there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

[PratchettFan]

An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is.

I'll also posit to you that you can arrive at an absolute truth: you are or are not omniscient.

You (personally) can & do know that absolutely.

So if I say that I have experienced God first hand, that is then a statement of absolute truth.

Not if you say it.

Only if it is actually true.

This isnt a matter of professing x is true thus x.

Its a matter of saying that every mind knows for an absolute fact whether or not it is omniscient, by the very definition of the word omniscient. And each person knowing that for THEMself is an absolute truth, not a mere assertion.

Then "absolute truth" is a meaningless term. It only applies to conditions meeting your approval.

 

[G.T.]

No, absolute truth is irrefutable truth and has nothing to do with any preconditions.

You merely 'assert' that youve met god. Okay, thats not thus absolute truth.

That an omniscient being knows whether or not its omniscient IS absolute truth, by virtue of the definitions of the terms omniscient and absolute truth. Not by virtue of my testimony.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, absolute truth is irrefutable truth and has nothing to do with any preconditions.

You merely 'assert' that youve met god. Okay, thats not thus absolute truth.

That an omniscient being knows whether or not its omniscient IS absolute truth, by virtue of the definitions of the terms omniscient and absolute truth. Not by virtue of my testimony.

Meaningless. Refutation requires interaction and you are applying it without interaction. You are simply establishing your own parameters which require no support, and then insist that support be provided for other claims. You cannot prove to me you are not omniscient and you call it absolute truth, so I need not prove anything to you. I need only make the claim. Your logic, your rules.... so you need to follow them.

 

[G.T.]

Incorrect. The definitions of the words are what make my statement true, not my assertion that theyre true.

In order for you to refute that an omniscient being doesnt necessarily know whether its omniscient - you have to change the very definition of the word. That is the absolute truth and its proof is made by the meaning of the terms themselves, not by my testimony of the personal example. Thats why its true that ALL non omniscient minds KNOW theyre not omniscient - because

1. If they dont KNOW something, they are not omniscient.

 

[PratchettFan]

Incorrect. The definitions of the words are what make my statement true, not my assertion that theyre true.

In order for you to refute that an omniscient being doesnt necessarily know whether its omniscient - you have to change the very definition of the word. That is the absolute truth and its proof is made by the meaning of the terms themselves, not by my testimony of the personal example. Thats why its true that ALL non omniscient minds KNOW theyre not omniscient - because

1. If they dont KNOW something, they are not omniscient.

Absolute truth is determined by a dictionary?

So, if I follow you, you can make an unsupported claim which is then absolute truth and it remains so until I can prove it otherwise? Ok, I am a prophet, which is defined as someone who delivers a message from God. Thus making the existence of God absolute truth, until such time as you can prove I am not a prophet.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

 

[sealybobo]

Which has nothing to do with following a code of morality, which is really the utmost reasoning for people to have faith in a power higher than themselves, be it real or an invention of Man.

And that's the truth.

God isn't necessary. We can teach our kids right from wrong without ever making up the story of god who has a lot of similarities to santa clause and the moral code/message behind that is to brainwsh kids into being nice not naughty. So you think we need the lie. I say this lie is no longer believable in today's society and still yet a lot of parents are teaching their kids right from wrong, even the atheist parents.

Whenever I think "how is christianity doing" I look at Amerikkkan kids bullying in school. What are their parents/preachers teaching them? This moral decay is the product/result of Christianity. But Christians can never lose. If their society falls apart it's because the society left god. What did George Carlin say about our politicians? Of course they are greedy, ignorant corrupt. Where do American politicians come from? American schools, churches, homes. Garbage in garbage out. And clearly the sheep of American christians are all gullible losers who are easily manipulated into voting against themselves financially and into war for $ that they'll never share. Support tax breaks they'll never get. The rich will continue to control/own us until we put god out of our heads. There is no god.

Don't blame the devil or atheists for your churches failures. And by the way when is god going to get it right? First he fucked up with Adam, then Noah, then Jesus and now we're waiting for Jesus to come back again because god can't get it right! Fucking retards.

All I am doing is explaining the reasoning behind proclaiming a divine power to which we are obliged to be good people from the Devil's Advocate perspective.

Your anger is pervasive. You ought to deal with it internally rather than focus your ire on what others do or don't do. And if you have kids, you are foisting your irrational hatred upon them.

Oh come on this is just me ranting on a message board. I don't tell kids there is no god. If I had my own kids I would but I don't so...

And kids love me. I run a music school that has mostly kids as students. They don't sense any anger in me. Know why? Because there is none. Unless someone comes in here and tries to tell me I'll go to hell if I don't believe. Or if the president of our country uses religion to divide us and lie us into wars, which happens. Yes that makes me angry.

