January 16, 2010

What is Truth?

54 comments:

  1. From the video:

    All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute. It's a matter of viewing the data in the proper focus. For example, when I say, that I, Christie Putnam, think it is cold in this room, that may appear to be a relative truth. However, it's absolutely true, for all people in all places at all times, that Chris Putnam perceived the room to be cold at 12:55 PM on January 2010.

    Comedy genius. So Chris Putnam is saying that his perception of cold is an absolute truth. That means that my different perception of cold is also an absolute truth, and so is everyone else's. In other words, our perceptions are "absolute", but what "cold" means is not absolute. The same must be true, following this reasoning, for morals. Just what we atheists have been trying to tell you for years.

    cheers from foggy Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  2. 7 minutes and 39 seconds of Pascal's Wager peppered with a soup├žon of TAG.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The thousands of differing interpretations of scripture alone prove that the absolute truth that Dan pines for does not exist.

    Looking for absolute truth in a universe as complicated as the one in which we find ourselves is an exercise in absurd futility; the endeavor of superstitious shamans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *channeling Andrew Louis*

    Can you please show that 'absolute truth exists' is a valid proposition, give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is absolute and not systemic...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I enjoyed looking over your blog
    God bless you

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan? Are you there? Everything all right out your way?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zilch,

    >>Are you there?

    Yea I am here. My almost two year old decided to pour milk on the kids computer and fry it completely so for homeschooling they use mine, so I am online sporadically. Plus having 5 kids wears me out some times that is all. Bear with me.

    >>That means that my different perception of cold is also an absolute truth, and so is everyone else's.

    Yes, the fact that I said it was cold today, for example, is an absolute truth.

    >>In other words, our perceptions are "absolute", but what "cold" means is not absolute.

    Not quite, Our perceptions are not absolutes but the fact that you have a perception on a given subject, is an absolute truth.

    >>The same must be true, following this reasoning, for morals.

    Well sure, it is absolutely true that some atheists believe that morals are relative.

    >>Just what we atheists have been trying to tell you for years.

    "Trying" is an accurate statement. Succeeding? Not so much. So, are you a truth seeker or a salesman?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Froggie,

    >>The thousands of differing interpretations of scripture alone prove that the absolute truth that Dan pines for does not exist.

    It is absolutely true there are various translations of the Bible.

    >>Looking for absolute truth in a universe as complicated as the one in which we find ourselves is an exercise in absurd futility

    As opposed to the simpler universes out there or is that another exercise in absurd futility? Are you the High priest Shaman of that pursuit? That sounds indeed like the endeavor of Shamanism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. f-dead,

    >>Can you please show that 'absolute truth exists' is a valid proposition, give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is absolute and not systemic...

    It is absolutely true that I created a blog and named it "Debunking Atheists".

    Can you show that 'absolute truth does not exist' is a valid proposition?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Old Geezer

    Thank you very much. I have a great deal of fun here. Welcome.

    Blessings to you and your family.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan +†+ said...

    f-dead,

    >>Can you please show that absolute truth exists' is a valid proposition, give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is absolute and not systemic...

    It is absolutely true that I created a blog and named it "Debunking Atheists".

    No, it is however, systemically true. (For further explanation you should Google Andrew Louis and read his argument on Absolute vs Systemic Truth).

    Can you show that 'absolute truth does not exist' is a valid proposition?

    Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.” - Oscar Wilde

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan, It is true you created a site called "debunking atheists" but haven't debunked any atheists.LOL

    ReplyDelete
  14. It all makes sense now. The Bible is true and all other religions are false because the Bible says it's true!

    So, where do I sign up?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan writes...
    "It is absolutely true there are various translations of the Bible. "

    It is absolutely true that I created a blog and named it "Debunking Atheists".

    Dan, one of the first things you learn in a philosophy class is the difference between systemic truth and absolute truth.

    Your examples are clearly systemic, not absolute. In fact, not a single absolute truth has ever been recorded.

    Before you post more gaffs like this one, you should do your homework. :P

    ReplyDelete
  16. Monkey,

    >>It all makes sense now. The Bible is true and all other religions are false because the Bible says it's true!

    All forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Why are your senses valid?

    It has been explained already though,

    * (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)
    * (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.
    * (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.
    * (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
    * (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
    * (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
    * (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
    * (8, from 7) This someone is God.

    What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.

