frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do We Create Our Own Truths?

Debate Information


The idea that “everyone creates his or her own truth” is laughable. We do create something, all right, but it is not truth. It is beliefs and ideas that we accept as true but that could easily be false.  What, then, is the most reasonable view of truth? The truth about something is what is so about it—the facts in their exact arrangement and proportions. Our beliefs and assertions are true when they correspond to that reality and false when they do not.

Truth is apprehended by discovery, a process that favors the curious and the diligent. Truth does not depend on our acknowledgment of it, nor is it in any way altered by our ignorance or transformed by our wishful thinking.
ZeusAres42
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold

    I agree with you that truth is truth, and it is very much objective. However, it gets a little more complex because, while the physical world surrounding us is objective (at least until you get down to the atomic level), human beings are very much subjective creatures. What this means in real terms is that they find it very difficult, if not impossible, to interpret objective information objectively. The human mind usually views it through a lens of personal bias and assertion. 
    theinfectedmasterDee
  • @JulesKorngold
    What is truth? If I say that "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement, who are you to say that  "No, that is wrong, 1 + 1 = 2."? What we view as the 'truth' is nothing more than our arbitrary and subjective creation of logic and our view of 'reality'. Every truth and every 'reality' is man-made and derived from arbitrary axioms, such as logic and observation.
    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    What is truth? If I say that "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement, who are you to say that  "No, that is wrong, 1 + 1 = 2."? What we view as the 'truth' is nothing more than our arbitrary and subjective creation of logic and our view of 'reality'. 

    I don't think I can agree with this. It's true that the language we use to express mathematical ideas is our own creation, but the ideas themselves can be demonstrated to be objectively true. If I have an apple, and I add another apple, at no place or time in the history of Earth will that leave me with three apples.

    DeeZeusAres42
  • @Nomenclature Someone could think that pears grow out of the sky, and that it's true. You can prove to someone that it is false, but it's hard to convince everyone.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster
    Someone could think that pears grow out of the sky, and that it's true.

    Sure, they could think it's true. But it wouldn't be true. 


  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 18

                                     Do We Create Our Own Truths?


    No we don't , we misinterpret evidence and facts so we end up  with our interpretations  of what we claim are truths , our distortions are never truths if they don't correspond with the facts.
    Nomenclature
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 18
    @MineSubCraftStarved


    What is truth? If I say that "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement, who are you to say that  "No, that is wrong, 1 + 1 = 2."? What we view as the 'truth' is nothing more than our arbitrary and subjective creation of logic and our view of 'reality'. Every truth and every 'reality' is man-made and derived from arbitrary axioms, such as logic and

    if I say that "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement,

    You would be right as such a statement depends entirely on the relationship of the ideas it contains and is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis


    Yes but logic and observation have proved to be very effective at reaching truths. You seem to be embracing radical scepticism which while it's fun to contemplate,the world couldn't function if we all adapted such an approach 


    David Humes philosophical views on radical scepticisim are superbly put forward  yet even he  knew no one actually who  lived the life of the radical sceptic as such is virtually impossible 








    MineSubCraftStarvedZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster

     Someone could think that pears grow out of the sky, and that it's true. You can prove to someone that it is false, but it's hard to convince everyone.

    So what? Why would you even bother? Billions are deluded enough to believe in a god and a devil engaged in a daily battle of good and evil yet in every other aspect of their lives question everything.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    Well I reckon what would happen if some dufis came up to you and kick you hard in the doolies then you will know all about the truth and you cant make something up like it didn't happen. Any way I agree with all the stuff you wrote but that last sentence was girlie stuff so you shouldn't go copy and pasting stuff like that any way because every one notices it.
    ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    Truth is not something created, but something discovered. Truth is a fundamental relation between an entity and reality, and while the entity itself may be a product of human mind, the relation between it and reality is hard determined.

    When I say that it is true that not every human is a woman, I do not create anything: I make an observation based on the available evidence. If I instead said that every human is a woman (I use the classic definition of the word here; sadly, nowadays it has to be clarified), then reality will hit me in the face if I try to live my life as if it was true - say, I would naturally consider myself a woman and, wanting biological children, try to find a way to get pregnant, and end up wasting a lot of time and, likely, damaging my body and mind in a multitude of ways.

    Truth is something to be discovered, found. Considering something to be true that in reality is not creates discrepancy between one's model of the world and the world itself, and while sometimes that discrepancy can be relatively small and inconsequential, it always introduces certain instability that has a potential to cause one to make mistakes and have to pay the price.

    That is not to say that there is no utility to so-called "metaphorical truths", when one believes something to be true that technically is not, yet that belief has a positive psychological effect on them and, in the long run, is expected to be overall beneficial. The classic example is the rule according to which every gun is to be presumed to be loaded: logically it does not make a lot of sense, but in practice it allows one to handle guns safely and to avoid the small probability of getting it wrong and paying the ultimate price in certain cases.
    However, "metaphorical truths" should still be treated differently from "hard truths". If I have good reasons to believe that the gun on this table is not loaded and someone offers a bet according to which, if it is not loaded, I win $100,000, otherwise nothing happens, then I should absolutely take the bet, and operating on the presumption of the "metaphorical truth" holding would cost me massively.

    Lastly, what we can create is beliefs, that is practical assumptions that something is true while realizing that it might not be. I do not know for sure if the girl I am dating is deeply into me, but if the evidence suggests that she very well might be, then the assumption that she is is reasonable, and I might as well treat it as if it was true - without betting everything I have on it. If someone does a brain scan of her and knows for sure whether she is deeply into me and then offers me a bet according to which if my assumption is right, I get $100,000, and if it is wrong, I have my arm amputated, then it would be unwise for me to take the bet. I do not know with what probability my assumption is true, and I assume that that probability is high - but it is not 100%, and the small probability of having to bear an infinite cost makes the mathematical expectation of accepting this bet strongly negative, if not infinitely negative (I assuming that I place an infinite value on my life, which I am not sure I do).
    NomenclatureZeusAres42
  • Why Are Fractions Not Natural Numbers? - FAQS Clear
    : the real facts about something : the things that are true
    The truth Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

     "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement. It may be true; it is never the whole truth. Something happens = 1, then a response takes place to what has happened = 1 + 1. When 1 was experienced as harmful in some any way then 1 + 1 = 3 It is an irrational sum.


  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    Truth is not something created, but something discovered.
    Hello May:

    A simple truth about the truth. 

    excon
  • @Nomenclature
    I don't think I can agree with this. It's true that the language we use to express mathematical ideas is our own creation, but the ideas themselves can be demonstrated to be objectively true. If I have an apple, and I add another apple, at no place or time in the history of Earth will that leave me with three apples?
    Whether or not you say there are two, three apples or even four apples is purely subjective. If I say there are three apples, rather than two, this is an extension of the belief(and nothing more) that there are in fact three apples, rather simply two. While you may believe that there are two apples, and I may contest there are three, there is no way to determine who is more right.

    Why? Because all systems of truth in this world can ultimately be broken down into a belief of an axiom. Take for instance the statement, "I believe in god." This statement is just as valid and just as logical as the statement, "When I place one pear next to two other pears, I have three pears." This is because both of them are based on belief, and nothing more. The first statement is admittance to faith in god, while the second statement is the belief that 1 + 2 always equals 3. While you can argue that the second statement is based on logic, logic also serves as a fundamental axiom as it is only grounded in belief, and nothing else.

    While I do in reality believe that 1 + 1 = 2 is a true statement. I think it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that I ultimately base that statement on belief, and nothing else, similar to how I may say that I do, or don't believe in god.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    Whether or not you say there are two, three apples or even four apples is purely subjective.

    No it isn't. The words represent objective rules about reality. As I previously explained, the language used to express those rules may have regional variations, but the rules themselves never change. 

    If I say there are three apples, rather than two, this is an extension of the belief

    It isn't a belief that you have two apples. It's an objective reality that you have two apples. 

    While you may believe that there are two apples, and I may contest there are three, there is no way to determine who is more right.

    I'm unsure if you're legitimately mad or just playing at it, but either way we can simply count them. I could ask a million people how many apples I have and they would all agree I have two apples.

    Why? Because all systems of truth in this world can ultimately be broken down into a belief of an axiom.

    Your belief that axioms cannot be true is as silly as it is wrong.

