emotional truths are subjective, and therefore true "for me" but not "for you".

I will not allow you to try to use your so-called "emotional truth" to sneak god into the back door of an argument.

Not all people who believe in God do so for the reason you just stated.

WHY people believe in god is outside the universe of discourse for this debate. Please stay on-topic.

I'm definitely going to post the Special Debate now, with a poll, so I can demonstrate that your point always fails miserably.

If you want to discuss something else, be my guest. I'll be happy to post back to where you proved god is an emotion / doesn't exist.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Any time a person takes action based on a personal (emotional) truth they have crossed into the subjective realm of multiple interpretations. Believing in a religion or God is harmless.

So, then you'd agree with the following statement: Establishing god as an "emotional truth" doesn't mean that god actually exists.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Establishing god as an "emotional truth" doesn't mean that god actually exists.

That's the point I've been making all along.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai ... and others accept it. Sorta illustrates the point, don't you think?

Others may accept it, but I would consider them to be in error. "Emotional truth" is worse than an oxymoron -- it is nonsense.

- Rob