Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_mfbukowski]

He is the one who seems to want to add some other, different sense. So far as I can see, it reduces to "What seems satisfying to me is true". That seems so radically different from the way he responded to my claim to own the ESB that I can see nothing at all in common between the two. He is the one with the burden of explaining how the two usages are

Where did I say "what seems satisfying to me is true"?

You're just making this stuff up as you go.

The only sense I can see that would work is in the case of "true love".

Another would be in any case in which one was asked if something was indeed satisfying and it was satisfying, and one answered in the affirmative.

"Did you find _______ satisfying"? Answer: Yes- (and it is true that it was satisfying)

I suppose that would include Mormonism being satisfying- an individual could say that he found it so, and that if that was true for that individual, then it would be true that he indeed found Mormonism satisfying.

No, I definitely don't know where you got that.

[_Chap]

He is the one who seems to want to add some other, different sense. So far as I can see, it reduces to "What seems satisfying to me is true". That seems so radically different from the way he responded to my claim to own the ESB that I can see nothing at all in common between the two. He is the one with the burden of explaining how the two usages are

Where did I say "what seems satisfying to me is true"?

You're just making this stuff up as you go.

The only sense I can see that would work is in the case of "true love".

Another would be in any case in which one was asked if something was indeed satisfying and it was satisfying, and one answered in the affirmative.

"Did you find _______ satisfying"? Answer: Yes- (and it is true that it was satisfying)

I suppose that would include Mormonism being satisfying- an individual could say that he found it so, and that if that was true for that individual, then it would be true that he indeed found Mormonism satisfying.

No, I definitely don't know where you got that.

I am happy for interested readers (should there still be any) to review my posts and those of MFB to which I refer, and then decide which of us is missing the other's points.

[Now offline for a week]

[_mfbukowski]

I am happy for interested readers (should there still be any) to review my posts and those of MFB to which I refer, and then decide which of us is missing the other's points.

Interesting that you think that truth should be determined by popular vote.

I thought you were against that sort of thing.

[_Neo]

Can you think of something which exists which no one has ever experienced in some way?

No you can't, because it does not exist to humans (yet?)

Infinity

Not a "thing".

Infinity is "something". You asked this "Can you think of something which exists ..."

The whole point is that no "thing" exists which has not been experienced by someone because the fact of a person experiencing it MAKES it "exist"- ie- we don't call things we cannot experience "existing".

So are you saying infinity does not exist because we can't experience it?

[_Themis]

The whole point is that no "thing" exists which has not been experienced by someone because the fact of a person experiencing it MAKES it "exist"- ie- we don't call things we cannot experience "existing".

Just because something hasn't been experienced by any human does not mean it doesn't exist, except only for human reality it does not exist. The reality of the western world on those fish species you brought up also did not exist for the west until someone brought their existence to out attention. How do we know their are other things out there that exist beyond any human reality is that we continue to discover new things. Like I said before if we stop discovering new things for a very long time then you might have an argument.

[_mfbukowski]

So are you saying infinity does not exist because we can't experience it?

Of course infinity has not been experienced by anybody and I am not even sure what that would mean

But fine. If you want to make infinity an exception that is fine by me. Of course any way you look at it if it is an exception it is because of the way you have defined it.

What does the exception of infinity give you? In other words, if we except infinity, which of course as you pointed out, we cannot experience, what can you now prove about the rest of the theory?

In still other words, what does it matter if inifinity is an exception?

I am not going to fight over it unless it is worth it. I really don't care either way. It is a peculiar way to define it, but what difference does it make?

It still doesn't really fit since it cannot be experienced. But I don't want to be accused of making a question-begging definition either.

[Guest]

Here's Tom Cruise playing a member of the Church who has recently discovered some of the problems in the Church's claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U ... re=related

[_Darth J]

Can you think of something which exists which no one has ever experienced in some way?

No you can't, because it does not exist to humans (yet?)

A fat-free cookie that doesn't let you down in the flavor department.

[_Neo]

What does the exception of infinity give you? In other words, if we except infinity, which of course as you pointed out, we cannot experience, what can you now prove about the rest of the theory?

You asked for an example and I gave you one.

The whole point is that no "thing" exists which has not been experienced by someone because the fact of a person experiencing it MAKES it "exist"- ie- we don't call things we cannot experience "existing".

The point is that things can exist without someone experiencing it.
Example infinity.
Infinity does exist even though we don't experience it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

No one knows what is in there but each of us individually, but that is where everything important in life happens. What is "in there" is just as important if not more so than everything we do all day from fixing a tire to measuring the wavelength of gamma rays or writing the great American novel. If it were not for motivation and choice- all of those brain states- lust and grief, brilliance and mental illness- and all the others, nothing would happen in the world.

Nothing. Alexander would not have conquered, Shakespeare would not have written, Columbus would not have discovered, Galileo would not have a telescope, Michelangelo would not have carved- no men on the moon, no wars, nothing.

It is ultimately consciousness which "does" everything. And that fact is inescapable.

Would you say that the only things that exist are individuals? Also, are you a nominalist about Universals as well as abstract objects?