    Take for instance the statement, "I believe in god." 

    No, let's not take the statement, "I believe in God", because that statement has no relationship to the universal, objective laws of math.

    This statement is just as valid and just as logical as the statement, "When I place one pear next to two other pears, I have three pears."

    Number one, no it isn't. Number two, logic and truth are not the same thing. 

    This is because both of them are based on belief, and nothing more.

    You are writing total, unadulterated rubbish. It appears as though you have taken a very wrong turn somewhere in a philosophy class, and have failed spectacularly to grasp the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic (such as math and tautology) is self-evidently true. Inductive logic is based on belief. 

    I would politely suggest you go back to your philosophy class and request they teach you properly, to bulwark you against making such ridiculous comments in the future. 





    MineSubCraftStarved
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 22
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    Regards my counter to your assertions you gave it an informative, can you provide a response as to whether you agree of disagree with my counter? If you disagree can you say why please?
  • @Dee
    You would be right as such a statement depends entirely on the relationship of the ideas it contains and is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis


    Yes but logic and observation have proved to be very effective at reaching truths. You seem to be embracing radical scepticism which while it's fun to contemplate,the world couldn't function if we all adapted such an approach 


    David Humes philosophical views on radical scepticisim are superbly put forward  yet even he  knew no one actually who  lived the life of the radical sceptic as such is virtually impossible 
    I'm not saying that it's possible to live well whilst rejecting basic logic, reasoning, and observation. But I personally think it's interesting to discuss to what extent belief has on our current world and sciences. Similarly, I think that any belief would ultimately come from some axiom, some irrational belief, be it belief in god, logic, or anything really. For that reason, a belief in logic is just as valid as a belief in god as they are both equally irrational. So in reality, saying "I believe 1 + 1 = 2," is just as valid and true a statement as "I believe in God."
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 22
    @MineSubCraftStarved
     So in reality, saying "I believe 1 + 1 = 2," is just as valid and true a statement as "I believe in God."

    I've already explained to you that this is not true. There is little point in debating any issue if people are unprepared to change their minds.

    You keep referring to "logic" in the general sense, but logic can be partitioned into deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic is derived from a priori reasoning (i.e. self-evident truth), while inductive logic is derived from a posteriori reasoning (i.e. empiricism). Your first statement comes from deductive logic, while your second statement hasn't been derived from logic at all. It's simply a statement of belief, analogous to "I believe in unicorns". There is no requirement for your second statement to be logically true. It could simply be false (i.e. you might not believe in God). In deductive logic, statements are required to be self-evidently true, either mathematically or linguistically. A linguistic example might be: "The ball is green or the ball is not green." 

    Hume's problem of induction, which appears to be the roundabout argument you are trying to express, is a problem of inductive logic. It's a problem of the past not being able to predict the future with any degree of certainty. Hence, if I am a scientist who measures a physical value today, there is no guarantee it will have the same value if I measure it tomorrow. Since math is an abstract system of reasoning it isn't affected by this problem, because it exists outside of the physical world.

    ZeusAres42Dee
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    m not saying that it's possible to live well whilst rejecting basic logic, reasoning, and observation. But I personally think it's interesting to discuss to what extent belief has on our current world and sciences

    Well belief drives people in different directions because they act on what they believe is true

    . Similarly, I think that any belief would ultimately come from some axiom, some irrational belief, be it belief in god, logic, or anything really. 

    Right 


    For that reason, a belief in logic is just as valid as a belief in god as they are both equally irrational

    That's simply not true and quiet a leap you're making 

    So in reality, saying "I believe 1 + 1 = 2," is just as valid and true a statement as "I believe in God."

    Well I'm afraid and no offence  intended but how much thought have you given this?

    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis

    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?

    I believe you will now attempt to take the position of the radical sceptic which leads to absurdities
  • @Dee
    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?
    LOL you asked.....Pi is a expression which cannot ever be a solution in any equation expedted to produce a sum, product, power, and interger meaning simply there is no equal signed, plus, minus, divission, or multiplication to be placed and 1  + 1 =  2 is rewritte as a alternative language ixo 

    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis
    The grievance is that all triangles are 180 degrees not that they have three sides which is in truth trying to say they all have three lines equal to 180 degrees....

    Pi it’s self a 4000 years old contradiction of human intelligence as it cannot be used in any translation of language which expects a sum, product, power, and integer. Again you superficially expect to hold GOD as a religion in litigation tactics and not hold GOD as level of intelligence understanding a limitation on the number of people who must engage in risk to defend.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Pi is a expression which cannot ever be a solution in any equation

    It's the solution to c/d.


  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    LOL you asked.....Pi is a expression which cannot ever be a solution

    No I didn't ask , the voices you hear in your head are not in actual fact emanating from me 
  • @Nomenclature

    It's the solution to c/d.

    Not according to the wikipidia link you gave to me.............
    Pi - Wikipedia
  • @Dee
    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so   " how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity  ( ? ) "
    The punctuation inbetween the parentheses Dee is a question mark.
  • "The number π appears in many formulas across mathmatics and physics. It is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although fractions such as 227displaystyle tfrac 227 are commonly used to approximate it. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanentyly repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers."

    The solution is C = r x 1.5702 x 4 See the 1.5702 is rational and is able to be used in calculations expecting sum, product, power, and integers...

    I understand you two really need to be spoon fed all info, but c / d produces only product results outside the real area of a circle. Not only is the line Pi creates not a chord of the circle in is calculated from it is not even proportional to one. The direction of calculation is not explained clearly to those who accept it as an answer.

    Again, we would be using mathematics to explain only GOD as non-religion not Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, and Catholic faith as religion. The argument is then was there a possible eavesdropping that took place by some churches which put them in a position to hear about GOD without understanding GOD as a mathematic translation to a 4000 year old Pi?


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 757 Pts   -   edited January 23

    In case the average read here at debateisland.com does not know, yes there is evidence in many old architectural buildings which proves eavesdropping by use of domed roof covers in many structures had been going on. Our own Nations Capital is physical evidence of such actions have occurred.


  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    The punctuation inbetween the parentheses Dee is a question mark.

    So why are you putting a question mark in between parentheses? 

    In between  not 'inbetween ' , the rest of your sentence is poorly worded and open to several different interpretations 
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    LOL you asked.....Pi is a expression which cannot ever be a solution

    No I didn't ask , the voices you hear in your head are not in actual fact emanating from me 

    Dee said @ MineSubCraftStarved
    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?

    You asked........just addressing the lie..........thanks for either the Typing guidance or Grammar guidance......


  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 23
    @John_C_87 ;

    Dee said @ MineSubCraftStarved


    No I didn't say that either 


    You asked........just addressing the lie..........

    No I didn't say that either 


    thanks for either the Typing guidance or Grammar guidance......

    It was just grammar guidance .....you're welcome 
  • @John_C_87

    Could you please just get on and eat that pi of yours
    John_C_87Dee



  • My cPi is 1.5702 it is a ratio of a circles circumference created with a circles chord. It is the end of 4000 years of motivated B.S. 

    Think of it as a personal payment made to both Galileo and Newton…… 

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Not according to the wikipidia link you gave to me.
    LIES!!!

    displaystyle pi frac Cd

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi




    Dee
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 23
     "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement. It may be true; it is never the whole truth. Something happens = 1, then a response takes place to what has happened = 1 + 1. When 1 was experienced as harmful in some any way then 1 + 1 = 3 It is an irrational sum.

    By the way, you are referring to irrational numbers. All, this means is that if a number is irrational it cannot be represented as a ratio of two integers. Furthermore, even if 1+1 = 3 was possible this would actually be rational and not irrational. This is because 1 is a rational number and 3 is also a rational number, and the product of two rational numbers is always rational.



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 23
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    What is truth? If I say that "1 + 1 = 3" is a true statement, who are you to say that  "No, that is wrong, 1 + 1 = 2."? What we view as the 'truth' is nothing more than our arbitrary and subjective creation of logic and our view of 'reality'. 

    I don't think I can agree with this. It's true that the language we use to express mathematical ideas is our own creation, but the ideas themselves can be demonstrated to be objectively true. If I have an apple, and I add another apple, at no place or time in the history of Earth will that leave me with three apples.



