Dave's Idea of "Absolute Truth" (to Farrell)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 09:14 AM 4/17/98 -0400, David Court wrote:

>Farrell

>Is there an atheist duty?  No, not in the sense.....

>

>(DAVE 4/16)  Farrell:  All things are relative aren't they Farrell.  That is 

>your creed isn't it?


TILL
Weren't you on the list when I engaged Lenny Santee in a discussion about
biblical passages that teach situational or relative ethics?  Would you like
to step in and refute my arguments on this issue, which Santee merely danced
around?  I'm sure those postings are still in my files.  Shall I repost them?

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  If you think I'd find them of interest, please post 
them.  Thanks.

DAVE

>Where there is a relativist, you will also find one who doesn't search for 

>absolute truth.  Were you aware of that?  


TILL
No, I wasn't aware of that.  My position is that there is absolute truth but
whether absolute truth can be known is another matter.

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  But what barometer do you use to judge whether 
something could be absolute truth?  Do you not dismiss claims of absolute 
truth based on your own ability to perceive and think?  Is that not just 
judging something perfect through imperfect means?  How do you know that 
absolute truth cannot be known?  WHY can it not be known?

Farrell
  It may be absolute
truth that there is a planet on the outer edge of the Andromeda Galaxy on
which intelligent reptilian life (like that which is sometimes depicted on
Star Trek) exists.  If this kind of life does exist there, it would be
absolute truth that intelligent reptilian life exists on this planet, but
how could we find out if it does.

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  In this example, we "could" find it out given enough 
time.  What you are saying really is that absolute truth can be learned with 
enough time, are you not?

Farrell
  It may be absolute truth that the surface
of Venus is studded with diamonds, but at the present time, there is no way
that we can know that this is absolute truth. 

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  Agreed.  Yet there are many "absolute truths" that, 
at this time, we DO know (for example, that reptiles exist on or planet, as 
do diamonds) - both these examples demonstrate that we CAN know absolute 
truth.  You are equating knowing absolute truth only with the factor of 
time, and human capability - this is understandable, but not a sound 
premise.  What if that which is "absolute truth" reveals itself TO us?  Do 
we then have to understand it?  Do we travel to it?  Is it a factor of time 
at all?

Farrell
 Needless to say, there is
certainly no way that we can establish as absolute truth that your
infinitely complex, invisible, immaterial, omnimax deity exists.  You seem
to think that wanting something to be absolute truth will somehow make it
absolute truth.

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  Not true.  What "ways" would you consider acceptable 
that WOULD "establish" God's existence as "absolute truth"?  You are so 
adamant that this cannot be established, yet your poor analagous example 
above, trying to show how we cannot know absolute truth, was easily refuted 
to show that we can.
Farrell, IS God's existence the "absolute truth"?  If not, why not?  And 
what criteria are you using to decide - criteria that I'm sure is equal to 
the task of knowing and discovering this truth?




DAVE

>You're no atheist.  This gets clearer every post.  

>


TILL
Suppose you explain to us why this gets "clearer every post."

(DAVE 4/25)  Farrell:  You have no sound position.  You have no sound 
support for your conclusions.  You wander on tangents, looking for some 
verbal loophole you can throw into an argument.  You presuppose that God 
does not exist in your arguments.  And, most of all, you consider all things 
in relation to YOUR abilities, YOUR thoughts, YOUR understandings, and YOUR 
bias - you consider things only in terms of what YOU know - that is faulty 
logic, Farrell, and it is why you are an obvious closet relativist.  I take 
atheists far more seriously, and consider them far more sincere.

Regards.

Dave

"An inevitable result fo autonomy is relativity.  If men are their own 
creators, then the social environment, destiny, and meaning of existence 
created by one group of people, in one place and time, are not necessarily 
relevant to another group of people in a different historical context.  
Those in each society bring into being a system of thought and values that 
has meaning only for those who create and live within it.  This is 
particularly true in the realm of morals...."
                                            - Tony Campolo

• Previous message: Does God repent or change his mind? (to Farrell)
• Next message: Dave's Idea of "Absolute Truth" (to Farrell)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]