But I don't tell kids to be good or they'll go to hell. That is what I call irrational. And christians hatred towards muslims is a bit more hateful than I am to atheists.

I show them how to be good. Kids see what you do more than hear what you say. And so by watching me they know how to be friendly, kind, personable, nice, they know how to not be mean to other kids, not be bullies, include everyone in your games even the dorks and girls no matter how unathletic they are, share, be nice, friendly, inclusive, don't cheat, be competitive but calm down if losing a stupid game is bothering you that much.

I just spent the weekend with like 10 kids. Every parent was like, "sealybobo why don't you have your own kids you would be great". Isn't that something? They think an ATHEIST would be a good parent. But I bet you if they knew I didn't believe in god they would change their minds in a heartbeat. I don't think parents should continue brainwashing future generations with a lie but I don't say that christians shouldn't have kids because they teach an irrational lie.

P.S. Stop playing the victim here. Believers claim the victim and imply that non-theists gang up on them or are hateful. No, atheists just look at believers the same way they might look at someone who claims the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe: delusional.

The bar theists set for perceived atheist hostility appears to be anyone simply voicing a dissenting opinion or mentioning an inclination towards non-belief. Claiming ‘persecution’ is simply a deflection for theists who are unwilling or unable to deal with open criticism.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

Note: ‘Militant’ atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

See also: The Ethics of Belief (a must read), Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism, Christian Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism, Atheist Terrorism (no link found).

“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – Anonymous

 

[PratchettFan]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

 

[sealybobo]

Which has nothing to do with following a code of morality, which is really the utmost reasoning for people to have faith in a power higher than themselves, be it real or an invention of Man.

And that's the truth.

God isn't necessary. We can teach our kids right from wrong without ever making up the story of god who has a lot of similarities to santa clause and the moral code/message behind that is to brainwsh kids into being nice not naughty. So you think we need the lie. I say this lie is no longer believable in today's society and still yet a lot of parents are teaching their kids right from wrong, even the atheist parents.

Whenever I think "how is christianity doing" I look at Amerikkkan kids bullying in school. What are their parents/preachers teaching them? This moral decay is the product/result of Christianity. But Christians can never lose. If their society falls apart it's because the society left god. What did George Carlin say about our politicians? Of course they are greedy, ignorant corrupt. Where do American politicians come from? American schools, churches, homes. Garbage in garbage out. And clearly the sheep of American christians are all gullible losers who are easily manipulated into voting against themselves financially and into war for $ that they'll never share. Support tax breaks they'll never get. The rich will continue to control/own us until we put god out of our heads. There is no god.

Don't blame the devil or atheists for your churches failures. And by the way when is god going to get it right? First he fucked up with Adam, then Noah, then Jesus and now we're waiting for Jesus to come back again because god can't get it right! Fucking retards.

Your anger is pervasive. You ought to deal with it internally rather than focus your ire on what others do or don't do. And if you have kids, you are foisting your irrational hatred upon them.

I re read what I wrote to you. What anger? And if I am angry, I'm angry at what others do. Focusing on me won't do anything about what they do, will it?

And how about you christians or religious nuts do the same. Instead of worrying about gays and abortions, focus your ire on yourself internally. And if you have kids, feel free to teach them the lie your parents taught you, but stop fucking asking for us to teach your lie in school.

Is that so bad? Fuck you.

 

[sealybobo]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

I was in grave danger. GRAVE danger? Is there any other kind? A Few Good Men.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

You are not using my same logic.

You are asserting "I, pratchettfan assert that I did something, thus it's absolutely true."


That is not the logic I used.

Here is my logic. In case you missed it.

If someone is NOT all knowing, then they can know for a fact that they are NOT all knowing.

For if someone is all knowing, it then follows that they KNOW that they're all knowing.


That is my logic. You have not and cannot refute it.

You logic: "if I say I experienced god first hand, then its absolute truth."

No, fail. That's an assertion without logic.

My logic: being all knowing is the absence of uncertainty. If you are unsure you are all knowing, then you are necessarily NOT. Therefore, you can know for certain that you are NOT all knowing, if you are not. Therefore, there are absolutes without a deity being necessary, a statement that contradicts the position of many theists.




Truth or absolute truth? It's both, neither has more weight really................ that, I believe, is just a nuance of language.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

I was in grave danger. GRAVE danger? Is there any other kind? A Few Good Men.

Bad example though.

There are other sorts of danger that won't kill you so.............all danger is not grave danger, but that's just irrelevant psychobabble anyhow.

 

[PratchettFan]

Umm, no. Youre making an assertion from authority without logic.

I am using logic.

The absolute truth of said logic is not dependent upon your understanding of it - and i know you cannot refute it.

