In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The concept of an Absolute truth.
Even if it has nothing to do with God, do you agree with the premise?
People are convinced of falsehoods all the time ramssuperbowl, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
I would have to know what you define an absolute truth as being.
Oh I know, but it's worth pointing out to people who are convinced of falsehoods that they aren't being intellectually honest.
I am thinking of absolute truth like this.
I'm trying to be as intellectually honest as possible. I've already told you that I'm convinced falsehoods exist. Only that I believe that the opposite of falsehood exists.
You seem to believe that falsehoods exist also, and that you believe that to be true, absolutely.
It's not a deception to say that I can only be convinced that I'm wrong if I believe what you are saying is right.
This post was edited by DookieJones 2 years ago
You may very well be the first I ever ignore on a message board. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic...whatever, if this doesn't offend the reader then something is wrong upstairs.
If I were on the line about my beliefs, that post would have me screaming in the opposite direction. In this debate, you are less and less approachable the more I read. Congratulations because there's no way that wasn't your goal.
Then yes... I believe there is such thing as truth. We perceive what we can about it. I think we should use science, logic, and our perceptions to try and find the truth with the acceptance that these tools aren't perfect and we can be mislead. One should be willing to adjust their world view as they learn and come accross new evidence.
This post was edited by OmegaBuckeye 2 years ago
Sorry, just didn't see what you were going for there.
Now the question to ask you is, "does "Absolute Truth" need to be tied to a god for it to exist?"
So since you do not know all, how can you say that Jesus does?
This post was edited by weagle247 2 years ago
This has been interesting to say the least. I believe GoodNews is failing you all by not finishing his sentence. I believe it went like this, " you don't know anything unless you know everything", I would amend that to say it in terms of perspective....So, "you don't know anything unless you know everything on the road", so to speak. So none of us know the length or breadth of the road ahead. So I think GoodNews is saying that without that knowledge individually we know nothing of the journey. We may walk one way or another, observe rocks that exist, breath air that sustains, but without knowing the entire journey we truly know nothing as it relates to that journey. Furthermore I believe GoodNews is suggesting that since we 'know nothing' we seek someone/something that will know everything related to the journey. Maybe it is drugs, religion, politics, money, general disbelief, active disobedience, etc. but in the end (which we don't know until then) it was all filler for the journey. In the end you are the most important person in your journey but only a bump in the road for the overall journey of life (as an example).
GoodNews may have made some immediate enemies but if you take a bit of an objective view of what he wrote when reading it there is some sense of logic to it from the perspective of an omiscient being.
Even if what we now know or understand is infinitesimal, compared to what we will gain over a couple hundred thousand years, it is still something and does not require a god that knows everything to exist. We don't search for something that will have the answers for everything. We search for the answers themselves.
No. You can believe truth exist without tying it to God. I choose to align what I hope is true with statements the bible makes. To each man his own.
Edit: I will state that in this particular case, I do believe absolute truth to be God. Therefore, we come to an impasse, where I could be wrong but have hope that I'm right, and we disagree with what the truth is. If I'm wrong, it only confirms there is a right.
I'm sorry, but I thought it was obvious we were discussing things of a more profound and cosmic nature. But, to play along, it's true (I assume) that Rueben Foster has verbally committed to play for Bama. But, we don't have a clue as to the full ramifications of all that. That decision, assuming it sticks, with affect many, many things moving forward in the big scheme of things. So, right now we cannot truly know what it all means. All we have is an apparent surface understanding of his action while so much hangs in the balance. As to gravity, we know so little about it, or any other of the forces of the universe, that it's really not a good analogy for your point of view, IMHO.
As to the spagetti monster. There is absolutely no evidence for such a creature. So, I'm not sure why you would pin your reputation to it. I had grits for breakfast.
Finally, I came back to my childhood faith b/c it is truth.
South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.
That's well said Dookie.
So, are you saying there are no absolutes?
The greek word translated as "Word"(logos) is the exact same word for logic. John knows his audience and he caters the gospel to them. And since Wiki tends to be biased against Christianity I'm not sure you could cite them for your point of view.
So, there's no absolute truth?
Good post. I'm a fan of Descartes as well. I commend you for that, as well as, your line of reasoning in the beginning of your post. Certainly Descartes was right in his statement. I often use his statement to correct those who think it's sexy to question everything as if we can't know anything at all (e.g. whether the sky is blue). But, as to the reasons for why things are true and to what ends they are true, we have to have a full understanding of all things in order to definitively say that we understand anything. So, the third party is necessary when we all submit that our frame of reference is woefully lacking. And, at this point, I'm not rtying to prove a specific omniscient being. Rather, all I have attempted to demonstrate is the need to have one, considering our woefully small frame of reference, regarding the why's and ends. Finally, I would say I was driven back to my childhood faith, kicking and screaming sometimes, by reason, not b/c I necessarily wanted there to be a God. In actuality, I didn't want there to be a supreme being that I had to answer to. Logic demonstrated otherwise.
And i suppose being called a douche is ok. I often overlook insults on these threads and am usually outnumbered. That's ok, I like it that way. Bama was just being tempermental. The two of us have a history on this board. I appreciate all he adds to our discussions, I really do. I truly want to see him do well. He had an emotional moment and I called him a baby. Please understand the whole situation before you make comments like this. I'm not your enemy or anyone else's.
Logic is etymologically derived from logos, but logos originally meant an opinion/discussion/debate. So that's false.
And Wikipedia isn't bias against Christianity at all, there is even a 'controversies' section in the theory of evolution. But since so much of the christian dogma (like the earth is 6,000 years old and whatnot) is completely wrong, you might find it so.
And, honestly, I see an objective reality with perception-based differences coming from human bias.
This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 2 years ago
I'm assuming you're referencing my 1, 2, 3 post - you called yourself a douche in the post that I quoted. I just numbered your awesome logic...
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports