Proven Western Logic VS. Flawed Eastern Logic

[In Between Man]

In response to Cliffy's "What is truth" thread, I would like to make my stand here in this thread. No one furthered the subject past the notion that truth is relative because humans have different interpretations of it, as if human emotions dictate anything. Or pointing out the flock mentality that leads some to believe whatever is put before them - things like "truth is in the eye of the beholder, what my be true for you, may not be true for me...".

Its only by using PROVEN logic that utilizes non-contradiction, the logic we all use everyday in reality, that you can answer the question "What is truth?".

It's very obvious when you take the time to think it out how self-refuting relativism is. Here is my step by step logic and reasoning to demonstrate this. To those that insist that truth is relative, and purely in the eye of the beholder, then you must(if you can) demonstrate with no contradictions your **step by step** logic that can soundly defeat this argument:

1. All truth is relative.
   1. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
2. There are no absolute truths.
   1. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
   2. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
3. What is true for you is not true for me.
   1. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
      1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
      2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
   1. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
      1. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
      2. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
         1. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
         2. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
         3. If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
   2. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
      1. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
   3. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
      1. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.

In conclusion, the truth is simply the truth. Something is either true or it isn't. To say otherwise is contradicting, self-refuting, illogical and unreasonable.

Checkmate.

 

[Cliffy]

First off you are trying to use logic to prove something that is illogical is logical. You forgot to include the next step which is: because I believe in god therefore god exists.

The belief in your god is illogical (to me and 75% of humanity). It is illogical because the bible has been proven to be nothing more than borrowed mythologies, has been reworded to suite various people over the eons, has been mistranslated and misinterpreted and yet you still have an illogical and irrational emotional attachment to it and the god who is portrayed in that work of fiction.

Your god exists in your world because you feed it energy through prayer and praise but is a phantom that feeds on the energy you feed it and would vanish the second you stopped believing in it. What you are saying that 99.9999% of the human population is wrong because they don't subscribe to the new Starbucks Evangelical movement.

That you are the only ones who know the truth. But it is only true to you and your Starbucks groupies, to everybody else it is delusional nonsense. To you what I think is delusional nonsense. Can't you see how illogical that seems to everybody else?

 

[In Between Man]

First off you are trying to use logic to prove something that is illogical is logical.

Yes, I know. If you meant its illogical then please explain why. Why can't I use logic to refute relativism?

You forgot to include the next step which is: because I believe in god therefore god exists.

So now your going to put words in my mouth? I don't subscribe to that notion. Either God exists or he doesn't. How I feel about it doesn't change anything. The truth is not dependent on my emotions.

The belief in your god is illogical (to me and 75% of humanity). It is illogical because the bible has been proven to be nothing more than borrowed mythologies,

Its been proven? By who?

has been reworded to suite various people over the eons, has been mistranslated and misinterpreted and yet you still have an illogical and irrational emotional attachment to it and the god who is portrayed in that work of fiction.

That's incorrect. Its remarkably word for word with the oldest Greek copies. That's already been determined by Greek scholars over and over.

What you are saying that 99.9999% of the human population is wrong because they don't subscribe to the new Starbucks Evangelical movement.

The Evangelical church isn't just the people in Starbucks. Its just Christianity at its core. We number more than 0.0001% of the pop.

That you are the only ones who know the truth. But it is only true to you and your Starbucks groupies, to everybody else it is delusional nonsense. To you what I think is delusional nonsense. Can't you see how illogical that seems to everybody else?

Okay, we both see each other as delusional. That still doesn't mean were BOTH right. One of us is wrong. Either the God exists or he doesn't. And I don't subscribe to God THE creation. So its either God the CREATOR, his son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit exist or they don't.

And this applies for everything else. Either Budda is way to spiritual advancement so to speak or he isn't.

And I'm still looking for a step by step argument to why truth is relative.

 

[darkbeaver]

alleywayzalwayz
The point is hat you can't "discover "truth , truth is "what is" . Discovery implies searching and searching for truth is to deny it.
Think it out ..

are you ringing Taoist bells this evening China? or whenever it was

 

[AnnaG]

Yes, I know. If you meant its illogical then please explain why. Why can't I use logic to refute relativism?



So now your going to put words in my mouth? I don't subscribe to that notion. Either God exists or he doesn't. How I feel about it doesn't change anything. The truth is not dependent on my emotions.


Its been proven? By who?



That's incorrect. Its remarkably word for word with the oldest Greek copies. That's already been determined by Greek scholars over and over.



The Evangelical church isn't just the people in Starbucks. Its just Christianity at its core. We number more than 0.0001% of the pop.



Okay, we both see each other as delusional. That still doesn't mean were BOTH right. One of us is wrong. Either the God exists or he doesn't. And I don't subscribe to God THE creation. So its either God the CREATOR, his son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit exist or they don't.

And this applies for everything else. Either Budda is way to spiritual advancement so to speak or he isn't.

And I'm still looking for a step by step argument to why truth is relative.

lol You can both be delusional, you know.

 

[In Between Man]

are you ringing Taoist bells this evening China? or whenever it was

What I don't understand in her statement is how can searching for truth deny it? What exactly does that mean and how did she reach that conclusion?

This is the problem with people who utilize Eastern philosophy. They can't think past step one. Obviously we discover truth. That's why we search for it.

 

[darkbeaver]

In response to Cliffy's "What is truth" thread, I would like to make my stand here in this thread. No one furthered the subject past the notion that truth is relative because humans have different interpretations of it, as if human emotions dictate anything. Or pointing out the flock mentality that leads some to believe whatever is put before them - things like "truth is in the eye of the beholder, what my be true for you, may not be true for me...".

Its only by using PROVEN logic that utilizes non-contradiction, the logic we all use everyday in reality, that you can answer the question "What is truth?".

It's very obvious when you take the time to think it out how self-refuting relativism is. Here is my step by step logic and reasoning to demonstrate this. To those that insist that truth is relative, and purely in the eye of the beholder, then you must(if you can) demonstrate with no contradictions your **step by step** logic that can soundly defeat this argument:

1. All truth is relative.
   1. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
2. There are no absolute truths.
   1. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
   2. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
3. What is true for you is not true for me.
   1. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
      1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
      2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
   1. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
      1. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
      2. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
         1. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
         2. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
         3. If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
   2. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
      1. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
   3. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
      1. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.

In conclusion, the truth is simply the truth. Something is either true or it isn't. To say otherwise is contradicting, self-refuting, illogical and unreasonable.

Checkmate.

None of that counts because you are stuck with human logic.

 

[AnnaG]

Thinking past the first step:

Tao Te Ching

 

[In Between Man]

lol You can both be delusional, you know.

Okay, maybe we both are. But if both of us are in the dark, then there must be light, otherwise we're not in the dark but both correct. And that can't be because we contradict each other.

And if one were to claim that were both actually are delusional, that means our judge would have to have some knowledge of what is not delusional, correct?

So what is the truth? Is there a path to God? Is there no God? Or did God put a wide open door right in front of our faces, which would be the easiest way for fallible humans to find him?

 

[darkbeaver]

What I don't understand in her statement is how can searching for truth deny it? What exactly does that mean and how did she reach that conclusion?

This is the problem with people who utilize Eastern philosophy. They can't think past step one. Obviously we discover truth. That's why we search for it.

The taoist will reccomend non contention for truth as a device to have truth find you. I believe it's a little like the observed particle becomeing something other than the observed particle because of participation by the seeker or the observer. Us discovering truth is not obvious at all, it, truth may just as easily fall out of a tree on top of you without you ever having had one single thought for it. That's the truth ain't it? That's flawed eastern nova scotia logic though, you decide for yourself.

 

[In Between Man]

None of that counts because you are stuck with human logic.

What other logic do you possess that I could borrow?

And as I asked Cliffy, why can't I use logic to refute relativism???

 

[In Between Man]

The taoist will reccomend non contention for truth as a device to have truth find you. I believe it's a little like the observed particle becomeing something other than the observed particle because of participation by the seeker or the observer.

Can you give me an example? Please clarify...

 

[AnnaG]

Okay, maybe we both are. But if both of us are in the dark, then there must be light, otherwise we're not in the dark but both correct. And that can't be because we contradict each other.

And if one were to claim that were both actually are delusional, that means our judge would have to have some knowledge of what is not delusional, correct?

So what is the truth? Is there a path to God? Is there no God? Or did God put a wide open door right in front of our faces, which would be the easiest way for fallible humans to find him?

Well, to me, truth is simply irrefutable fact. The truth is that rocks are very hard, but the actual amount of matter in them is minimal in comparison to the amount of space between the bits of matter.
Another truth would be, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
Another: leprachauns exist ........ in books. What isn't truth (irrefutable fact) is essentially guesswork to some degree or unknown.
As far as I can tell, the path to any god is the route between the believer and whatever book the believer uses to consult about his/her god.
To me, there are no such things as gods other than whatever people have imagined.
I can't say anything about whether any god uses doors or not.

 

[darkbeaver]

What other logic do you possess that I could borrow?

And as I asked Cliffy, why can't I use logic to refute relativism???

None, that's the curse of anthropocentric existence I guess. I don't think god or the universe uses human logic to conduct it's business.

 

[darkbeaver]

Can you give me an example? Please clarify...

I'll try. To actively look for truth you have to have a mugshot of that truth already in mind. Following the ten commandments for instance is supposed to prepare the way for truth to come to you. There are many methods to approach truth, science is probably the slowest in fact it will never unravel or know god one molecule at a time, but it keeps them off the streets. IMO

 

[Cliffy]

Alley,

I was not putting words in your mouth. This discussion has alwayz been about whether god exists, and whether JC and the holy spook also exist. You can watch Zietgiest or dozens of other movies and books that refute the authenticity of the bible or show the historic inaccuracies and the history of who changed what, when and why, but as long as you cling to it as truth you will talk around the evidence simply because to let go of the fallacy would leave you with the realization that you have been standing in quicksand all along.

But the quicksand is also illusion. Any belief outside yourself, that is provided by someone else either by book or by word, is false information. The truth can only be found within and only when you manage to cease being Alley, the ego, the self image, and connect directly to the all that is. As long as you think you are a separate entity from everything else you will only know illusion. As long as you are an individual you are stuck with logic that is outside reality.

To use terms that you can relate to, you must become one with god in order to know who you really are. At that point Alley will cease to exist in your awareness. In a split second you will know what it is to be everything in existence and the truth of what raelity truely is about. As soon as you become self aware, you lose that connection but you retain the knowledge you gained. You will never be the same again. You will view life from a completely different perspective and all this attempting to prove anything becomes pointless.

 

[darkbeaver]

You will die and be born anew.

 

[In Between Man]

As long as you are an individual you are stuck with logic that is outside reality.

But you do acknowledge that we have individuality right?

And if we have individuality we have free will right?

You can either reject Jesus Christ as truth or you can accept him. You don't relatively accept or reject him.

I suspect you hide behind pantheism so that you can deny that there is a choice. New age philosophy leaves everything open ended and unexplained and its a dangerous trap.

Back to what I was saying though, you, of your own free will, have rejected that Jesus is God correct?

 

[Cliffy]

But you do acknowledge that we have individuality right?

And if we have individuality we have free will right?

You can either reject Jesus Christ as truth or you can accept him. You don't relatively accept or reject him.

I suspect you hide behind pantheism so that you can deny that there is a choice. New age philosophy leaves everything open ended and unexplained and its a dangerous trap.

Back to what I was saying though, you, of your own free will, have rejected that Jesus is God correct?

All your assumptions are based on what? I am not pantheist. I have no idea where you came up with that nonsense. It is probably based on the Christian's false belief that native Americans were pantheists. The so called new age is nothing more than an old age revisited.

Based on the evidence of forty years of investigation into various religious and philosophical beliefs I came to the conclusion that the bible and most other texts were pure fabrication. I do not reject Jesus as god, I just don't believe in fairy tales. There is a difference but I'm sure you can't see that with your absolute belief in absolutes.

What is dangerous is the belief that your (anyone's) beliefs are the absolute truth. It has been that attitude that has allowed religious fanatics to kill millions of innocent people in the name of their god. To me, religion is the most dangerous weapon out there. Do you remember the battle cry from the fifties - "Kill a Commie for Christ!". You are one step away from that fanaticism. If you believe in absolute truths you can easily be manipulated by absolute despots and Christianity is full of them, particularly among the evangelical movement.

 

[In Between Man]

I do not reject Jesus as god, I just don't believe in fairy tales.

Your still trying to dodge it and its not going to work. Allow me to try it your way. If Jesus is the truth for me, and you claim he's not the truth for you, how can you at the same time claim "I do not reject Jesus as god"?