A non all knowing being can know that its non all knowing, because if it were all knowing then it would necessarily know. That is a logical truth that you cannot break down, it is not an assertion from authority or a 'because i said so' as youre miserably attempting to analog. You can keep trying to refute that its an absolute truth but for starters its impossible and second -> youre off to a really bad start

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

You are not using my same logic.

You are asserting "I, pratchettfan assert that I did something, thus it's absolutely true."


That is not the logic I used.

Here is my logic. In case you missed it.

If someone is NOT all knowing, then they can know for a fact that they are NOT all knowing.

For if someone is all knowing, it then follows that they KNOW that they're all knowing.


That is my logic. You have not and cannot refute it.

You logic: "if I say I experienced god first hand, then its absolute truth."

No, fail. That's an assertion without logic.

My logic: being all knowing is the absence of uncertainty. If you are unsure you are all knowing, then you are necessarily NOT. Therefore, you can know for certain that you are NOT all knowing, if you are not. Therefore, there are absolutes without a deity being necessary, a statement that contradicts the position of many theists.




Truth or absolute truth? It's both, neither has more weight really................ that, I believe, is just a nuance of language.

So you think a negative makes it different? It doesn't. You start with an unsupported premise and carry on from there. Garbage in, garbage out.

This is logic. All humans have seven legs. I am a human. Therefore, I have seven legs.

The fact that the premise is false does not change the logic. And that is where your argument breaks down. You begin with a premise which you support by referring to the dictionary - an appeal to authority. You do not, and I presume cannot, verify the definition is correct. It must simply be accepted - on faith.

You then take your unsupported premise and apparently relate it back to the existence of a deity, without even the slightest attempt to connect the two. Arriving at the conclusion you desire without once presenting a single, verifiable fact.

I don't argue your logic, but your thinking is muddy. Logic is a tool, nothing more. Merely possessing a hammer and saw does not make you a carpenter.

 

[G.T.]

I am using exactly the same logic as you. Logic is merely a set of rules, which are meaningless in the absence of factual evidence. You have none and are acting as if you do.

On a side note, what exactly does the word "absolute" mean in this context? Is there a truth which is not absolute? Is an absolute truth more true than the truth? If so, precisely where is the line?

You are not using my same logic.

You are asserting "I, pratchettfan assert that I did something, thus it's absolutely true."


That is not the logic I used.

Here is my logic. In case you missed it.

If someone is NOT all knowing, then they can know for a fact that they are NOT all knowing.

For if someone is all knowing, it then follows that they KNOW that they're all knowing.


That is my logic. You have not and cannot refute it.

You logic: "if I say I experienced god first hand, then its absolute truth."

No, fail. That's an assertion without logic.

My logic: being all knowing is the absence of uncertainty. If you are unsure you are all knowing, then you are necessarily NOT. Therefore, you can know for certain that you are NOT all knowing, if you are not. Therefore, there are absolutes without a deity being necessary, a statement that contradicts the position of many theists.




Truth or absolute truth? It's both, neither has more weight really................ that, I believe, is just a nuance of language.

So you think a negative makes it different? It doesn't. You start with an unsupported premise and carry on from there. Garbage in, garbage out.

This is logic. All humans have seven legs. I am a human. Therefore, I have seven legs.

The fact that the premise is false does not change the logic. And that is where your argument breaks down. You begin with a premise which you support by referring to the dictionary - an appeal to authority. You do not, and I presume cannot, verify the definition is correct. It must simply be accepted - on faith.

You then take your unsupported premise and apparently relate it back to the existence of a deity, without even the slightest attempt to connect the two. Arriving at the conclusion you desire without once presenting a single, verifiable fact.

I don't argue your logic, but your thinking is muddy. Logic is a tool, nothing more. Merely possessing a hammer and saw does not make you a carpenter.

Words have meaning is an appeal to authority?

There's no discussion to be had if words don't have established meanings.

My premise is supported by the fact that it cannot be the opposite. You cannot even begin to refute it, and you haven't begun.

The premise is supported, you just don't accept that words have meaning which is fine - but then, don't bother discussing anything with me because what you said doesn't mean anything, necessarily - in your worldview.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are not using my same logic.

You are asserting "I, pratchettfan assert that I did something, thus it's absolutely true."


That is not the logic I used.

Here is my logic. In case you missed it.

If someone is NOT all knowing, then they can know for a fact that they are NOT all knowing.

For if someone is all knowing, it then follows that they KNOW that they're all knowing.


That is my logic. You have not and cannot refute it.

You logic: "if I say I experienced god first hand, then its absolute truth."

No, fail. That's an assertion without logic.

My logic: being all knowing is the absence of uncertainty. If you are unsure you are all knowing, then you are necessarily NOT. Therefore, you can know for certain that you are NOT all knowing, if you are not. Therefore, there are absolutes without a deity being necessary, a statement that contradicts the position of many theists.




Truth or absolute truth? It's both, neither has more weight really................ that, I believe, is just a nuance of language.

So you think a negative makes it different? It doesn't. You start with an unsupported premise and carry on from there. Garbage in, garbage out.

This is logic. All humans have seven legs. I am a human. Therefore, I have seven legs.

The fact that the premise is false does not change the logic. And that is where your argument breaks down. You begin with a premise which you support by referring to the dictionary - an appeal to authority. You do not, and I presume cannot, verify the definition is correct. It must simply be accepted - on faith.

You then take your unsupported premise and apparently relate it back to the existence of a deity, without even the slightest attempt to connect the two. Arriving at the conclusion you desire without once presenting a single, verifiable fact.

I don't argue your logic, but your thinking is muddy. Logic is a tool, nothing more. Merely possessing a hammer and saw does not make you a carpenter.

Words have meaning is an appeal to authority?

There's no discussion to be had if words don't have established meanings.

My premise is supported by the fact that it cannot be the opposite. You cannot even begin to refute it, and you haven't begun.

The premise is supported, you just don't accept that words have meaning which is fine - but then, don't bother discussing anything with me because what you said doesn't mean anything, necessarily - in your worldview.

Another fallacy. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam. It is not my responsibility to refute your claim, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it. You attempt to do so by referring to the dictionary, but apparently you are the only one allowed to do this.

You seem to be of the opinion that words have an impact upon reality. Words are simply our attempt to describe reality, they do not create it. If the word does not match reality, then it is the word which is wrong - not reality. So if you wish to talk about truth, then you need present more than a word as evidence. Prove your definition is correct, don't just insist I have to accept that definition without question. Nothing is true "by definition".

 

[G.T.]

I don't need to establish what simple words like "know" mean, that's frivolous and non sensical because words are how we communicate and if we don't agree on their definitions then we are not even communicating and you have just said NOTHING.

If you dispute the very well established English meanings of the words that I used in the phrase "if you are not all knowing, then that is something you can know with certainty" - then you can begin to take apart the logic of the statement itself.

But if you do not dispute the established English meanings of said words, you cannot dispute the logic of the phrase therein either.

My statement is true and supported, irrefutable[/B] in fact. You have not done so, and you have not even ARGUED the meaning of the words.

 

[G.T.]

For example, this discussion does not even exist and neither does the WORD logic if we do not first agree that words have established meanings...

so for the discussion to continue and to get over the frivolity of discussing whether words describe reality or not, either dispute the established meanings of the words therein or leave the discussion because if you don't then you are saying: nothing, and can NEVER say anything meaningful by the very virtue of that worldview.

 

[G.T.]

all means: the whole of, the greatest possible
know / knowing means: to perceive or understand as fact or truth

if you do not debate those definitions, the logic I have used is sound
if you debate those definitions, then your worldview cannot establish itself and it is frivolous because it cannot even begin to communicate itself, necessarily.

That is the folly of the "words don't have established meanings" debate.

The comment is sound logic.

 

[Capstone]

Whatever is the case ...is the case, irrespective of our ignorance as to what is in fact the case. Knowledge (or the lack thereof) is thereby a sadly inadequate arbiter of objective (or "absolute") truth. If it's the case that "omniscience", by definition, entails knowledge of possession of the all-knowing attribute itself, then ignorance in that regard would definitively negate possession of the attribute, yes. On the other hand, if knowledge of one's own limitations is included in the body of 'all that can be known', or in other words, one accounts for the prospect of any number of unknowable things in his or her definition of "omniscience", so that possession of knowledge of all that is knowable would justify the attribution, then the precept should hold that ignorance of one's own omniscience doesn't necessarily preclude possession of the attribute itself. As usual, it all comes down to the definitions we apply to our beliefs as to what may or may not objectively be the case beyond the subjective limitations of language and human thought processes.

 

[G.T.]

Whatever is the case ...is the case, irrespective of our ignorance as to what is in fact the case. Knowledge (or the lack thereof) is thereby a sadly inadequate arbiter of objective (or "absolute") truth. If it's the case that "omniscience", by definition, entails knowledge of possession of the all-knowing attribute itself, then ignorance in that regard would definitively negate possession of the attribute, yes. On the other hand, if knowledge of one's own limitations is included in the body of 'all that can be known', or in other words, one accounts for the prospect of any number of unknowable things in his or her definition of "omniscience", so that possession of knowledge of all that is knowable would justify the attribution, then the precept should hold that ignorance of one's own omniscience doesn't necessarily preclude possession of the attribute itself. As usual, it all comes down to the definitions we apply to our beliefs as to what may or may not objectively be the case beyond the subjective limitations of language and human thought processes.

I don't think you can be all knowing and also have limitations in your knowledge. Other limitations, sure - but being all knowing is the absence of any limitation on your knowledge.