What is existence?

[Ferrin]

I was refering to DunkleSeele's post.

Your post was the only serious response. I'd like to thank you :)

I'd appreciate a reply to it though.

[DunkleSeele]

Why are you people so cruel towards me? You assume I am a christian nut or something and you don't talk nice to me. Everything I write, no matter if I agree with you or not, I
am in the position of ridicule. Even if I wrote the same shit as you wanted to write yourself, before you could write it yourself, you would make it into a ridicule of me!

I am 100 % certain that if I were to write this OP in another username, you would not write the shit you wrote, DunkleSeele.

YOU are the one talking bullshit!

Oh yeah, I'm such a meanie...*yawn*
First of all, I guarantee you that I would have answered exactly the same way if that bullshit was posted under another name. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of the poster. If you don't believe me, go look at my post history.
Second: while we're on the topic of post history, maybe you wouldn't get such answers if you didn't have yourself a long history of bullshit threads. You know, people tend to get tired when they see so much nonsense coming from a poster.
Third: grow a thicker skin. In a forum there's every kind of people, including "cruel" ones (whatever it means). If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Shol'va]

There IS an absolute Truth, we don't know what it is, but it is still there.

Alright, I'll bite. What do you mean by absolute truth and how do you know it exists?

[Moralnihilist]

There IS an absolute Truth, we don't know what it is, but it is still there.

Prove it.

[PickelledEggs]

There IS an absolute Truth, we don't know what it is, but it is still there.

Only the sith deals in absolutes

[mediumaevum (OP)]

The existence of something is only relevant if it affects us. If we are never able to know about its existence in any way shape or form, or even the effect it has on us, then why bother? It's a hypothetical existence without bearing on our reality.

We observe the universe around us and are slowly putting the puzzle together. We do not know whether we will ever complete this puzzle, or are only able to see one side of a 3d puzzle. They are not things we can know (perhaps yet), and the existence or lack there-of of these is irrelevant with our current knowledge.

Sure, the star might exist, in fact, it's plausible it could exist because we see them all over the observable universe. But it's still irrelevant aside from a possible prediction based on our current understanding, which may well be wrong.

Did I get any of this wrong? Be gentle. ;)

I can't say much to this, other than I agree with you.

Oh yeah, I'm such a meanie...*yawn*
First of all, I guarantee you that I would have answered exactly the same way if that bullshit was posted under another name. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of the poster. If you don't believe me, go look at my post history.
Second: while we're on the topic of post history, maybe you wouldn't get such answers if you didn't have yourself a long history of bullshit threads. You know, people tend to get tired when they see so much nonsense coming from a poster.
Third: grow a thicker skin. In a forum there's every kind of people, including "cruel" ones (whatever it means). If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You could at least try and talk polite. I am not asking for getting addressed as a king, I just want the same kind of respect that people normally would recieve,
regardless of their history.

If you disagree with me, fine, I can accept that, and that's why I posted it in the first place, in hope of constructive criticism. So far, your post was not
constructive criticism, it was personal attacks, calling me a "dimwhit" with a "single brain cell".

I don't believe it is too much to ask for a less rude reply.

Alright, I'll bite. What do you mean by absolute truth and how do you know it exists?

By Absolute Truth, I am refering to the laws of nature, which I believe applies to everything that is ultimately ruled by the laws of nature.
Such as politics or many other things in life. Life is a product of nature, so everything in life (including politics) must obey the laws of nature, which has
an Absolute Truth (gravity, reacting forces, you name them).

I then go out and conclude that, if Nature has an Absolute Truth, so should everything derived from nature have it too.
That includes politics. Or religion. Or when to change your socks.

Problem is, we don't know what this truth is. We can guess, but I don't think we will ever be able to know it.

I was not refering to a diety at all. I wasn't refering to anything supernatural.

In short: If we can calculate how to fire a rocket to the moon, why shouldn't we be able to calculate which policies to adapt in our society?

[DunkleSeele]

You could at least try and talk polite. I am not asking for getting addressed as a king, I just want the same kind of respect that people normally would recieve,
regardless of their history.

If you disagree with me, fine, I can accept that, and that's why I posted it in the first place, in hope of constructive criticism. So far, your post was not
constructive criticism, it was personal attacks, calling me a "dimwhit" with a "single brain cell".

I don't believe it is too much to ask for a less rude reply.

Respect must be earned. Live with it.

By Absolute Truth, I am refering to the laws of nature, which I believe applies to everything that is ultimately ruled by the laws of nature.
Such as politics or many other things in life. Life is a product of nature, so everything in life (including politics) must obey the laws of nature, which has
an Absolute Truth (gravity, reacting forces, you name them).

Yeah, so now politics should be decided by gravity. And you wonder why I consider you a dimwit?

I then go out and conclude that, if Nature has an Absolute Truth, so should everything derived from nature have it too.
That includes politics. Or religion. Or when to change your socks.

Nature has laws. We know these laws. What's this bullshit about "Absolute Truth"?

Problem is, we don't know what this truth is. We can guess, but I don't think we will ever be able to know it.

I was not refering to a diety at all. I wasn't refering to anything supernatural.

Complete, utter bullshit. You're ascribing a supernatural aspect to nature. All your yadda yadda about an "unknowable absolute truth" sounds exactly like "Gawd's ways are misterious". That is, utter and complete bullshit.

In short: If we can calculate how to fire a rocket to the moon, why shouldn't we be able to calculate which policies to adapt in our society?

Because, in case you didn't notice it yet, societies change in time and place regardless of the fact that nature's laws are always the same. Good luck trying to "calculate" policies for ever-changing societies based on natural laws. Not to mention the fact that nature and the universe don't give a shit about us.

Oh, sorry, where are my manners? Dimwit.

[mediumaevum (OP)]

DunkelSeele - All I said was that as with gravity, you can calculate how to get to the moon, so can you do the same with policies.

Welfare is one example. By using the science of what is healthy, we can determine how our National Welfare Policy should be.

This applies to many other fields in our society. Agricultural policy for example, should be determined of what is good for agricultural growth.

How is this stupid?

[mediumaevum (OP)]

It occours to me that we are talking a different language. To you, the term "Absolute Truth" has a religious or mysterious connotation.
To me, it is merely another way of saying: "We know that there is something we don't know". As in: "We know there is something in the box, but we don't know what it is".

Of course I do NOT say that politics should be determined by gravity. I said that AS WITH gravity, determining how to fire a rocket to the moon, so should
matters of society be discussed through science.

See the above post for examples of Welfare and Agricultural politics determined by science, not "what I think".

[Sal1981]

There are loads of stuff we can't prove to exist, but which are plausible, like the far side of the Moon containing craters. Before any spacecraft had surveyed the far side of the Moon, we used prior knowledge to make a prediction on how it might look like, from the front side of the Moon.

Really, I only see this as an attempt to use the old adage of design/existence inference or Brain-in-a-Vat hypothesis for example. Until such time anyone can demonstrate something to be true, given prior knowledge or not, the default position is that it is unknown and no position is taken. Why is this so hard to grasp?

[DunkleSeele]

DunkelSeele - All I said was that as with gravity, you can calculate how to get to the moon, so can you do the same with policies.

Oh, really? I guess the point about ever-changing societies just flew over your head. No surprise here.

Welfare is one example. By using the science of what is healthy, we can determine how our National Welfare Policy should be.

This applies to many other fields in our society. Agricultural policy for example, should be determined of what is good for agricultural growth.

Moving the goalposts much? First you talk about an "unknowable absolute truth", then about science. Will you ever fucking be able to make up your mind?

How is this stupid?

It is stupid because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, mixing up science and supernatural.

It occours to me that we are talking a different language.

If by "talking a different language" you mean "mediumaevum posting meaningless word salad" then we agree.

To you, the term "Absolute Truth" has a religious or mysterious connotation.
To me, it is merely another way of saying: "We know that there is something we don't know". As in: "We know there is something in the box, but we don't know what it is".

In other words, you don't know but then pretend to know slapping a fucking label on it. This is EXACTLY the same line of reasoning of theists saying "I don't know, therefore gawd". And what if in the box there's a big grogan instead of your not-yet-defined "Absolute Truth"?

Of course I do NOT say that politics should be determined by gravity. I said that AS WITH gravity, determining how to fire a rocket to the moon, so should
matters of society be discussed through science.

And how does your ridiculous concept of "unknown Absolute Truth" fit with that? How can you base policies on something you think is unknown, dimwit?

See the above post for examples of Welfare and Agricultural politics determined by science, not "what I think".

See my comment above. You're just moving the goalposts. Typical of religious dimwits.

[mediumaevum (OP)]

In other words, you don't know but then pretend to know slapping a fucking label on it. This is EXACTLY the same line of reasoning of theists saying "I don't know, therefore gawd". And what if in the box there's a big grogan instead of your not-yet-defined "Absolute Truth"?

Then the Absolute Truth, in regards to the content of the box, is this grogan. Whatever that is/means.

The Absolute Truth is the sum of the matter in the entire universe. Is this really so hard to grasp for you?

I am not moving goalposts. YOU just don't want to understand anything, and have your biased suppositions about me.

[Jason78]

The Absolute Truth is the sum of the matter in the entire universe. Is this really so hard to grasp for you?

"Truth is that which is an accurate description of reality." would be a better way of putting it.

We already have a word for the sum total of all that exists.   We call that the universe.

[DunkleSeele]

Then the Absolute Truth, in regards to the content of the box, is this grogan. Whatever that is/means.

Look "grogan" in the dictionary. No, scratch that, look at any of your posts. They are the exact definition of "grogan".

The Absolute Truth is the sum of the matter in the entire universe.

So you're redefining the universe? As I said: word salad.

Is this really so hard to grasp for you?

You're starting from the wrong assumption that there's something to grasp in your word salad.

I am not moving goalposts.

Oh, really? No, really? First you talk about an "unknowable Absolute truth", then you redefine it as science (showing no understanding of science whatsoever), than you redefine it as the universe, although resorting to another dose of word salad. This is called EXACTLY moving the goalposts.

YOU just don't want to understand anything, and have your biased suppositions about me.

Biased suppositions? No, my conclusions about you are based on every single one of your grogans... sorry, I meant posts.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

None of you exist outside of mediums mind for you're just some new word drug making him hallucinate. Don't you see?

Of course you don't. You would have to exist to see it.


We're not real. Medium just dreamed us up.