Awesome site about whether God exists

[Dragar]

The price we pay for being consistent in our definitions.

[Doctor X]

Vvvvvvvveeeerrrrry interesting. . . .

Indeed, nice example of not being limited by the meaning of words. "How can you move beyond 'infinite' temperature?!! I thought infinity had no bounds?!"

--J.D.

[Dragar]

Well, it's more about adhering precisely to the meaning of one word: 'temperature'!

[Ohm]

good move, no escape from to loop hole.......

[Artemis Entreri]

Absolut Truth

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

0 degrees absolute you mean? Is that temperature attained anywhere, even in deep space?

Not exactly, it is a theoretical concept. In the lab the closest scientists have come is a small fraction of one degree after a prodigious amount of machinations to get there. The best I've ever been able to achieve is .4 degrees Kelvin using evaporative cooling, but then again I wasn't trying to go to zero and that temperature is not all that hard to achieve. The temperature of deep space is around 4 degrees K due to the MBR (microwave background radiation) left over from the big bang. Which by the way was predicted prior to its discovery along with the average ratio of hydrogen to helium that would be found in the universe based on the assumption that the universe as we now see it went through what is popularly called a "big bang" which of course is not exactly what is purported to have happened. But all that aside, it is not called "absolute cold", it is called "absolute zero".

Be that as it may, not only is "absolute truth" nonsense, but as far as I can tell "truth" is nonsense as well. If for no other reason that society as a whole as turned it into nonsense by using it as some sort of "unequivocal" declaration of reality. Which as far as I can tell we may be able to get close to but only after a prodigious amount of machinations. But from my own experience at trying I do not think we will get there by preferring one explanation over another based mostly on how we feel about it. But if it makes some feel better and gets them through the day then go for it. But I would ask them to please not muddy the waters by trying to convince others that their preference based on feelings is more than a self-administered palliative as opposed to a serious attempt at trying to explain reality.

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It ignores the logical "laws" about false dichotomies. It's nothing but one false dichotomy after another.

Hey ladies! This is typical of the responses I get to my site. Lots of complaints about false dichotmies, but none ever listed. Still though, you appeal to the laws of logic in order to accuse the site of ignoring them. Please, tell us, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Isn't it obvious that the entire concept of "truth" is flawed if you now have to qualify it with "absolute"?

Well, that's just because people like you claim that there is such a thing as 'relative' truth.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

Hey ladies! This is typical of the responses I get to my site. Lots of complaints about false dichotmies, but none ever listed. Still though, you appeal to the laws of logic in order to accuse the site of ignoring them. Please, tell us, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

Warmed over TAG - Bullshit!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

Well, that's just because people like you claim that there is such a thing as 'relative' truth.

I assure you, I do my utmost to avoid the term "truth" altogether because it doesn't appear to contribute to clear and effective communications all that much but has the effect of allowing the receiver of information to think that they have understood it. As such it is not all that different than another trite and useless phrase, "you know what I mean". It has been my experience that most of the time they do not. At best the word “truth” can be used as an “Ack” but unless they can spit back a checksum or rephrase the message most of the time they didn’t get much of the message at all. In my opinion we would all be a lot better off if we stopped using it. And if we did I assure you that it would take the wind out of the sails of the supernaturalists if for no other reason than it would leave them pretty much speechless.

[Dragar]

Asimov has a wonderful essay describing the relativity of correct and incorrect statements.

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I assure you, I do my utmost to avoid the term "truth" altogether because it doesn't appear to contribute to clear and effective communications all that much but has the effect of allowing the receiver of information to think that they have understood it.

Umm, is that true? If it is, you have refuted yourself. If it isn't, why should I care?

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Warmed over TAG - Bullshit!

Same old reply to TAG - devoid of an argument.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

Same old reply to TAG - devoid of an argument.

That is because TAG itself is devoid of content. Why should I give any other reply?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

Umm, is that true? If it is, you have refuted yourself. If it isn't, why should I care?

Funny but you make my point.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

Umm, is that true? If it is, you have refuted yourself. If it isn't, why should I care?

All you have to offer is stale, contentless rhetoric, same as your pointless site.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

This is typical of the responses I get to my site. Lots of complaints about false dichotmies, but none ever listed.

Here's one example:

On the first page I clicked "I don't know if absolute truth exists". As a result, I was presented with the statement "I don't know if absolute truth exists" and given a choice between "Absolutely True" and "False". This is a false dichotomy, because it excludes many other possible responses, such as "I don't know", "Conditionally true", etc.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

[Y]ou appeal to the laws of logic in order to accuse the site of ignoring them.

How is that a problem?

Further to vm, another false dichotomy inheres at the site's index page, where no option for "some truths may be absolute, others not" is presented. You can't click "absolute truth exists" and "absolute truth does not exist" at the same time.

In fact, I assume that the authors of the page themselves consider some truths to be absolute and others not.

[Iacchus]

Well, if all is relative, it is relative to what? ... The absolute of course.

A diamond has many facets, yet any one facet is not the entire diamond. Hence the diamond itself is the absolute, with respect to the number of facets. Notwithstanding that each facet is absolute with respect to what it is. Either that or, it would not exist, without the absolute as its basis.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, if all is relative, it is relative to what? ... The absolute of course.

Each of the "all" is relative to the rest of the "all." There doesn't need to be some "absolute" external to the "all."

[Dragar]

I also found the example of 'universal mathematical laws' questionable. Arguably, the addition of money is not a mathematical law but a physical one.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Each of the "all" is relative to the rest of the "all." There doesn't need to be some "absolute" external to the "all."

Yes, but the "all" is the complete story, and therefore the ground for everything. Hence, one would think that there "is" an absolute truth about reality. In which case we have to ask, have we discovered what that is? This is why God is postulated in that sense, because most people don't claim to know.

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Further to vm, another false dichotomy inheres at the site's index page, where no option for "some truths may be absolute, others not" is presented. You can't click "absolute truth exists" and "absolute truth does not exist" at the same time.

If some truths are absolute, then absolute truth exists.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

In fact, I assume that the authors of the page themselves consider some truths to be absolute and others not.

Well, since it's me - nope.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by SyeTenB

If some truths are absolute, then absolute truth exists.

By the same token, if *only* some truths are absolute, then others are not. Your problem is that one of the former "truths," that god exists, is "absolute." So you need to prove at least three things:

1. Absolute truth exists
2. God exists
3. The claim "god exists" is an absolute truth.

Have you proven any of these things?

Moreover, your definition of absolute truth is, "True for all people at all times, universally true." Have you polled them all?

Because if I'm not mistaken, some of their deaths preceded your birth.

[SyeTenB]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

By the same token, if *only* some truths are absolute, then others are not.

I don't believe that "*only* some truths" are absolute, that was your claim. I merely stated that if you believe that some truths are absolute, then you believe that absolute truth exists.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

So you need to prove at least three things:

1. Absolute truth exists

You have agrees that it does.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

2. God exists

Absolute truth cannot exist without God.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

3. The claim "god exists" is an absolute truth.

This is true by the impossibility of the contrary. You cannot account for absolute truth (let alone the laws of logic) outside of God, whereas Christians can account for both.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Moreover, your definition of absolute truth is, "True for all people at all times, universally true." Have you polled them all? Because if I'm not mistaken, some of their deaths preceded your birth.

That's the point. This is not a problem for the Christian, but it is a problem for you. The only way anything can be known to be true is by or through revelation by a being (God) who knows everything. Now, you said that "some things are absolutely true," how do you account for absolute truths according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye