Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LeonardDeNoblac

Guest
  1. Relativist: “Nothing is always true.”
    Me: “Is this always true?”
    Relativist: “Yes.”
    Me: “You are contradicting yourself. You said that nothing is always true, but if you are right then what you said can’t be always true.”
    Relativist: “Well… then no, it isn’t always true”
    Me: “So you are refuting yourself. If there is even one thing that is always true, what you said is false, tertium non datur.”
    Relativist: “Well… logic is relative, so I have no reason for believing what you say.”
    Me: facepalm
  2. Skeptic: “We can’t know the truth.”
    Me: “How do you know this is true?”
    Skeptic: “I came to this conclusion by reason.”
    Me: “How do you know your reason is telling you the truth?”
    Skeptic: “Well… I don’t know.”
    Me: “Why should I believe you, then?”
    Skeptic: “Because you also can’t know the truth.”
    Me: “How do you know that?”
    Skeptic: “I have no proof that you can.”
    Me: “You are just making up assertions without evidence.”
    Skeptic: “Well… we can’t know if logic tells us the truth about reality, so I have no reason for believing what you say.”
    Me: facepalm
 
Last edited:
That’s right. The same is true with evolution and any form of materialism.
To be rational and logical, we must have control of our thoughts. If our thoughts, however, are determined by material processes, we do not have control of them. Thus, materialism is irrational.
 
This isn’t about evolutionism or materialism - I accept theistic evolution, but I reject materialism. However, I agree that materialism makes rational thought impossible.
 
Last edited:
Evolution was the mean by wich God created living beings. However, it is to be pointed out that only the body of man was created through an evolutionary process, the rational soul was created directly by God.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Evolution was the mean by wich God created living beings. However, it is to be pointed out that only the body of man was created through an evolutionary process, the rational soul was created directly by God.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks. I’ll just say that there is nothing in evolutionary science that supports that point of view, It is entirely materialistic. You’re adding God into the process somehow, but that’s not evolution. A direct creation of the soul (which is true) is also against Darwinian theory.
 
Evolution is a scientific theory. Science can’t determine anything about the existence of God or of the soul. These are philosophical questions.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Science can’t determine anything about the existence of God or of the soul. These are philosophical questions.
Click to expand...
Science can claim that human beings emerged from blind, naturalistic, material processes. That’s what evolution claims.
 
Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society or historical context, and are not absolute
Skepticism: the theory that certain knowledge is impossible

What did I misrepresent?
 
Last edited:
Well, what do they actually say? I’ve just provided definitions that don’t affect my arguments.
 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.
Click to expand...
Seems right to me.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
Science can claim that human beings emerged from blind, naturalistic, material processes. That’s what evolution claims.
Click to expand...
Evolution claims that living beings mutate, adapt, and change over time, and that this explains the diversity of life we see in the world today. It doesn’t say anything about the existence of a deity. Plenty of theists believe in evolution, I recall it pointed out that since most people in the US are religious to some degree, and a majority of Americans believe in evolution, that most evolution believers are in fact religious. So most people have reconciled these just fine, often the way @LeonardDeNoblac has. It would certainly take a god-like being to begin a multiple billion year long journey or change that would lead to the exact outcome he desired.
 
Indeed the tricky part of an argument like this is getting the other person to stick to the script you invented for them.
 
“Dan123 said:
Evolution claims that living beings mutate, adapt, and change over time, and that this explains the diversity of life we see in the world today.
Click to expand...
Yes, it claims that bacteria eventually became human beings.
On that journey, some non-human animal gave birth to a human being. That’s evolution. It proposes human beings as the result of blind, mindless, natural forces. That’s the evolutionary story.
It doesn’t say anything about the existence of a deity.
Click to expand...
A deity is not required to explain human life. That’s the error of evolution.
Plenty of theists believe in evolution, I recall it pointed out that since most people in the US are religious to some degree, and a majority of Americans believe in evolution, that most evolution believers are in fact religious.
Click to expand...
I understand but that’s just saying that a lot of people believe it. We have to look at what evolutionary theory is.
It would certainly take a god-like being to begin a multiple billion year long journey or change that would lead to the exact outcome he desired.
Click to expand...
I think you’re closer here, and Darwinists would disagree with you. They claim that humans emerged from random mutations and mindless natural processes. You’re saying that’s not possible without God. So, you’re conflicting with evolutionary theory here.
Click to expand...
 
Can you provide some citations in peer reviewed or primary literature that states this, or has anything at all to say on the subject of souls?
 
Wich means there is no absolute right and wrong.
But the same must apply to this same statement, it can’t be absolutely true.
If it isn’t absolutely true then absolute truths must exist, and the whole castle falls
 
niceatheist said:
Can you provide some citations in peer reviewed or primary literature that states this, or has anything at all to say on the subject of souls?
Click to expand...
You are looking for the emergence of human beings from material processes alone, minus the existence of souls?
I can provide quite a lot. That’s all there is in the entire field. There is no soul. Supposedly, science recognizes the evolution of humans without needing to observe the existence of a soul. How did they do that?
 
The soul, along with the rest of what is spiritual, is not in the area of science, which studies the material.
 
Annie said:
The soul, along with the rest of what is spiritual, is not in the area of science, which studies the material.
Click to expand...
How can science recognize the difference between a human and a non-human ancestor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top