    >>Your examples are clearly systemic, not absolute.

    Are you claiming that nothing was true at a time when no minds existed, even if everything else existed? Are you claiming that the laws of logic did not exist at a point in time?

    >>In fact, not a single absolute truth has ever been recorded.

    That sounds like an absolute statement to me. You may have forgotten about the Bible when you claimed that point though.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One more Monkey,

    Please tell me why circular reasoning is absolutely not allowed according to your worldview? :7)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan, it seems you're joking, but if not: please tell me how circular reasoning is useful in your (or any other worldview).

    How can one test any idea, or learn anything new if the conclusion is always built into the premise in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reynold,

    >>How can one test any idea, or learn anything new if the conclusion is always built into the premise in the first place?

    So then circular reasoning is absolutely wrong according to your worldview?

    You trust the laws of logic in discussing logic, so why do you trust circular reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan
    You trust the laws of logic in discussing logic, so why do you trust circular reasoning?
     
    Dan, what's wrong with you? I just explained why I do not trust circular reasoning...it's useless. You even admitted as much when you asked me if it's "absolutely wrong" in my "worldview".

    Circular reasoning is useless in any worldview that I know of, except maybe Sye's.

    Look at Sye's site. He establishes the existence of "immaterial" concepts like logic, morality, and what not.

    But guess what? He then asserts with nothing but bible verses that therefore your "god" exists.

    All Sye does on his site is show that the laws of logic et al are immaterial, and that the laws of logic are absolute (morality, not so much. Read the OT compared to the NT).

    He gives no evidence that your god is responsible for them.

    I keep saying to him that since the laws of logic were figured out by the Greeks before xianity came, and that none of the laws of logic are in the bible, that Sye's assertion is baseless.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If you don't belive me Dan, or if you keep thinking that my "using the laws of logic" to analyze circular reasoning is itself circular reasoning, just run several examples through your head.

    When you keep coming to the same conclusion that is built into the premise, you'll start to see a pattern. You'll also notice that that way of thinking locks the thought from ever showing anything else but the conclusion that's put into the premise in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The only truth is the bible is a book. (A book is a set or collection of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of paper, parchment, or other various material, usually fastened together to hinge at one side.)

    A book made by humans

    Humans lie

    Humans lied about a God

    There is/was no God/s

    Pretty simple (Ockham's razor)

    ReplyDelete
  23. ANTZILLA,

    You cannot reduce the Bible to a merely just "a book". I am sure you could muster up some honesty and admit that logic says the Bible is supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LOL. Nope i can honestly say the bible is just a book.

    Supernatural (pertains to being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena)

    The Koran a book too, Encylopedia books aswell. nothing supernatural about paper,ink etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh also logic says there's no such thing as the "supernatural" of any kind, just natural things we don't understand yet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ANTZILLA,

    >>Oh also logic says there's no such thing as the "supernatural" of any kind, just natural things we don't understand yet.

    Now you hit the nail on the head. That is why evolution was "invented". To do just that, attempt to explain away supernatural things through a natural explanation.

    But like the post says:

    "Science is in constant revision. The world was flat - remember - and now it is round. The scientific world is always redoing and redefining to fit the exposed facts. The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining.

    Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Better to revise ideas when new facts come along than to hold onto them even when they've been disproved.

    (ie. Mustard seed, anyone)?

    ReplyDelete
  28. >>Better to revise ideas when new facts come along than to hold onto them even when they've been disproved.

    Even though you are insinuating there has not been one thing in the Bible that has been disproved?

    Mustard seed? Is that all you have? That is an easy one.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining."

    It's only been accepted by idiots,ignorant,power hungery and the rest of the people were MADE to accept it by knife, sword, gun, GENOCIDE!

    Now people have been conditioned into faith via evolution. People with faith adapt better in a society that is being subjected to a religous strangle hold.

    Nothing in the bible has been disproved??? The words in the bible stay the same but there interpertaions change when found to be wrong. e.g. the earth is not flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, not all animals "created"at same time, no flood that coverd whole of earth.etc.

    NOTHING in the bible has been proven either. angels, demons, god etc.

    "Now you hit the nail on the head. That is why evolution was "invented". To do just that, attempt to explain away supernatural things through a natural explanation."

    More like god/bible was invented (by humans) to hide misunderstandings/no understanding of natural things.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."

    Any examples?

    ReplyDelete
  31. * (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)

    Some things in the Bible we can verify such as place names... and uh... a few people. Most of the Bible is unverified including works of miracles and the enslavement of the Jews by the Egyptians. And in many cases, the Bible can be shown to be completely wrong such as when it says there are two great lights in the sky when there is only one.

    * (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.

    This is the same collection of books that says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Excuse me if I'm not exactly convinced of this. There are craters on Earth so massive they would have caused mass extinctions and world wide panic, yet nowhere in human history has there been a recording of any such event. Case closed.

    * (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.

    The same has been said of the Koran and most every other religious book.

    * (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)

    No.

    * (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)

    And it's not true on all these points.

    * (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.

    I have a bridge I want to sell you.

    * (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.

    It's a really nice bridge.

    * (8, from 7) This someone is God.

    I know you'll love it.

    I'm sorry Dan, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Bible is just as divine as the Veda and the Koran. By that, I mean it's not.

    Have a wonderful day. :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. What if the bible was simply a book of fantasy meant to entertain akin to Harry Potter?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kaitlyn- if ya gotta bridge to sell to Dan, I be hopin it's not the Dumbarton one, cuz that one is mine. Arrr.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan
    Even though you are insinuating there has not been one thing in the Bible that has been disproved?

    Mustard seed? Is that all you have? That is an easy one.

     
    Right...I've read all the dodging for it...none really deal with it. The "least of all seeds" is the least of all seeds, period. He did not say "the least of all seeds that you people know about" which would have still gotten the message across, but the least of all seeds, period. The orchid is the "least" of all seeds.

    I know you people can rationalize pretty much any problem away in the bible when you want, but after a while, some of them start to look kind of, stretched.

    I like how the Apologetics Press people deal with the money that Judas got, and gave back to the priests when they try to explain away the contradiction between the verses that say that "judas bought the field" and "the priests bought the field".

    Their analogies they use to handwave away the problem don't even match the actual events that happen. Read up on them and you'll see.

    My favourite is the way they try to excuse away the "there's some standing here who will not taste of death till the son of man comes in his kingdom" verse.

    Christ's most famous (to me) failed prophecy.

    Apologists try to pretend that he's referencing the "transfiguration", when the events don't even match up, and they have to ignore a few verses in context in order to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. First, thanks to Steve, I did not know that Monkey was Kaitlyn! Duh and whew, at least I know who I am dealing with so moving on.

    >>Most of the Bible is unverified including works of miracles and the enslavement of the Jews by the Egyptians.

    O'rly? Let me recommend a good book to you Kaitlyn, I added it to my recommended list, its called "Annals of the World".

    I would conclude by your statements here that you believe that circumstantial evidence is not even evidence. There is evidence of the Bible's claims.

    Your "homework" here appears to be just denials and presuppositions of the subjects and that is no big surprise. If you follow the logic and evidence one would come to the conclusion that God indeed exists, unless they fight the simple logic that is. Is that what you are doing here?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yaeger,

    >>What if the bible was simply a book of fantasy meant to entertain akin to Harry Potter?

    I have said it before but it is worth repeating.

    'Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories."

    Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.

    The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written plainly as a historical narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Reynold,

    >>The orchid is the "least" of all seeds.

    Well off the top of my head, without any homework on the subject, maybe it was in context as to familiar cultivated seeds of the times and back then the analogy of orchids would of fallen on deaf ears since no one cultivated orchids back then. The meaning would of been lost.

    Yes, today we cultivate Vanilla, quite the difficult and most expensive flavor or spice I might add, and we are aware of the size of those seeds but the Bible gives many examples of relevant references of the times. But I am sure that just is not a good enough explanation because of both of our presuppositions on this subject. It makes perfect sense with a little faith but utter nonsense with complete distrust and contempt towards the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "O'rly? Let me recommend a good book to you Kaitlyn, I added it to my recommended list, its called "Annals of the World". "

    Wow, Dan. Asking me to read a book by a Bible literalist in which he asserts, among other things, that Genesis is a true account of history in order for you to prove that the Bible is true, are you serious?

    Dan, it's all make believe. The science is in; Genesis never happened, miracles don't happen, and prayer has the healing power of a similarly administered placebo.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 'Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories."

    Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.


    I want you to watch Forrest Gump. Start from chapter 1, see the time line, the movie talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe Forrest Gump, it has a bunch of stories.

    Fantasy stories don't include details like the Forrest Gump which should be taken as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan you claim
    >>"Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."<<

    Got any of those examples of this yet?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan, you say: First, thanks to Steve, I did not know that Monkey was Kaitlyn! Duh and whew, at least I know who I am dealing with so moving on.

    Uh, Dan, since when is Zilch Steve? You can't move on until you acknowledge with whom you are dealing. And I have a very nice bridge to offer you. In the wee hours of the morning, it's kinda spacey when you're headed towards Hayward up that ramp that looks like it shoots to the sky and ends there, but I'll give you a very good price for it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan
    Well off the top of my head, without any homework on the subject, maybe it was in context as to familiar cultivated seeds of the times and back then the analogy of orchids would of fallen on deaf ears since no one cultivated orchids back then. The meaning would of been lost.
     
    Not so. Orchid seeds still existed, even if they weren't cultivated.

    All Christ would have had to do is mention that the orchid seed is the "least of the seeds that the people in this land know of" and his meaning would still have been clear. That, and it would have doubled as a prophetic statement, once orchids were found in the New World.

    Sorry, but "presuppositions" have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Reynold- not that it makes any difference for your point, but you don't have to go to the New World to find orchids- they are found on every continent except Antarctica, and there are even quite a few orchids native to Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  44. >>Uh, Dan, since when is Zilch Steve?

    Sorry Scott. That was the second time I was wrong in my life. It won't happen again.

    >>and there are even quite a few orchids native to Israel.

    Good point but not Vanilla for cultivation. That was my point. I think, though it may be wrong, my point still stands as a feasible explanation as to the mustard seed dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan you claim
    >>"Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."<<

    Any luck finding examples of this yet?

    ReplyDelete
  46. On the mustard seed problem, I take a view in between Reynold and Dan.

    The fact that the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds on Earth, or even the smallest of all seeds in Israel two thousand years ago, does show that there is at least one statement in the Bible which is only true within a certain constrained context- in this case, cultivated plants in Israel- even though it was not qualified as referring to this limited context.

    Thus, this statement is not universally true, or even true within Israel, when taken literally. This is a good warning for literalists: statements in the Bible must all be taken with a grain of salt, and the possibility considered that they are only true within a particular context, or simply parables intended to make a point but not to be taken literally.

    This does not mean that the Bible could not be the Word of God- but it does mean that if the Bible is the Word of God, then God meant to show us a path, not the truth- He meant us to see and decide for ourselves what the truth is.

    Of course, it might also be the case that the Bible is the work of people, who also meant to show us a path. Again, it's up to us to decide if we want to take this path, or explore other paths, or just go cross country through the brush.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ??

    If I end up in Hell, it's your fault, Dan, for not paying attention to me. That should give you pause while you're tuning your harp.

    ReplyDelete
  48. >>If I end up in Hell, it's your fault, Dan, for not paying attention to me.

    Well, obviously I disagree with your viewpoint and I thought that was a given. You going to hell may be my fault since I do need to warn you of your impending doom (Ezekiel 3:17-18). Although, I feel I have warned you multiple times but if you feel that I should be to blame for you going to hell then just bear with me while I witness to you many more times. Now sinner, please repent and trust in our Lord Jesus Christ with your heart mind and soul for your salvation.

    >>That should give you pause while you're tuning your harp.

    It may indeed, somehow God will help me with that though, as promised. I have no idea how God will make things tolerable because with all the ongoing thoughts of my Mom in hell right now kinda sucks. You will be just another one of the people on my long list that wouldn't listen to warnings, including every single one of my family members. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan you claim
    >>"Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."<<

    has your "A" game got any examples of this claim yet?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ant,

    >>has your "A" game got any examples of this claim yet? (scientists have found that they were in error in later days about the Bible claims)

    I appreciate that you keep asking but I haven't thought on how to approach that question yet. I thought about just doing a post about it or just address it and move on. I am thinking about it though and I haven't blown it off just yet. I think a post would do a better job of addressing it though.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A post would be great thanks for effort of backing up you claims.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hang on a second Dan you origanlly claimed.

    >>"Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days."<<

    This vastly different to >>scientists have found that they were in error in later days about the Bible claims<<

    examples that the bible was right and science was wrong is what your supposed to be presenting.



    Tricky,Tricky Dan

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>