Jump to content


Photo

Absolute Truth


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 01:13 PM

I do not accept that which I cannot show.

View Post

Show me how the truth; that acceptable knowledge must be tested and demonstrated, can itself be tested and demonstrated.

This is the philosophical problem that modernists ran into, which ended up producing the post-modern relativistic mess we find ourselves in today. Try to take away God and life becomes meaningless and absurd.

So what if we are just artificially intelligent sub routines in a computer program and Scott's particular sub routine is programmed to think he is driving a car.

View Post

No one is going to stop you from living your own imaginary fairytale if you want. At the end of the day, you don't take your own medicine because there is ample evidence that validates God's existence, starting with your own finite conscientiousness but your philosophy twists how you look at things to blind you of the truths of God.

Only you can decide that you want that fixed. In the mean time, you can pretend that you weren't created and the universe is a cosmic accident, no one will stop you.

Adam

#22 TheJarJam

TheJarJam

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indy

Posted 06 January 2009 - 02:03 PM

The problem is that nobody told the vast majority of the scientists this or even remotely showed this in any scientifically acceptable way.  Until that time this kind of statement is hot air.

View Post


Darwinism is their religion. You can't expect them to abandon it just because it's wrong. That would take intellectual integrity, something that's rare amongst Darwin cultists. :lol:

#23 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 06 January 2009 - 02:52 PM

This thread is a great exercise to show (those who are interested anyway) the level of sophism involved in modern secular philosophy.

As long as the recipient of relativistic logic (that might even be an oxymoron :lol: ) is well confused, the person disseminating their bad thinking will maintain the utmost confidence in the truthfulness of certain "proven" concepts:

Examples of fallacious arguments:

1. There is no God
2. Evolution is fact
3. Truth is relative

All these are used quite assuredly and expounded upon, in various ways, quite confidently as long as the individual listening doesn't see the flawed basis of each. However, the moment someone starts to see that there are legitimate questions surrounding the methods one uses to get to these conclusions, the last ditch effort is to argue along the line:

"Well, we don't know anything for sure!" and its various forms (which are always self-defeating oxymorons)

Sophism is the word of the day.

Modern day philosophy, built on the concept of skepticism, unbridled doubt, and the assumption that 'self' is the starting point of reason, and not God, is pure scientific sophism.

Adam

View Post


You didn't answer my question - why?

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 January 2009 - 02:56 PM

Well, I ask this question mainly because how can you even argue and say that absolute truths do not exist.  I shall give a few examples of how illogical it is to think that absolute truths, do not exist.

Ok, I'm driving my car down the highway and I have a passenger beside me.  While I'm driving the car the person tells me that I'm not driving the car.  I look forward and yes, both hands are on the steering wheel and I am driving the car.  So I look over at the person and say, you are absolutely wrong, because I am absolutely driving my car.  The person continues to deny this.

So I say to the person, if your going to insist that absolutes do not exist, then I will make you get out of my car.  Then the person says, yeah right! You will not make me get out of the car.  I pull over and kick the person out of the car, then casually drive off thinking to myself:  I wonder if he is absolutely certain that he has just been kicked out of the car...

Absolute Truths do exist, so why even deny them???  If truth doesn't exist, then true/false questions should never be used in schools for tests.  Maybe we shouldn't have tests.

Does anyone else see the problem with not believeing that absolute truths exist?

View Post


Have you ever been so certain of something that you were sure it was real, only to change your mind later?

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 January 2009 - 03:00 PM

Modern day philosophy, built on the concept of skepticism, unbridled doubt, and the assumption that 'self' is the starting point of reason, and not God, is pure scientific sophism.

View Post


That would be solipsism would it not? That by thinking you know you exist. Because if you didn't then what would be doing the thinking?

#26 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 03:23 PM

Why would he need to be absolutely sure?

View Post


Are you refuting his statement about absolutes?

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 03:35 PM

That would be solipsism would it not?  That by thinking you know you exist.  Because if you didn't then what would be doing the thinking?

View Post


No, solipsism is the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible… It’s making the case that nothing else can be proved but one’s own existence.

Skepticism on the other hand is being of the mind that something is not true until proof is posited. A skeptic may not believe in absolutes, or they may believe absolutes are possible is given enough evidence, but a skeptic doesn’t think all knowledge is impossible…


And by the way, the Bible calls for its followers to be skeptical, to test and prove things to be true….

#28 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 03:41 PM

Have you ever been so certain of something that you were sure it was real, only to change your mind later?

View Post


Absolutely, that’s why you test things to know if they are true or not… But this does not refute absolute truth. When you find a truth that has been empirically proven to be an absolute truth, and you deny it, then it’s you that has the problem, not the absolute…

2+2= 4… That is an absolute truth that you cannot disprove (just one of the many)…

#29 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 03:43 PM

The problem is that nobody told the vast majority of the scientists this or even remotely showed this in any scientifically acceptable way. 

View Post


So you’re saying that if the majority believes it to be true, then it’s true? Might makes right?

#30 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 04:41 PM

How is this absolute truth.  You are very certain that you are driving your car but the amount of certainty that you have assigned to this action is based off of human senses which are extremely fallible.  Maybe you are dreaming that you are driving your car.  Maybe we are all computer simulations and we are nothing but artificially intelligent sub routines.  Of course I do not believe this however I cannot show this to be true or false.  Ultimately we are left with degrees of certainty.
He cannot be absolutely certain...but he would be fairly certain that you acted like a jerk.
lol.  This is absurd.  True and false tests are not tests of absolute truth and absolute untruths. 
I see you that you do not understand the impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true.  We accept things as true but we cannot show them to be 100% true.  It is not that I do not accept absolute truth its that I cannot fathom any experiment that shows absolute truth and neither can you.

View Post


Actually A.Sphere, the question would be how is this not absolute truth. You see making an experiment to find absolute truth is just about the easiest experiment you can do. There are hundreds of ways to prove absolute truth.

Stab yourself in the arm. Are you going to argue that you did not absolutely stab yourself in the arm? If you did actually stab yourself in the arm, and then you denied that you did, then you would be absolutely wrong.

You are attaching certainty to the wrong things. I can be almost certain that a car will perform the way I want it to, but something could go wrong. But I can be absolutely sure that I started the cars engine after I turned the key, and the engine turned over.

You see, World War 2 absolutely happened, and there is absolutely no arguing that. Because it absolutely is an absolute truth. No one has to have a level of certainty about those who actually experienced the war. Both of my Grandfathers know that they were absolutely involved, and experienced the war.

There truly is no point in arguing that absolute truth does not exist. Because it is an absolute fact that absolute truth exist.

#31 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 05:27 PM

Actually A.Sphere, the question would be how is this not absolute truth.  You see making an experiment to find absolute truth is just about the easiest experiment you can do.  There are hundreds of ways to prove absolute truth.

Stab yourself in the arm.  Are you going to argue that you did not absolutely stab yourself in the arm?  If you did actually stab yourself in the arm, and then you denied that you did, then you would be absolutely wrong.

You are attaching certainty to the wrong things.  I can be almost certain that a car will perform the way I want it to, but something could go wrong.  But I can be absolutely sure that I started the cars engine after I turned the key, and the engine turned over.

You see, World War 2 absolutely happened, and there is absolutely no arguing that.  Because it absolutely is an absolute truth.  No one has to have a level of certainty about those who actually experienced the war.  Both of my Grandfathers know that they were absolutely involved, and experienced the war.

There truly is no point in arguing that absolute truth does not exist.  Because it is an absolute fact that absolute truth exist.

View Post


Absolutely!

#32 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 05:31 PM

You didn't answer my question - why?

View Post


Looks like he absolutely answered it to me (You may not have liked the answer).

Oh-and-by-the-way.... I answered it as well :lol:

#33 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 06 January 2009 - 07:30 PM

Looks like he absolutely answered it to me (You may not have liked the answer).

Oh-and-by-the-way.... I answered it as well  :lol:

View Post


A.Sphere said:

I see you that you do not understand the impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true. 


You said:

Are you absolutely sure?


I said:

Why would he need to be absolutely sure?


Adam777 said:

>a whole bunch of stuff about sophism, which means an intentionally misleading and false argument<

I said:

You didn't answer my question - why?


I see why you may have misunderstood that to mean that I was wondering why Adam777 didn't answer my question (which by the way he didn't, but I sort of already know why, so that wasn't what I was wondering). I was trying to rephrase my original question, which was, "Why does A.Sphere have to be absolutely certain about anything? Why does anyone, for that matter? Why is this absolute certainty so important to you and Adam777?"

#34 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:34 PM

Folks on both sides are a little hit-and-miss on one point. Absolute truth and absolute certainty are not the same thing. There's been some confusion.

I'd point out that even positing a "Matrix" scenario is not actually in opposition to absolute truth existing; it actually assumes it. It says that although you'll fall for the illusion, you are actually ...xyz. That actuality is an absolute truth.

Gotta watch things mighty close when they're polywrong.

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:44 PM

That would be solipsism would it not?  That by thinking you know you exist.  Because if you didn't then what would be doing the thinking?

View Post


No I definitely used the right word.

Sophism - a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.

This is at the heart of trying to question absolutes when they are self-evident and yes I agree with you we do have the capacity to be mistaken about what is true. That is why we should have humility and brokenness because not only are we finite but we're corrupt.

The only hope we have to be transformed is by the blood of Jesus. If not, solipsism is the runner up and a good case of nihilism is the logical conclusion.

I'll keep my trust in Jesus, thanks. There's plenty of grace for everyone but you have to receive it like good nourishment and not just play with it like a child that doesn't want to eat his vegies.

Adam

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 09:02 PM

You didn't answer my question - why?

View Post


Judy, you ask bad questions sometimes. I'm not avoiding it but your question kind of works like this.

Adam - Judy, there is a car on the road, do you see it?

Judy - Why do I have to see it?

:lol:

I like what CTD added and we should all take note. There is a difference between absolute truth and absolute certainty.

However, the primary question isn't about why should we be sure but can we be sure?

Philosophically, the idea that truth must be tested and verified is scientific suicide because the idea that; truth must be able to be tested and verified, is itself a truth that can't be tested or verified.

The idea here really comes back to, are there such things as self-evident truths?

#37 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 03:33 AM

A.Sphere said:
I see why you may have misunderstood that to mean that I was wondering why Adam777 didn't answer my question (which by the way he didn't, but I sort of already know why, so that wasn't what I was wondering).  I was trying to rephrase my original question, which was, "Why does A.Sphere have to be absolutely certain about anything?  Why does anyone, for that matter?  Why is this absolute certainty so important to you and Adam777?"

View Post



On the contrary, in order to say absolute truth doesn’t exist is making just as “Absolute” a statement. And by A.Shpere saying:

impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true.

View Post

he made an absolute statement.

Yes, he was making an absolute statement, and therefore needs to either stand by it, or see the fallacy in it.

And absolutes do exist; you and I both know it, therefore correcting a mistake should be important to everyone.

We both answered your question, no misunderstandings...Do you see where you were mistaken?

#38 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 January 2009 - 05:47 AM

Well. I'm not absolutely sure I should keep the thread open. LOL. It's getting very ridiculous.

Those who believe there are no absolutes, will continue because that is the only way their reality can work.

So the thead is going to become the never ending thread. I'll let it continue under one condition. No flame wars.

View Post


I suppose you may be absolutely correct… When you can’t get a relativist to answer a simple question like “isn’t 2+2=4 absolutely correct”? Then one must move on to those who aren’t hiding from that absolute truth…


No "Flame" just fact :(

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 January 2009 - 06:14 AM

Judy,

Here are great questions, that need careful consideration:

I was trying to rephrase my original question, which was, "Why does A.Sphere have to be absolutely certain about anything? Why does anyone, for that matter?

View Post

First, you don't have to be certain about anything. This is the beauty of your freewill. You can doubt everything. In fact, you can be so goofed up in your philosophy that you can be absolutely certain that you can doubt everything.

However, if someone is speaking like this above. Is that an example of true reason or is it more correctly illogical?

See, nobody is going to make anyone logically consistent. You can fall prey to all kinds of mental tricks if you aren't aware of the implications as you're doing it. This is the ugliness of deception and Christians, with unrenewed minds, aren't immune to this either.

There are people who pride themselves in being rational and reasonable and are neither, like Richard Dawkins. Even some more educated atheists find his arguments embarrassing and with good cause.

Why is this absolute certainty so important to you and Adam777?"

View Post

Here is why this discussion is so important:

Judy, ever since you and I have been engaging in this debate I've been introduced to the more unusual variety of atheist/agnostic. People who were pastors, elders, and others who claimed to once be Christians. By name this would include:

Michael Shermer
Dan Barker
Julia Sweeney


...and there are a bunch of people at freeratio.org that have similar stories, including you.

What do I recognize that these people were convinced of? Well, it's interesting really, because what they were convinced of didn't have to do so much with hard facts or a superior belief system, they were convinced that true integrity meant doubting everything.

How do I know this is so?...

Well, one short glance at a cross-section of atheists shows quickly that you don't agree on much of anything because there is no foundation just doubt. Except, bashing on Christianity and lifting up Darwin. Even these concepts can be doubted because doubt is the ruler over the skeptic.

I believe skepticism is a valuable tool but it makes a lousy foundation. De_skudd's signature sums up the skeptics dilemma:

"If we want to be intellectually honest skeptics, we must be as skeptical about our skepticism as we are about our knowledge."

Many ex-doubters make great Christians not because they're trophies, but because their experience with unbridled doubt makes them hold on to Jesus tight with both arms. We have a living breathing example right here in de_skudd.

Others that come to mind, are individuals who's thoughts that I've been showcasing: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis aren't just 'trophies for the cause' but constitute some of the most steadfast and logical variety of believer because they know exactly what it feels like to be falling down the endless black-hole of doubt and they were saved from it.

On the other hand, when I consider the odd perspective of atheists who were once Christians it is self-evident that consistency and efforts to truly represent what they oppose are far from a prerequisite. In fact if they can showcase the most unusual beliefs as mainstream Christianity, they will. Sometimes I think the speech of high profile atheists isn't as concerned with getting converts as they are with strengthening the faith of people who are already atheists.

So there is a high level of contradiction at the base of atheism/agnosticism. I know that not all Christians are logically consistent but here is the rub:

A Christian who is Illogical is so on peripheral issues. Their core is sound and as long as they rely on God's Word and the Blood of Christ, they have the foundation with which to correct bad thinking which also results in right behavior. Your beliefs govern who you are. This is why we're told to renew our minds. The Christians who are week or maybe Christians in name only are that way because they ignore the concept of having their minds renewed and instead just try to 'act right'.

On the other hand, the foundation of atheism/agnosticism is no foundation. contradiction #1. The rule of the day is; be skeptical about everything, except skepticism. contradiction #2. The only thing we're sure about, is we can't be sure. contradiction #3. and on and on...

These aren't peripheral to the mind of the eternal skeptic, it's the staple of the day. The Bible warns us to look out for this...

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

If the skeptic's philosophy doesn't lay bare under the light of this scripture, I don't know what does.

#40 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 07 January 2009 - 07:00 AM

What do I recognize that these people were convinced of? Well, it's interesting really, because what they were convinced of didn't have to do so much with hard facts or a superior belief system, they were convinced that true integrity meant doubting everything.

View Post



Here is the core of your problem, in bold print.

You are utterly convinced of the superiority of your beliefs, not just in relationship to other world religions, but even in relationship with other Christians who may see things differently than you do. And why wouldn't they see things differently? This "absolute" truth of yours is anything but. It's based on a baseless presupposition - as Ravi Zacharias and others put it "God exists - agreed?"

I don't agree. Why should I?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users