    If only Mathematics relied solely on common sense examples like this? Wouldn't that be wonderful! ;)
    NomenclatureDee



  • @ZeusAres42
    By the way, you are referring to irrational numbers. All, this means is that if a number is irrational it cannot be represented as a ratio of two integers. Furthermore, even if 1+1 = 3 was possible this would actually be rational and not irrational. This is because 1 is a rational number and 3 is also a rational number, and the product of two rational numbers is always rational. 


    Yes irrational numbers can mean exactly what you say.....numbers are not the only things which can be irrational and equations / calculations can also be irrational as well. As an axiom we can presume 1 + 1 = 3 is true, the equation itself is irrational because one side of the equal sign is the sum of 2 and the other has a value of 3.

    Einstein’s theory of relativity is very similar to 1 + 1 = 3 calculation but is backwards and is formed by a single value higher, his theory states an axiom exists that is 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 it is missing the value of one and it is presumed to be locked in other three ones in some way.




  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 757 Pts   -   edited January 24
    @John_C_87
    Not according to the wikipidia link you gave to me.
    LIES!!!

    displaystyle pi frac Cd

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi





    @Nomenclature

     meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers.
    Pi - Wikipedia
    Wikipedia has proven itself wrong......as it is using Pi as the sum of an equation.......Again the 4000 year correction is  

    Pi ≈ Circumfernce divided by diameter. Diameter being what is otherwise said to be a cirlces chord.

  • @Dee
    That's simply not true and quiet a leap you're making 
    Is it really? Both the beliefs are used as fundamental axioms, and as axioms serves as premises, what makes one premise any more valid than another?
    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis

    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?
    But the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 can also fall under the matters of fact. Take for example the statement, "I have 10 cars, I add one car to the 10, now I have 11 cars.", this is a matter of fact as it can be verified through individual observation. Therefore, as both the statements "1 + 1 = 2" and "I believe in god" can be taken into matters of fact and can verified through observation, what is the purpose of the distinction?

    Furthermore, in relation of ideas, what if I state that a triangle is a 6-sided figure, as the angles also count as their own sides. Who are you to say that my statement is incorrect, after all, my operation of analysis in this problem produced a different logical result, so who is anyone to say who is correct? Who says that either of our propositions would even by correct in the first place? Perhaps the correct answer is that an angle is a 4 or 5 sided shape?
  • @Nomenclature
    Deductive logic is derived from a priori reasoning (i.e. self-evident truth), while inductive logic is derived from a posteriori reasoning (i.e. empiricism). Your first statement comes from deductive logic, while your second statement hasn't been derived from logic at all. It's simply a statement of belief, analogous to "I believe in unicorns". There is no requirement for your second statement to be logically true. It could simply be false (i.e. you might not believe in God). In deductive logic, statements are required to be self-evidently true, either mathematically or linguistically. A linguistic example might be: "The ball is green or the ball is not green." 
    What makes any truth self-evident? True, the statement 1 + 1 = 2 derives from reasoning, while the statement "I believe in god" is by itself an admission of belief. But 1 + 1 = 2 operates under an axiom that 1 is half of 2, and therefore, while 1 is added to itself(and thus equivalent to an operation of multiplication by a factor of two), it should give back 2. However, all of this is under the axioms of logic that principles of math always operate consistently and that adding a number to itself always results in twice the said number. Let's say that what seems most logical to me, is that 1 + 1 = 2 can be true, but it operates under a spectrum of probability. Let's say, there is a 50% chance it will be 2, a 25% chance it will be 3, a 12.5% chance it will be 4, etc, etc. Although this is obviously absurd(and I'm not denying that), it is no more absurd than the currently accepted principles of logic and mathematics that we have established today. Thus, the belief that 1 + 1 = 2 operates under the arbitrary and subjective view that our system of logic is correct.
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 24
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    Is it really? Both the beliefs are used as fundamental axioms, and as axioms serves as premises, what makes one premise any more valid than another?


    Yes, it's simply not true. Why do you keep totally ignoring answers already given to your questions?

    This question I've already answered , let's try again ......you said " So in reality, saying "I believe 1 + 1 = 2," is just as valid and true a statement as "I believe in God."

    I replied .......

    Well I'm afraid and no offence  intended but how much thought have you given this?

    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis

    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?

    I believe you will now attempt to take the position of the radical sceptic which leads to absurdities

    So why did you not even attempt to address my original response?



    But the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 can also fall under the matters of fact.

    Yes I know three sided triangles can be verified by observation I've already told you that the relationship of the ideas it contains is provable by the mere operation of thought.

    Seriously what are you missing here?

     Take for example the statement, "I have 10 cars, I add one car to the 10, now I have 11 cars.", this is a matter of fact as it can be verified through individual observation. 

    Right , we can both count the cars and can conclude the truth of such which makes me wonder why you're having such extreme difficulties with 1+1 = 2 would you not also use the same method of verification regarding 1+ 1= 2 ?

    Therefore, as both the statements "1 + 1 = 2" and "I believe in god" can be taken into matters of fact and can verified through observation, what is the purpose of the distinction?

    How did you verify belief in a god is valid through observation? 

    The purpose of the distinction is pretty obvious I've given you three explanation's as why truth claims fall into two kinds


    A belief in a god is not provable by conceptual analysis or empirically verifiable so any such claims are most likely nonsense masquerading as sense 

    The purpose of the distinction is pretty obvious I've given you three explanation's as why truth claims fall into two kinds, you refuse to even acknowledge  this why's that?

    Furthermore, in relation of ideas, what if I state that a triangle is a 6-sided figure, as the angles also count as their own sides. Who are you to say that my statement is incorrect, after all, my operation of analysis in this problem produced a different logical result,


    It produced a result but not a logical one your "different logical result " is akin to something flat earthers assert when debating 

    I'm not denying you can believe what you want you can believe in a flat earth , ghosts or even that your neighbours are giant lizards 

    so who is anyone to say who is correct? 

    But yet you stated ...."I'm not saying that it's possible to live well whilst rejecting basic logic, reasoning, and observation."

    Your very words , right?


    Who says that either of our propositions would even by correct in the first place? 

    Well you said "

    Therefore, as both the statements "1 + 1 = 2" and "I believe in god" can be taken into matters of fact and can verified through observation, what is the purpose of the distinction?

    So please present your god proofs that you've verified as a matter of fact? I can demonstrate 1+1 = 2 , you can demonstrate 10+ 1= 11 as you said ""I have 10 cars, I add one car to the 10, now I have 11 cars.", this is a matter of fact as it can be verified through individual observation"

    Yet you're still struggling with 1+1 = 2 , I have to conclude at this stage my original comments were accurate as I did say you were attempting to make a case for radical scepticism or else you're  just trolling  


    Perhaps the correct answer is that an angle is a 4 or 5 sided shape?

    Well when you prove that along your god claim I will adjust my position 


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    What makes any truth self-evident? True, the statement 1 + 1 = 2 derives from reasoning, while the statement "I believe in god" is by itself an admission of belief. 
    What makes a truth self-evident is it being impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Your second statement lacks a conclusion and is simply a premise which may or may not be true. 
    But 1 + 1 = 2 operates under an axiom that 1 is half of 2
    Well if you disagree then show us how that conclusion is false. 
    therefore, while 1 is added to itself(and thus equivalent to an operation of multiplication by a factor of two), it should give back 2. However, all of this is under the axioms of logic that principles of math always operate consistently.
    I can see this conversation is getting us nowhere because you aren't listening. Math is derived from a priori reasoning, not from physical experience. The physical world might operate inconsistently, but math must always be consistent.
  • @Nomenclature
    What makes a truth self-evident is it being impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Your second statement lacks a conclusion and is simply a premise which may or may not be true. 
    No, sorry that is not what makes a truth self-evident. Self-evident truths are first held to be presumed true. The premise then is held to stand within reason and becomes self explanitor to the creation of truth and understanding. The shared understandig is then impossible to disprove as a lie as evidence of a match with a larger truth becomes over welming. GOD is a numerical axiom of numbers it is presumed true when held with the principles of both Roman numerals and algabra. In this matter letters are simply written as numbers and those who may agree with the overall principle do not have to completely understand th value of each letter or the principles which bind them as a sum.

    1 + 1 = 3 three is not overwhelming when we are holding it to be presumed as true. The equation itself is irrational and does not match on each side of the equal sign.


    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    No, sorry that is not what makes a truth self-evident.

