Best exam ever tomorrow!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Ok I have probably the greatest exam ever when it comes to my topics of interest.
I always seem to remember last minute ideas and tidbits of info that I throw in at the end just to be unique or whatever.

Well first section is on Marxism and I will be picking the Division of Labour and Class Theory and the second section is Selected Topics in the philosophy of religion and I will be picking Arguments for Gods existence and a general question on the problem of evil or maybe one on how man created God.

So anybody got ony opinions they think might spruce up my essays? I'm fairly well sorted in all the questions so I figure I'll finish a little ealry and write some ideas from here!

[Pawn Power]

what class and what school is this for. I never get any intresting essays like that to write

[Trissy]

The problem of evil is one of my favourite areas of the philosophy of religion. If we are to account for evil on the basis of freewill then we must be completely free which means we have to deny all types of determinism inluding the economic determinism of Marx, and other types such as psychological determininism and biological determinism. This however only accounts for moral evil and doesn't affect natural evil.

The only ways of accounting for natural evil in Christianity is to explain it as a consequence of the Original sin (i.e. Adam and Eve's fall from paradise) in which case we must reject evolution and accept creationism, or we can explain it as the act of demons/the devil in which case we have to ask why doesn't god intervene to prevent such awful acts (after all he cannot be bothered by intervening and compromising the freewil of beings he has already judged to be evil).

I think the problem of evil is the one of the bigger stumbling blocks for modern theology.

[Wenty]

Sometimes i get the impression you hate the idea of religion so much Tristan you could never accept it even if it was faultless.

Anyway, why do we have to be "completely free". I always find that debating religion is kind of like trying to describe a piece of beautiful landscape to a blind man. You can only go so far, ultimately the blind man is never going to know what its exactly like.

[Trissy]

Well I'm sad to inform you that your impression is incorrect Adam. You are right that I my disliking of religion stems from a hatred but it is not a hatred of religion itself. What I hate is inconsistency, what I hate is botched and muddled answers to questions posed, what I hate is people deliberately turning away from thought and debate because they assume they've discovered answers...in short I dislike the vanity of the human race. I even hate this phenomena in myself whenever I unearth it. Maybe that is why I am so attracted by Nietzsche and so repulsed by many of the things in society that people chose seek refuge in?

As for why we have to be completely free, I believe this a lot simpler to explain...

In the Garden of Eden (assuming that this existed and story is true <_< ) Adam and Eve were presented with a choice by the snake, whether to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or not. They had been told by God not to but they chose to go against God&#39;s will and so the human race fell from Paradise. If Adam and Eve were not totally free and were determined in some way (by psychology, biology, etc) then they can not be held entirely responsible for their choice, and instead God must take some of the burden of responsibility because he created Adam and Eve and therefore created them as either fully or partly determined beings (basically as the First Cause God can be seen as the creator of Evil due to the existence of a causal chain). This leaves modern theology with a failed attempt to account for moral evil, and so therefore it is required to denounce determinism for &#39;The Freewill defence&#39; to even get off the ground.


I always find that debating religion is kind of like trying to describe a piece of beautiful landscape to a blind man. You can only go so far, ultimately the blind man is never going to know what its exactly like

Mmm..well that is to assume that the person who can &#39;see&#39; then landscape isn&#39;t the true blind man isn&#39;t it? So far nobody has managed to even hint at what beautiful landscape there is out there...all that happens is that when I point to the pot holes all over the floor people tell me that the grass is greener on the other side but only for those who have faith. To be honest I find it quite patronising. Anyhow just thought I&#39;d include this to show I can use metaphors too.

[Wenty]

If Adam and Eve were not totally free and were determined in some way (by psychology, biology, etc) then they can not be held entirely responsible for their choice

i see what ur getting at now but i have initial objections in my head i can&#39;t put into words, oh well&#33;


Mmm..well that is to assume that the person who can &#39;see&#39; then landscape isn&#39;t the true blind man isn&#39;t it?

Your misinterpreting my analogy, as you do with most things i say&#33; I was saying we&#39;re all like that. We&#39;re all blind ultimately, trying to find answers with the little information we have. I don&#39;t like debating it these days anyway, inexorably its a choice we have to make for ourselves. We&#39;re all playing Pascal&#39;s wager whether we like it or not.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well anyway, exam went well: questions on Marxism were quite good, class conciousness as the reason for social change kinda thing and can Marx be blamed for the social experiments done in his name.

