From: Gemini Thunder <gt@kdn0.attnet.or.jp>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:47:11 -0800 (PST)
To: m5@vail.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: PICS is not censorship
In-Reply-To: <4484.9612101411@misun2.mi.leeds.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <32AE206F.2D021C6D@kdn0.attnet.or.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mike McNally wrote:
> 
> Gemini Thunder wrote:
> >
> > There are universally valid truths.  You implicitly admit so by
> > stating "...at most, one religion is correct".
> 
> No, he didn't; he said "at most".  I personally think none is correct,
> and I don't agree there are universally valid truths.  I defy you to
> explain how you know that to be so.

Simple.  Let us consider all religions:

Now, here are our possibilities:
1.  All are right
2.  One or more is right, the remaining are wrong
3.  None are right

One of these possibilities must be true, but we can not know which one.
(This is why "at most" is the very phrase that implictly admits there
must be some universal truth concerning the validity of religions)

> > The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid
> > truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters)
> 
> Then why do you think there is such a thing?

Please see above. Not knowing something does not mean it does not exist.

> > so we tend to cop-out
> 
> Why is it a "cop-out" to accept the limits of human perception?

You are too quick to argue.  The statement that there must be some
universal truth even if we can not know what it is seems quite accepting
of the limits of human perception.

> How do you know reality is something other than perception if you
> don't perceive it to be so?

Simple.  A man may perceive he can fly unassisted.  However, once he
steps off the building the universal truth of gravity takes hold of his
ass.

-- 
_______________________
Powered by LINUX! -- .sig under construction
2[b] || !2[b] -- What's the question? It's a tautology!