Saying torture is wrong, is not based on an opinion.
Wrong is defined as something which is undesirable.
Torture is undeserable to the organism, so to say that is wrong is the truth.
The descripancy lies in, do other organisms have the same consciousness as us, we assume they do, but if they dont, they could be hardcore masochists and not think that it is wrong. Therefore, the statement is still true, within our own reality, however, the word “torture”, changes its definition, when switching to the realm of the masochist, and it is not “torture” to them. So still, the absolute concept of what torture it is, not defined by mere letters, but by the absolute essence of the definition, which is that which is inherently torturous to the consciousness, is absolutely wrong, no matter how you try to bend it and twist it, because its definition itself is that which is wrong, that which is torturous to the consciousness.
Knowledge is true, in the sense of that it exists, and is therefore true. Knowledge is not always true, in the sense of, using knowledge as a tool to predict the existence of other future truths.
Correct, even if you know, it still may not be true. Knowledge, as already presented in this thesis is:
" a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, though “well-justified true belief” is more complete as it accounts for the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings."
Please note there is no requirement for truth, in the description of above. Truth is oft elusive; But we don’t necessarily proceed based on truth due to its elusiveness. We may think its truth, and that may be justified or not. But that is another aspect that the very nature of what is truth, what is belief leads to (as well as what is opinion). We could, or I could possibly get into a 700 page Kantian nightmare to lay this all out. But that is daunting. I hope it can be laid out more briefly and be justified as well.
Judaism is not justified. Its’ not reasonable. It’s not logical. Nor is it likely true. It’s much assumed to be true, its merely believed. If done properly, Newtonian physics should have been familiar, understood, reasonable, logical and practical as laid out in the definition of what constitutes knowledge
No. Torture refers to an absolute value, what the organism doesn’t like. It doesn’t matter if their opinion changes. The word is an automatic reference that updates the reference to the reference when their opinion changes. If they suddenly like torture, the object of torture is no longer connected to the absolute reference of torture, and becomes something else which is not torture. Only their socialized brains will still label it torture because society tells them it is what it is.
So no, its not matter of opinion, it is an absolute reference that remains constant and automatically adjusts for opinion.
That is the first thing you have said in regards to any useful distinction.
So now, how do you precisely distinguish what is “logical”? Many would argue that Judaism is intensely logical. By what means do you discern what is actually logical versus what someone believes to be (or “knows” to be) logical?
Judiasm is logical in relation to an ideal. “Do we want to emasculate babies, scar them for life, and keep them in submission to our fictional god lord diety? Yes.” So, circumcision, is the logical course of action, to reach that ideal.
If the Talmud preaches it is good to be a businessman, to the ignoble hedonist, that is logical, because hedonism is the ideal.
If it promotes superiority of Jews over all races, it is logical for the selfish Jew, becuase it gives him more power.
If believing in a fictional lord grants peaceful feminine delusional feelings, then, it is logical for the Jew to believe in such, if his goal is to experience peaceful feminine delusional feelings.
I don’t agree that logic is only a useful distinction, but I’ll cater to your sentiment. To think the Jewish God however is true, is without logic. There are other possibilities so closing the door on the rest, while embracing Judaism, is not logical. There are other options. Believing Judaism is not a logical necessity, neither is any other religion. As such, to believe it is true, is illogical, because it omits other logical possibilities. If its unknown and its believed, then its illogical.
You are implying that it is the lack of alternatives that dictates what is or isn’t logical.
Surely you are aware that logic depends entirely upon axioms. What axiom can possibly be without any doubt at all?
In Judaism their axiom (among others) was “Surely something created all of this.” Aquinas proclaimed that the universe had to begin. Today it is preached across the world that there was this big bang that began the universe. If one accepts any of those as axioms, then there is an inherent logic to follow. But what if they are wrong?
You can believe that there is no alternative, but how can you know that there is no alternative?
“Surely something created all of this” becomes a fairly true axiom, when you realise that creation is a myth, merely it is entities falling into order and restructuring themselves.
The religious supposition, is that the entities restructuring themselves, are God, the atheist supposition is that they are mere matter.
Really, the two are no different, IF, the religious supposition subconsciously believes God is not a sentient entity [size=85](most subconsciously do not believe God is sentient but only through humans are sentient because of God and God is sentient through humans.)[/size]
The Big Bang is currently as far back as physics can go but it does not mean it cannot go back even further
Scientific knowledge is always increasing over time and so there is never a point when it becomes absolute
It is knowledge in the sense of they imagined the big bang happening in their minds, therefore, some apparition of the big bang exists, in their minds.
They way they interpret the data and equations, makes them see images of big bangs in their minds, and so they believe and have faith in the big bang outside of their minds.
No. I already laid that out in a previous post there. Maybe you want to reread it before logic testing me? It seems like a waste of time to go back to things I already covered