As for philosophy of religion, one of criticise two arguments for Gods existence which was easy and the idea of the will in which I brought in a whole load of ideas&#33;

[Trissy]

I see what ur getting at now but i have initial objections in my head i can&#39;t put into words, oh well&#33;
With which part though? The statement we have to be free, or the statement that if we aren&#39;t this removes some/all of our responsibilty and places it with God? Think...I urge ye to think&#33;

Your misinterpreting my analogy, as you do with most things i say&#33; Then please accept my sincerest apolgies Adam but it&#39;s nothing personal. My comments are just my responce to an attempt to examine your line of thinking, and your possible reasons for thinking this way...it&#39;s the same examination I apply to other people I meet, and to myself.

I was saying we&#39;re all like that. We&#39;re all blind ultimately, trying to find answers with the little information we have
I agree entirely.

I don&#39;t like debating it these days anyway, inexorably its a choice we have to make for ourselves. We&#39;re all playing Pascal&#39;s wager whether we like it or not.
I agree with you that it&#39;s a choice we make ourselves, but I disagree with you that we HAVE to make that choice. I toy with the ideas of atheism and agnosticism, one impies I have made a choice and the other implies I&#39;ve made a decision to suspend chosing (or a choice to not to chose). I don&#39;t think we have to play Pascal&#39;s wager...in fact that is ultimately what I seek to rid the world of...to remove the darned topic from the face of the Earth because it produces conflict not matter which way you turn. Perhaps it would be better for all involved if it weren&#39;t here, and then we could turn our attention to ridding the world of bad faith and living a little bit.


As for philosophy of religion, one of criticise two arguments for Gods existence which was easy and the idea of the will in which I brought in a whole load of ideas&#33;
Who&#39;s idea of the will was it about? I know of Nietzsche&#39;s and Schopenhauer&#39;s but I&#39;m also aware that there could be many other philosophers who commented on this topic and who I haven&#39;t read about...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

No it was just a general question about whether you could have free will if God existed, I brought in Spinoza&#39;s idea of the will, a personal interpetation of an affinity between Nietzsche, Schopenheaur and Spinoza.

[Wenty]

Perhaps it would be better for all involved if it weren&#39;t here, and then we could turn our attention to ridding the world of bad faith and living a little bit.

If it weren&#39;t here, we wouldn&#39;t be here. I agree with the rest. I actually believe you can reconcile parts of Sartre&#39;s philosophy with religion. Maybe its wishful thinking.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

What about Sartres assertion that even if God existed it would be neccessary to reject him.

[Trissy]

If it weren&#39;t here, we wouldn&#39;t be here

How so? I don&#39;t think that if religion had not been created in Ancient Egypt and the other early civilisations evolution would have fallen apart. I don&#39;t see what your trying to say...religion is not a necessity for me, nor is the question of to be relgious or not.


. I actually believe you can reconcile parts of Sartre&#39;s philosophy with religion. Maybe its wishful thinking

Well I don&#39;t...I believe religion to be a source of bad faith...some people accept moral rules without questioning them, and then deny they have chosen to accept them

[Wenty]

What about Sartres assertion that even if God existed it would be neccessary to reject him.

Haven&#39;t heard that before but it sounds a lot like something Bakunhin said. I did say parts of his Philosophy though.


some people accept moral rules without questioning them, and then deny they have chosen to accept them

I&#39;m sure in your idealistic view of the world they&#39;d be no &#39;slave morality&#39;. Instead everyone would be pulling resources to elevate some great man to centre stage, sort of like Napoleon? hang on...

[Trissy]

I&#39;m sure in your idealistic view of the world they&#39;d be no &#39;slave morality&#39;. Instead everyone would be pulling resources to elevate some great man to centre stage, sort of like Napoleon? hang on...

Not quite. I&#39;m not a Utopianist nor a devoted idealist, but you&#39;re almost right about one of my thoughts though, I do hope that &#39;slave ethics&#39; will decrease (although I am quite confident we shall never be free of it entirely). Plus you&#39;ve mangled one of Nietzsche&#39;s ideas hideously Adam. Why would individuals pool together for one great man? All Nietzsche seeks is that the masses don&#39;t hold back the strong, not that they assist him(/her?). The strong wouldn&#39;t need the help of the weak, all they require is that they are not held back by the herd. Your tone reminded me of Russell a bit...

Plus you didn&#39;t answer my first point on your somewhat ambiguous comment.

[Wenty]

The strong wouldn&#39;t need the help of the weak, all they require is that they are not held back by the herd

yes and if many die to help elevate this &#39;great&#39; man then so be it. The more i read of him the more i detest his arrogance&#33; The bad parts of his work are outweighing the good at the moment.


Plus you didn&#39;t answer my first point on your somewhat ambiguous comment.

I couldn&#39;t be bothered to explain myself.

[Trissy]

yes and if many die to help elevate this &#39;great&#39; man then so be it
Nobody has to die to elevate this great man, this only occurs if the herd continues with its attempts to hold him back, in which sense the herd are responsible for the consequences of their actions (the same consequences they attempt to deny through bad faith). The shackling of the strong by the weak isn&#39;t just so why should the consequences of the strong breaking free be just?


The more i read of him the more i detest his arrogance&#33;
Please don&#39;t start on this one because I don&#39;t think a Christian is in a fit position to judge. He was a human and so of course he had flaws&#33; At least his arrogance didn&#39;t go so far to assume that there is a transcendental being who has to love mankind...


I couldn&#39;t be bothered to explain myself
Why doesn&#39;t that surprise me&#33; I&#39;m starting to think you should remember those words because I think &#39;I couldn&#39;t be bothered&#39; may provide you with an apt epitaph for yourself.

[Wenty]

Nobody has to die to elevate this great man

I don&#39;t care, i wasn&#39;t saying they have to. I was saying in N&#39;s opinion if they do die to help elevate this superman its acceptable.


At least his arrogance didn&#39;t go so far to assume that there is a transcendental being who has to love mankind...

How asinine. There is nothing arrogant about that belief.

[Trissy]

I was saying in N&#39;s opinion if they do die to help elevate this superman its acceptable
Death is always unacceptable to people whenever it comes. If people died to hinder his elevation it should strike you as just as unacceptable. I think N just thought that if millions of us must die to keep the great down, then why should we care if millions of us die to reverse this trend? Now I&#39;m not saying Jesus is a great man but no doubt many of those in positions of religious authority (The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc) would sing the praises of all who have died to keep his name in the limelight (saints, theologians, devout followers, etc). If Slave ethics can send millions to die in order to subdue the strong and noble then they should expect no sympathy if the noble and the strong are forced to inflict similar losses. The herd necessitates this action, not the noble.

How asinine. There is nothing arrogant about that belief
So you see nothing arrogant about a subsection of a species claiming there has to be a perfect, transcendental being because they think that explains a few mysteries, and that this being has to have created them as his chosen creatures and that this being has to love them all despite all their flaws (such as being fallible, selfish, destructive, judgemental, etc, etc), and that he has to have a transcendental realm(s) to reward (or punish) them? Once many Christians make their beloved leap of faith many of these just become additional assumptions. The difference between faith and assumption is what exactly?. That is where the arrogance and the vanity lies...

If we examine what Hume said about necessity (namely that if you can imagine that something isn&#39;t the case then it cannot be necessary...like I cannot imagine 2+2 not equaling 4) then we can easily say that none of the above is necessary even if you do make a leap of faith. Why can&#39;t God hate us all? Wouldn&#39;t that be more reasonable? Isn&#39;t it more likely that he would forsake us rather then forgive us? But oh no...that just can&#39;t possibley be because I have FAITH...

[SittingBull47]

Speaking of good exams, I took an AP History exam last friday and the topic questions were almost as good (for me). They were "sectional tensions in the US during the 19th century" (native american reservations) and "American Cold war policy of the 20th Century" I couldn&#39;t have been any luckier.

[Revolt!]

indeed

[Wenty]

goodness sake stop with the rambles i hardly have the energy to read and take in yet another long winded post.

[Trissy]

goodness sake stop with the rambles i hardly have the energy to read and take in yet another long winded post.

But you have the energy to read all of Bertrand Russell&#39;s History of Western Philosophy? interesting...

now a responce if you please?

[Wenty]

I was actually editing my post when u replied before i could send it.

Anyway, brief comments:-


So you see nothing arrogant about a subsection of a species claiming there has to be a perfect, transcendental being because they think that explains a few mysteries...

This, and the rest of the paragraph repeats the word &#39;has&#39; all the time for some reason. Religious people believe because they do, theres no alterior motive. Suppose i prayed to God to give me a sign and he did. Then suppose from then on i believed in God, that isn&#39;t arrogant.


Why can&#39;t God hate us all? Wouldn&#39;t that be more reasonable? Isn&#39;t it more likely that he would forsake us rather then forgive us? But oh no...that just can&#39;t possibley be because I have FAITH...

The tone throughout all these posts is Rationalist time and again. A logical position to take if perhaps this world was simple and straight forward but i don&#39;t think it is. The problem i have with Hume is the attempt to argue against a deity (as well with a lot of his philosophy) with the rational. As i&#39;ve posted before:-


The possibility of his existence renders these arguments void. It is unknowable what this supreme beings capabilities are, so to argue against this deity (hypothetically in some cases) with rational arguments is in my view erroneous. To believe in God is not irrational, nor is it irrational to not believe.

And when you begin to argue against a deity you act on the premise of what it is supposed to be. How can you argue rationally against something like that?

[Trissy]

This, and the rest of the paragraph repeats the word &#39;has&#39; all the time for some reason
My repeating of the word &#39;has&#39; was to emphasise how they construct their rational beliefs on a few basic assumptions (which are of course irrational in the theological sense). I could go into more detail if you wish (which I suspect you don&#39;t).


Religious people believe because they do, there&#39;s no alterior motive
Part of my reading of Nietzsche has brought me to realise that human beings seldom ever do things for no reason, even if they think they do.


Suppose i prayed to God to give me a sign and he did. Then suppose from then on i believed in God, that isn&#39;t arrogant
Suppose you prayed to God to give you a sign? That sounds like testing the Lord which is a sin. :huh:

Even if you received your sign and believed, there is nothing to suggest that this sign came from a transcendental being who loved you and was perfect. The arrogance comes in thinking oneself worthy of love, and from thinking oneself capable of knowing any of the qualities of a perfect transcendental being. The Lord works in mysterious ways we are told...well if he&#39;s mysterious then you cannot know anything about him so please don&#39;t harp on about him, and construct buildings and services to honour him. The arrogance is breathtaking. If you must believe then believe in silence, and through silent actions.


The tone throughout all these posts is Rationalist time and again. A logical position to take if perhaps this world was simple and straight forward but i don&#39;t think it is. The problem i have with Hume is the attempt to argue against a deity (as well with a lot of his philosophy) with the rational
There a lots of Rationalist theologians (Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, etc). Hume wrote to counter their arguments which of course are rational. Irrationalists like Kierkegaard think they can protect faith by admitting it is irrationa,l but many people (those who attend services) won&#39;t admit is irrational because it involves the loss of the Church community, and religion falling into personal silence.


It is unknowable what this supreme beings capabilities are, so to argue against this deity (hypothetically in some cases) with rational arguments is in my view erroneous
Kierkegaard would partly agree. He&#39;d also say it is futile to argue for them.


To believe in God is not irrational, nor is it irrational to not believe
Kierkegaard would disagree. Christianity is irrational, which is why faith is of so much importance. Rationality will only lead us to a historical approximation of the life of Christ which is where a leap becomes necessary.


And when you begin to argue against a deity you act on the premise of what it is supposed to be. How can you argue rationally against something like that?
Instead you can argue on the premise that organised religion is in no position to comment any more then two believers are in a position to communicate their faith in language. We can suspend a decision, or take it in silence in which case organised religion and Pascal with it are swept into the sea...

[kroony]

The tone throughout all these posts is Rationalist time and again. A logical position to take if perhaps this world was simple and straight forward but i don&#39;t think it is. The problem i have with Hume is the attempt to argue against a deity (as well with a lot of his philosophy) with the rational. Rationalism, in the broad sense of logic-as-supreme, is the only thing that can improve the condition of mankind.

But never mind that. On what grounds do you exclude reason from the analysis of religion? There is a very good reason for not doing so. That is that if you leave rationality behind, all your decisions are arbitrary. There can be no decision as to whether to believe in this God or that God, or those Gods, or the other set of "nature spirits".

Of course, Christians like to rely upon revelation for truth -- but before they can do this they must explain why revelation is appropriate to God and to nothing else.

There exists such a thing as objective truth -- in other words, there is such a thing as being just straightforwardly wrong.

[Wenty]

I find it hard to believe there are any objective truths.

anyway, brief again:-


Suppose you prayed to God to give you a sign? That sounds like testing the Lord which is a sin.

Testing God is wrong but asking for a sign isn&#39;t. They&#39;re are similar though.


The arrogance comes in thinking oneself worthy of love

No, it comes from the bible saying God loves us.


The arrogance is breathtaking. If you must believe then believe in silence, and through silent actions.

Again, no. The bible says for you to go forth and spread the word of god.


On what grounds do you exclude reason from the analysis of religion? There is a very good reason for not doing so. That is that if you leave rationality behind, all your decisions are arbitrary

Let them be so then. Christians don&#39;t require any mode of thinking to believe they believe because of faith being &#39;the highest passion in a man&#39;. We don&#39;t need any philosophical tools.

[Trissy]

No, it comes from the bible saying God loves us
Yes, well Bill Clinton said he didn&#39;t have sex with that woman, hence the word of man is unreliable at best even if it is &#39;divinely inspired&#39;. Even a direct vision of the Lord himself declaring he loves me can be doubted as either as my own vanity, as being induced by some chemical, or as a sign of insanity. How did the people who wrote this book know that God loves us? Oh my...they made an assumption...hence they are arrogant...arrogance a long time ago, but arrogance none the less.


Again, no. The bible says for you to go forth and spread the word of god
But they at times do claim belief is rational so they would say you can spread the word. If you want to take the view of Kierkegaard then you must be silent. On a different note the bible also says &#39;judge not lest ye be judged&#39; but when has that stopped you folks? The pope still says homosexuality, abortion and contraception are sins whilst the Archbishop still refuses to discuss homosexuality amongst the higher members of the cloth because it may upset a few conservatives. Many of you don&#39;t give a damn what the Bible says as long as it corresponds with what you want. Arrogance yet again?


Let them be so then. Christians don&#39;t require any mode of thinking to believe they believe because of faith being &#39;the highest passion in a man&#39;. We don&#39;t need any philosophical tools
Then you&#39;ve excepted Kierkegaard&#39;s view, and hence you must demolish all churches and stop talking to your fellow Christains. A combination of the views of Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein means that this is the only conclusion we can come up with.

[Wenty]

Even a direct vision of the Lord himself declaring he loves me can be doubted

Its about belief Tristan, your vision is of a world where we live according to our very narrow parameters. I don&#39;t think the universe is like that.


The pope still says homosexuality, abortion and contraception are sins...

wow, i don&#39;t care. So what if some people are arrogant. You were objecting earlier to the belief in itself being that of arrogance. Now your changing it to random christians just being arrogant full stop.


Then you&#39;ve excepted Kierkegaard&#39;s view, and hence you must demolish all churches and stop talking to your fellow Christains

I agree with some of what he says, from what i know. However, i&#39;m not a follower i&#39;m just picking out some of the good ideas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its about belief Tristan, your vision is of a world where we live according to our very narrow parameters. I don&#39;t think the universe is like that.

Our universe is one of things that can be measured, directly or indirectly.
You cannot detect, measure, or quantify God or Hell with either our senses or instruments, therefore neither exist.

[kroony]

I find it hard to believe there are any objective truths.
I seem to remember having this conversation before.

Does everyone believe what Adam believes? Or can I not bother to explain it again, safe in the knowledge that most of us shun this absurdity?

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by kroony[email protected] 11 2004, 02:41 PM

I find it hard to believe there are any objective truths.
I seem to remember having this conversation before.

Does everyone believe what Adam believes? Or can I not bother to explain it again, safe in the knowledge that most of us shun this absurdity?
You find that absurd?

:huh:

Can you name any absolute or objective truth?

[Trissy]

Its about belief Tristan, your vision is of a world where we live according to our very narrow parameters. I don&#39;t think the universe is like that.
Adam, my vision of the world is a phenomenological one, there may be a noumenal one but that not the concern of anybody since we cannot access it.


wow, i don&#39;t care. So what if some people are arrogant. You were objecting earlier to the belief in itself being that of arrogance. Now your changing it to random christians just being arrogant full stop
Adam, please reread what I wrote and try to read it in context this time. I offered those two examples to show that Christians&#39; don&#39;t give a damn about what the Bible says, they only care about what it says which is to their liking. I haven&#39;t changed my original view that all Christians are arrogant in the slightest. I have yet to meet a truly humble Christian because even the humility shown by some is done for a reason.


I agree with some of what he says, from what i know. However, i&#39;m not a follower i&#39;m just picking out some of the good ideas
Well if you&#39;re agreeing that faith is fundementally irrational in nature like Kierkegaard said then what I have stated previously applies. If the truth of Christianity is subjective like your signature states then it cannot be communicated. Believers are in different language games as Wittgenstein would say.

[Wenty]

Our universe is one of things that can be measured, directly or indirectly.
You cannot detect, measure, or quantify God or Hell with either our senses or instruments, therefore neither exist.

what a load of rubbish


I haven&#39;t changed my original view that all Christians are arrogant in the slightest. I have yet to meet a truly humble Christian because even the humility shown by some is done for a reason.

Before you said that the belief in a God was arrogant. That is what i was objecting to. You seem to be guided by an atheistic fail-safe where you deny everything possibly religious.


If the truth of Christianity is subjective like your signature states then it cannot be communicated.

Sure it can be communicated in some way but ultimately whatever someone believes is their belief which relys on their understanding of whats been communicated.

[Trissy]

Before you said that the belief in a God was arrogant. That is what i was objecting to. You seem to be guided by an atheistic fail-safe where you deny everything possibly religious

No, I said belief in a God that has to love you was arrogant, which I stand by. I&#39;m an agnostic with atheistic feelings Adam, there is a subtle difference. All I deny is organised religion and the use of religious language.


Sure it can be communicated in some way but ultimately whatever someone believes is their belief which relys on their understanding of whats been communicated

But you haven&#39;t said how. How can a truth that is subjective be communicated? If it is subjective then it is personal...and if it is personal then it is unique...and if it is unique then how can it be the same as another person&#39;s? If it is not the same then it is a different langauge game, and hence it cannot be communicated. They cannot have understood anything that has been communicated to them because it is subjective as you have stated in the initial premise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

what a load of rubbish

How the hell can you say something exists if it cannot be measured or detected?

[Wenty]

How can you know anything about anything?

[kroony]

You find that absurd?

:huh:

Can you name any absolute or objective truth? Well, for a start, if you have forfeited objective truth, then I&#39;m afraid you have also forfeited the ability to criticise my opinions. If any belief is acceptable, then my belief in objective truth is as valid as anyone&#39;s, isn&#39;t it?

Not to mention that you have forfeited the ability to criticise capitalism&#33;

But moving on:
It&#39;s not a question of naming random objective truths. That is not the point. the point from which to start is this: regardless of whether we can know it, does objective truth exist?

Now, why don&#39;t I attack the problem at its most radical: the denial that sensory perceptions have any relation to reality. What&#39;s my answer to this? Simple: the world as we perceive it is the only one which can matter. You can debate to kingdom come about whether what we see, hear, smell or touch tells us "the truth". It simply doesn&#39;t matter -- since this world of our perceptions is the only one we can know, it&#39;s the only one which can matter.
With that one out of the way, I can now use my five senses to combat the problem. And these senses tell me that the world existed before I did. Not only that, but that it existed before humans did.
My point is simply this: how can truth be entirely dependent on human interpretation, if things already were happening before we existed?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I have just began my descent into phemonology so expect a very anti-objective truths me in the future...

[Wenty]

Well, for a start, if you have forfeited objective truth, then I&#39;m afraid you have also forfeited the ability to criticise my opinions. If any belief is acceptable, then my belief in objective truth is as valid as anyone&#39;s, isn&#39;t it?

A Fantastic rebuttal&#33;


how can truth be entirely dependent on human interpretation, if things already were happening before we existed?

I think they owe a great deal to our interpretation, I&#39;m unsure whether its wise to take the whole leap.

Anyway, how can you know the world existed before humans did?