    Yes it is, John. If the premise that the world is round is true, then the conclusion the world is not flat is self-evidently true.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    1+1=2 is not a consequence of the axioms of mathematics, but a consequence of definitions of these numbers coupled with inherent properties of sets deriving from definitions of sets. If you want 1+1 to equal 2 with the probability of 50%, then you are no longer talking about conventionally defined 1 and 2, and not even about numbers in general, but about some other objects - perhaps, random variables - that you just chose to denote by the same symbols.

    Currently established rules of logic and mathematics are not absurd or arbitrary. Mathematics is a self-contained field in which everything that can be logically derived is true by design. If you choose a different set of axioms, you will arrive at a different set of conclusions, and those conclusions will be true within the scope of that self-contained field.

    And basic rules of logic itself are pretty much objective. "A is A" snd "not A is not A" is something that has to be accepted to be true in order for any statemement to be either true or false, and never both or neither. Simply this requirement - the ability to conclude that a statement is either true or false - is sufficient to build the entire body of formal logic.
    ZeusAres42John_C_87
  • @John_C_87 ;

    You see but you do not observe Mr watts.

    The clue is in ir-(ratio)nal. 



  • @ZeusAres42 The equation 1 + 1 = 3 is irrational by observation because 1+1 is a value of 2, three is the value three and a equal sign is set between them....
  • @MayCaesar

     I can agree however the issue is does a person with a grievance understand by united states constitutional right we debate what is to be the best connection to established justice a freedom to say or not say. If a superiority standard of intelligence is to be said to take place the creation of 1 + 1 = 3 as a Boolean held true is written as X + 1 = 3, not 1 + 1 = 3. We are arguing who really holds the constitutional burden of interpretation not truth / whole truth. 


  • @Nomenclature

    Yes it is, John. If the premise that the world is round is true, then the conclusion the world is not flat is self-evidently true.

    I hate saying this as it sounds as if I am just nit-picking your every word but if forced to hold a whole truth self-evident the word round needs to be replaced with sphere. The world is a sphere-ish shape...Otherwise the world as a circle is fat on two out of three side is it not? The issues compound and are twofold. Are you just coaching me to tell a lie or are you simply making a mistake in a laps of better judgment on your part.

  • @JulesKorngold

    My personal past experience describes “We the people ‘” do if fact create our own truth…..


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 25
    MayCaesar said:
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    1+1=2 is not a consequence of the axioms of mathematics, but a consequence of definitions of these numbers coupled with inherent properties of sets deriving from definitions of sets. If you want 1+1 to equal 2 with the probability of 50%, then you are no longer talking about conventionally defined 1 and 2, and not even about numbers in general, but about some other objects - perhaps, random variables - that you just chose to denote by the same symbols.

    Currently established rules of logic and mathematics are not absurd or arbitrary. Mathematics is a self-contained field in which everything that can be logically derived is true by design. If you choose a different set of axioms, you will arrive at a different set of conclusions, and those conclusions will be true within the scope of that self-contained field.

    And basic rules of logic itself are pretty much objective. "A is A" snd "not A is not A" is something that has to be accepted to be true in order for any statemement to be either true or false, and never both or neither. Simply this requirement - the ability to conclude that a statement is either true or false - is sufficient to build the entire body of formal logic.
    @MayCaesar Great piece. I would also like to add that 1+1=3 is actually possible depending on the parameters involved but the truth-value will not change; it will not be crazy and it will make perfect sense as to how and why 1+1=3 is the case. Of course, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples and will never be 3 apples, however, not everything in math or science for that matter relies on common sense arithmetic rules like this, eg:

    It's Common sense that the world is flat. It isn't.
    It's common sense that we are the center of the universe. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we see the world like we are looking through a camera lens. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we hear the world like we are listening to a radio. We don't.
    It's common sense that the sun rises and sets. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that objects are solid. they aren't.
    It's common sense that time passes at the same rate everywhere. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. They don't.
    It's common sense that human memory works like a tape recorder. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that there is only one law of addition. There isn't.


    MayCaesar



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 24

    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I hate saying this as it sounds as if I am just nit-picking your every word but if forced to hold a whole truth self-evident the word round needs to be replaced with sphere.
    Spheres are round, my good friend.





Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch