Lets discuss! Absoute Truth vs Relative Truth

[STT]

Well, it’s actually as you defined it as well, when you offered the website (affirming my definition)

1. We know that Absolute Truth exists
2. We know what it looks like
3. We know that you can now retract what you said earlier.

You didn’t answer my question: What we are going to do with this sort of knowledge?

 

[PRmerger]

You didn’t answer my question: What we are going to do with this sort of knowledge?

We are going to use it to prove that God exists.

 

[Rhubarb]

Excellent.

So we are agreed that there is some understanding of what is good, in refutation of what you posted earlier:

“But quite a few people dispute the definition of the good.”

We know, from natural law, what is good.

Fair enough.

But it still remains true: there is no dispute (or ought not be) for some things which are considered “good” and “bad”.

Normative facts are in dispute? Really?

Is it a fact that contraception, non-marital sex are good?

Egg-zactly.

QED.

If you believe in Absolute Truth (and good for you for acknowledging this!), then the natural conclusion is that there is an Absolute Truthgiver.

So much to say in reply. I’ll do by best to keep it organized.

In my post that touched all this off I meant to say “analytic statements” not “a priori statements.” My phil 101 prof would be so disappointed in me

Natural law is not something I’ll concede. It relies on an undenonstrated teleology. Existence precedes essence, and etc.

And to a point I’ll agree that absolute truths require a truthgiver. For example, the truth of the statement “all bachelors are unmarried” was given by the linguist who invented the word. Which isn’t the same kind of Truthgiver you’re thinking of. But I’m not here to bang my religious view drum. I was discussing epistemology.

 

[PRmerger]

Natural law is not something I’ll concede. It relies on an undenonstrated teleology. Existence precedes essence, and etc.

Yet, I presume, you believe some things which cannot be demonstrated, yes?

And to a point I’ll agree that absolute truths require a truthgiver.

And so would Moral Absolutes.

Yes?

 

[Rhubarb]

And so would Moral Absolutes.

Yes?

1. A being that sets absolute truth is not analogous to someone making up a word.
2. A truthgiver implies that the truth could be given in another way. Which means the truth isn’t absolute.
3. Moral truths can be absolute without relying on a truthgiver. There are all sorts of ethical theories that demonstrate this.
4. And moreover. I think there ARE moral truths which are absolute as well as moral truths that are relative. It’s not either/or. It’s and/both. Consider: “It’s wrong to donate fifty thousand dollars to starving orphans.” If that money would ruin your household, I would agree. If you’re a multibillionaire, I disagree.

 

[STT]

In my post that touched all this off I meant to say “analytic statements” not “a priori statements.” My phil 101 prof would be so disappointed in me

How an analytic statement could be different from a prior statement?

Natural law is not something I’ll concede. It relies on an undenonstrated teleology.

What do you mean? Natural laws do not rely on theology.

Existence precedes essence, and etc.

I don’t think so. Existence is impossible without essence.

 

[STT]

We are going to use it to prove that God exists.

You cannot prove God with a prior statements.

 

[PRmerger]

Natural laws do not rely on theology.

Read what Rhubarb said again. Teleology. Not theology.

 

[PRmerger]

You cannot prove God with a prior statements.

But you can with the belief that Absolute Truths exist.

Which you have conceded exist.

And remember, we are using the definition which you backed up with a link.

 

[PRmerger]

1. A being that sets absolute truth is not analogous to someone making up a word.

Of course you are correct.

But no one has said that "A being that sets absolute truth is not analogous to someone making up a word.’

I have simply given you the thumbs up for acknowledging that absolute truths must come from somewhere.

1. A truthgiver implies that the truth could be given in another way.

Huh?

1. Moral truths can be absolute without relying on a truthgiver. There are all sorts of ethical theories that demonstrate this.

Please 'splain.

And I would like to know how these ethical theories explain moral obligation.

That is, we as a moral actor are *obligated *to, say, not take another man’s wife.
That is, if we wish to be moral we MUST not do something.

1. And moreover. I think there ARE moral truths which are absolute as well as moral truths that are relative.

This is very Catholic!

 

[STT]

Read what Rhubarb said again. Teleology. Not theology.

I don’t think if one can demonstrate or prove that natural laws rely on teleology either. Why there should be a purpose for existing of natural laws?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think if one can demonstrate or prove that natural laws rely on teleology either. Why there should be a purpose for existing of natural laws?

Just curious–did you misread Rhubarb’s post originally?

 

[STT]

But you can with the belief that Absolute Truths exist.

Which you have conceded exist.

And remember, we are using the definition which you backed up with a link.

You mean we can prove God with statements like there is no square circles and there is no round squares. I don’t believe so. Anybody could claim that it is God if it knows an a prior statement which prove that God exist if such a statement could possibly exist. I think that one need a justification for existence of God and not an statement. That is true because God by definition is the creator and the only way to justify God’s existence is to observe the act of creation which this is logically impossible for created creatures since created creature can only observe the universe after creation.

 

[PRmerger]

You mean we can prove God with statements like there is no square circles and there is no round squares.

No. Not quite, STT.

There are several steps in between, but, like a beautiful chess match, or a symphony, the pieces fit together coherently.

Once you acknowledge that Absolute Truth exists (which you have!), the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

We can discuss how this happens…

But first we have to discuss whether Moral Absolutes exist.

I believe that they do.

And I believe that you should, too.

Unless you think that what a person decides is moral is, in fact, moral?

Is that your position?

That is true because God by definition is the creator and the only way to justify God’s existence is to observe the act of creation which this is logically impossible for created creatures since created creature can only observe the universe after creation.

I don’t think the “only way to justify God’s existence is to observe the act of creation”.

I can think of a few other ways right off the top of my head…and if you wanted to give me a few days, I could come up with a whole lot more.

What about a man rising from the dead?
What about using philosophical arguments and logic to conclude God exists?
What about miracles?

Wouldn’t the existence of even one miracle prove God’s existence?

 

[STT]

No. Not quite, STT.

There are several steps in between, but, like a beautiful chess match, or a symphony, the pieces fit together coherently.

Once you acknowledge that Absolute Truth exists (which you have!), the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

We can discuss how this happens…

Ok, lets discuss it.

But first we have to discuss whether Moral Absolutes exist.

I believe that they do.

And I believe that you should, too.

Unless you think that what a person decides is moral is, in fact, moral?

Is that your position?

Morality is off topic.

I don’t think the “only way to justify God’s existence is to observe the act of creation”.

I think that is the only way.

I can think of a few other ways right off the top of my head…and if you wanted to give me a few days, I could come up with a whole lot more.

Lets see.

What about a man rising from the dead?

Spiritual world is huge. Perhaps anybody there can raise dead. Moreover, there are tons of stories in history about persons who claimed to be God and performed miracles.

What about using philosophical arguments and logic to conclude God exists?

We have got no change there. Just look at history.

What about miracles?

This we have already discussed.

Wouldn’t the existence of even one miracle prove God’s existence?

No.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, lets discuss it.

Morality is off topic.

Morality and absolute vs relative truth are, of course, on topic.

Would you mind answering this question:

Unless you think that what a person decides is moral is, in fact, moral?

That speaks to absolute vs relative truth.

I think that is the only way.

Such a fundamentalist point of view.

So, even if a miracle occurred, you wouldn’t believe?

Are you not a Seeker of Truth?

It seems as if you have set yourself up for the impossible!

“I am a Seeker of Truth and will, of course, consider all the evidence for God’s existence! Of course, the only proof that would compel me is if I could time travel 14 billions years into history, so…until then, I remain an unbeliever…”

Really?

Imagine a man saying to his girlfriend, “I love you! And of course I will propose to you! All you have to do is stay 23 for 10 years, and then I’ll give you the engagement ring you’ve been wanting!”

What that really indicates is this man has no intention of marrying this woman, wouldn’t you say?

No.

A miracle wouldn’t be proof of God’s existence? What would it be proof of?

And would it change your mind then?

 

[STT]

Morality and absolute vs relative truth are, of course, on topic.

Would you mind answering this question:

Unless you think that what a person decides is moral is, in fact, moral?

That speaks to absolute vs relative truth.

Perhaps you can derive morality from absolute truth but that to my understanding is not straightforward. I would be happy to know how you could do it.

Such a fundamentalist point of view.

So, even if a miracle occurred, you wouldn’t believe?

That is not fundamentalist but skeptic. I believe that spiritual world is vast so anybody there could perhaps perform miracle. Miracle is only a supernatural phenomena, it is simply about manipulating things. The act of creation, creating something from nothing, by far is different from miracle.

Are you not a Seeker of Truth?

It seems as if you have set yourself up for the impossible!

It doesn’t really matter if I find the truth at the end. What is matter is to put enough effort on the duty.

“I am a Seeker of Truth and will, of course, consider all the evidence for God’s existence! Of course, the only proof that would compel me is if I could time travel 14 billions years into history, so…until then, I remain an unbeliever…”

Really?

You cannot be a truth seeker any more if God tells you everything.

A miracle wouldn’t be proof of God’s existence? What would it be proof of?

And would it change your mind then?

A miracle is not a proof of God. Even devils can perform miracles.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you can derive morality from absolute truth but that to my understanding is not straightforward. I would be happy to know how you could do it.

Great.

So if you could answer the question (3rd time!) I posed to you, that would get us started.

Do you think that what a person decides is moral makes it moral?

That is, if a man decides that it’s the right thing to do to kill his daughter for having the audacity to be raped, this is, indeed, moral?

IOW: what is your opinion of honor killings for victims who were raped?

 

[PRmerger]

That is not fundamentalist but skeptic.

No, STT. It’s fundamentalism ad hoc.

“I will only believe if ONE THING is provided for me, (and, BTW, it’s a thing that can never be provided)” = fundamentalism.

“I don’t believe, but give me the evidence, in whatever manner, and I will consider it” = skepticism.

I believe that spiritual world is vast so anybody there could perhaps perform miracle. Miracle is only a supernatural phenomena, it is simply about manipulating things. The act of creation, creating something from nothing, by far is different from miracle.

Fair enough.

So you do believe in the supernatural?

You cannot be a truth seeker any more if God tells you everything.

You are very Catholic when you say this, STT.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t really matter if I find the truth at the end. What is matter is to put enough effort on the duty.

Well, yes and no.

Truth does matter, and any Seeker should have as his goal the attainment of Truth.

Otherwise, he’s on a wild good chase.

But putting in effort is, indeed, praiseworthy.

And good for you for being here on the CAFs!