Absolute truth: unalterable and permanent fact; something non-negotiable and unchanging irrespective of opinion; always valid regardless of parameters (boundaries) or context
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
My opinion: Yes, absolute truth does indeed exist. I present the following reasons: a) God is existent, eternal and unchangeable no matter what man's opinion of Him may change to. b) God has created a complex, sophisticated universe with set rules that govern the existence of all those within time and space's frame. c) If those rules are from an unchanging being, the rules will not change unless the being does, or unless the universe's structure is changed in its innermost fibers. d) God has not and will not change, and the universe has not yet been transformed in its foundation. e) Thus, the truths that God set in place at the beginning of time remain the same even now, and will until the end of time when God remakes heaven and earth--and even then His eternal truths will not change. f) Therefore, absolute truth does exist. :) I invite debate on this; in fact I left some seemingly weaker logical points to argue on, and possibly so that we could discover more of truth by debating. :)
Hey, how about I give the "devil's advocate" point of view? It might help with the discussion, as I bet most of the people reading this have my first point of view. Whew, though, defending this shall be much harder than the other.... So: absolute truth does not exist because: a)Truth is relative. If one person says "it is warm outside", it may be true for him, but his friend might be quite cold. Or if one person says "this test is hard", it may be easy for another--how could the truth apply for both, unless truth was relative instead of absolute? b)Also, even if someone says "the sun is shining whether we see it or not", the definition of the sun shining--warmth, light, and color--is /not/ true at the instant of, say, a rainstorm, or if you are on the side of the world with no sunlight(a.k.a. nighttime). Thus, it is not absolutely true that the sun is shining.(or for any similar case that someone brings up, a like answer can be given) c)Definitions are changing. Thus, as one architect once said to another, "this cathedral is awful and terrible!", what he said was true at that time. However, that was when the definitions of awful and terrible meant "awe-filled" and "fearfully wonderful". Now, the definitions of awful and terrible have changed, and it is no longer true that this particular cathedral is awful and terrible--instead the reverse is true. Thus, there can not be absolute truth because the definitions which create truth are changing. d)Therefore, absolute truth does not exist.
Yeah. that one has more logical holes that the other one...oh well. Hey, all you other readers--COMMENT! This is supposed to be a discussion, not a monologue! By the way, can the blog author take part in these discussions? :)
True enough...("this is supposed to be a discussion, not a monologue"), and yes, I can participate :-), in fact I intend to, I just need to have a bit of "down time" in which to think my answers through a bit more first-something sadly lacking at the moment. "This too shall pass", PTL. Also if I have a minute, I hope to send my blog address to my family, and they are good debaters-hopefully they will be willing to add something to our debates (ahem, discussions - sorry, Uncle Dave! :-) )
A thought for you to chew on, Josiah, while I'm concocting a response and waiting for others to as well :-)... How would you "prove"/argue for absolute truth if 1) you were talking to an atheist 2) you were talking to an adherent of an Eastern religion (such as Taoism, I believe) or New Age, who don't believe in absolutes, just a "life force" ?
Hmmm...you make a good point, Cara. What if I am speaking to one who does not have an absolute, unchanging God? Well:
For an atheist: I would argue that there are absolutes on this side of existence. For an atheist, you see, this life is everything. So to have an absolute truth, you must have something that exists unchanging until the parameters of existence can no longer be defined. Thus my answer: time and space. All existence inside the universe requires matter, and by definition, matter requires space. So space must exist so long as there is matter. Also, our existence is forever constrained by time, we cannot live outside it--else we would act as four dimensional beings, acting upon any area of time with no restraints, leading to endless paradoxes of invention dates and such. So, time and space must act as absolute, unchanging truths for our existence to continue. Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless. In other words, without eradicating our existence as it is, time and space must act as absolute truths. Therefore, absolute must exist.
For Taoists/New Age adherents: the whole purpose of their existence is alignment with the "life force", correct? For there to be alignment, there must be misalignment, as well--otherwise there is no way to be aligned; everything would be aligned unless there were misalignment. So, with that proved, we now turn to this: you must be perfectly aligned to "have done it right", to have obeyed the religion and therefore made the religion true. So for the religion to exist as true, and therefore the parameters of the absolute truth search within the religion obeyed, there must be a "right" and "wrong", a misalignment and alignment. The religion can not exist without those, as stated previously, if there were no misalignment, anything we do would be aligned and therefore there would be no need to follow Taoism/New Age. Ergo, absolute truth exists within Taoism/New age/other such or else their religion is false(which it is, but for the sake of logical argument, the adherent to that religion must accept that there is absolute truth or accept his/her religion as false.).
Well, both arguments have weak points, but that is good--I invite discussion. :) Did that answer your question?
Oh, yeah--I just realized what could be mistaken for a faulty argument: I mentioned that the previous arguments were absolute within the parameters of the debate; the definition of absolute truth is that it is "unalterable and permanent fact; something non-negotiable and unchanging irrespective of opinion; always valid regardless of parameters (boundaries) or context". I would like to point out that it is always valid regardless of [change in] parameters or context. However, if the parameters are erased, the meaning of the debate (truth) has also been erased. By this I mean that going outside of the parameters, i.e. eliminating them, you have also gone outside of our means of determining truth and therefore nullified it. So if we are to debate on the topic of absolute truth, there must be parameters for the debate or further discussion is inconsequential due to lack of means to debate. Thus, my arguments still stand, as for them to be invalid the parameters must be eliminated. I hope this cleared my arguments up.... Hey, can someone argue against me? I need someone else to point out the weak spots.....yes, that means commenting, other people. :)
So I have found that I will not *have* time to respond until I *make* time to respond. Therefore, taking a break from Spanish verbs /ad infinitum/, here is my doozy of a comment, a response to each of your positions, Josiah (but for the rest of you, this discussion is not over yet! :-)) Responding to “my opinion”… (Note: e) “even then His eternal truths will not change” is true, but has nothing to do with your argument and is, I’d say, impossible to prove.) Summarizing your argument… 1) God is unchangeable. 2) Therefore, the rules God sets in place are unchangeable unless He changes them. 3) He hasn’t changed them. 4) Therefore, absolute truth exists. A few thoughts… ~God could make it so that the rules change, since He is all-powerful. ~It doesn’t matter whether He has changed them or not. Since He *can* change them, they are not “unalterable and permanent fact(s)” ~The problem is, no rule God sets in place is unalterable by Him, therefore, although they appear absolute to us, He *could* change them (though He chooses not to) ~Therefore, no there is no absolute truth
Responding to “devil’s advocate”… a) What you mention (hot/cold, easy/hard) are not truths, or, in a sense, laws, they’re descriptions. b) Define “sun shining” :-). I know you did, but the definition makes the debate here. If you defined “sun shining” as “the sun emitting radiation,” then “someone” is correct. c) Hmmm… so if language (which defines and explains truth) changes, then so does the truth? (Again, you’re using descriptions, not truths, but it’s an interesting point). I’ll have to think a bit to get a good counter-argument…and of course anyone else is welcome to post on my behalf :-). More to come later, but hopefully this will get you started... (And feel free to poke holes in my arguements, too!)
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I love challenging arguments. (pun intended and meant both ways) :)
Now I could just answer all the arguments to my first point by saying that God exists and leaving it there because He is the absolute truth; and refer to my atheist/Taoist arguments for any other worldview. I could. But I won't, because that would be unfair, ending of arguments, and entirely not fun. :) So: Combining your point against e) and your first point, I present the following defense: what I meant be "His eternal truths cannot change", was His holy will. True, He can do anything He wants having to do with the laws of space-time, but as for the truths about how He acts upon us and sin, those are grounded in the truth of who He is. God is all-powerful but cannot(bear with me here) go outside His holy will. To do so involves a well known paradox involving a unstoppable force and an immovable object, which, simply put, is impossible. So God can do only do what is in His will, which means that the way he deals with us and sin and such stays the same, unchanging as He is. So, this also ties into your point of "The problem is, no rule God sets in place is unalterable by Him, therefore, although they appear absolute to us, He *could* change them (though He chooses not to)"--not all rules set up by Him are alterable by Him, if you follow what I am saying, if they are outside His will. So, for example, by the rules He set up, sin must be punished by death and hell. That is an unalterable fact of this and the next existence. And therefore absolute truth must exist; as we are qualifying its existence(not its permeation of everything), we have to realize--if there is /any/ absolute truth, than it must exist. So whether or not something like space and time are not absolute, that does not mean that absolute truth does not exist, it just mean that those things are not absolute.
As for the "devil's advocate" counter: a) Well, I guess I concede this point--you have deftly dealt with it by proving its irrelevance to the argument--good job! :) b) However, b) almost seems to agree with my corresponding point; let me explain. My point was that the truth of the sun's shining revolved around the definition of its shining, and therefore there was no absolute truth due to the truth changing by definition. So when you said that when the definition of the sun shining changed, "someone" was correct, you proved my point because the truth had changed by definition. c)(not actually for your point c)These points do have(like you said) the weak point of being descriptions, not laws or truths. However, what is a law but a description of what happens? And so if the description changes, the "law" changes also. Our words and descriptions have an existence like(but inevitably different from) the laws which govern our lives, our thoughts must "exist", or they cannot be understood--something that does not exist cannot be used in any way, to be used must mean it exists. So our words, thoughts, and descriptions exist to be used, just like laws. So in essence a description could be a truth, like a law.
Well.....I kinda went on a logical cliff line on the last one there....but I shall try to hold it up. I find it particularly comical that we are both arguing for both sides of the debate, though. :) You are really calling me out on the weak spots; I will have to strengthen my arguments in the future.... Thanks for debating me--you have some good argumentative skills; I look forward to more debates with you!
Responding to “no absolute, unchanging God”… Atheist: Getting wayyy out of my depth, but if you’re willing to leave holes, I’m willing to extrapolate a little from my haphazard knowledge (pleading forgiveness if I commit any glaring errors-I haven’t even taken basic physics yet--I plan to next year--no less any of this complicated stuff)… So our existence is defined by the absolutes of matter, space and time. What do you mean by that? That the existence of matter/space is absolute (and what would that mean?)? Or that the laws that govern matter/space are absolute? If the latter, how is it that quantum physics and relativity theory do not agree, in fact, seem irreconcilable? And as far as time goes, it does strange things when anything approaches the speed of light-hardly absolute. I believe that something similar also occurs around black holes. Speaking of which, don’t they have a singularity at their cores-a point where matter and space are mind-bendingly infinite, and where, more pertinently, the physical laws do not apply? Can you explain further “Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless”? And by the way, if we could transcend time, I think we’d have more problems than just patent quibbles :-). Taoist: Hmm…that makes sense - to my mind. Fortunately/unfortunately (fortunately for our debate, unfortunately for my ability to potentially understand an adherent of an Eastern religion that I might meet), it isn’t that simple. Let me see if I can explain this well… (for this information I am indebted to The Universe Next Door, by James Sire, an excellent book) To be alive is to be “on the ‘right’ path,” to be pursuing oneness Yet there are differing levels of oneness But every road leads to further oneness There aren’t any distinctions, logic, just /losing/ yourself The fundamental rule of logic, “A” is not “non-A” doesn’t apply; A encompasses “non-A”---all is one Therefore, oneness and “not-oneness” are actually the same---whether you call that “oneness” or “not-oneness” WHICH DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE--- But that’s kind of the point :-). It’s a totally different system. I’m just giving you what I read, and what you might get from someone who actually /believes/ this sort of thing…I only wish I knew someone who did, so they could contribute…
Huh? It says "9 comments", but two of ours disappeared off the block entirely--I only count seven now.....ah, well. Anyway:
Haha, of course I am willing to leave holes--I only wonder if it is my choice--I seem to do it normally. :) 'Kay, atheist argument responding time: first, what I meant by space/time are absolute truths, I meant this: space and matter must exist as defined by their laws, and time must exist as a measurable concept according to its laws; both are absolutes during this existence. This is obviously not simple phrasing, so I will attempt to explain. The only way an atheist would be able to determine truth is during this life, correct? No atheist could claim "absolute truth" or "no absolute truth" outside this existence, according to their beliefs, right? So we must find absolute truths in the laws of this existence. With that, we first turn to this: space and matter must exist, or we do not. So without that law--or at least the truth of that law--then matter would not exist, and if so, then space would not exist and neither would we. Thus, space is an absolute for the grounds of this debate to exist(for atheists). Next, time. All life must submit to the constrains of time as an observable concept. So no one can change the past when he/she wants to, etc.. Thus, time must exist as an absolute for the grounds of the debate to remain. Do you follow what I mean here? Space and time and the laws which govern them and also us must exist for this existence to continue, and thus the atheist's means of finding truth as well. Now on to your other questions: "If the latter[laws of space/time], how is it that quantum physics and relativity theory do not agree, in fact, seem irreconcilable?" Basically: they are using different equations to explain different phenomena--and those equations are not really compatible--they cannot be compared or applied to the other phenomena. I may be wrong here, so if you can refute this I would be pleased. Next: "And as far as time goes, it does strange things when anything approaches the speed of light-hardly absolute. I believe that something similar also occurs around black holes. Speaking of which, don’t they have a singularity at their cores-a point where matter and space are mind-bendingly infinite, and where, more pertinently, the physical laws do not apply?" These things can be explained by three observations. 1) "Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock." This is one of the laws of special relativity; as time still acts within its laws it must still be considered an absolute. 2) "Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called gravitational time dilation." Same argument as above. 3) The singularity point is actually only a point where space and time become infinite--and then only so because our equations cannot actually wrap around what exactly is there. However, to answer your point: even black holes exist because of space-time. Think about it: black holes do not exist outside of this existence, second, that they are exceedingly dense matter, but matter nonetheless, and third, that time still exists, and exists according to the special law of relativity--gravitational time dilation. As both space and time still exist according to their laws, they must still be considered absolutes. By the way, you opened up an exceedingly interesting subject--I would love to discuss black holes and relativity with you sometime. :)
Wow, my comment exceeded the limit of characters--continuing in next comment.
Next comment, here goes: To answer: "Can you explain further “Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless”?", I give: from an atheist's perspective, the only means of pursuing truth is in this life, therefore, to remove an absolute for the existence of this life would be to remove the means of pursuing truth.
Moving on to Taoist/Eastern religion adherent: first, thanks for continuing to argue this, even though you know it does not make much sense--it helps the debate(and our search for a greater understanding of truth) move on. Anyway, even if someone like that denies all truth, their religion is still subject to the laws of truth values in logic. Let me explain:if all roads lead to further oneness(which I consider to be their strongest point to the non-existence of truth), this must be true(bear with me here)--otherwise, their religion is false and anything else they say will be considered false as well, making further points useless. You can apply this to any point they make; whatever the case, the facts of their religion must be true, or any points they make are irrelevant and must all be considered false--thus making their religion null and the ability to seek truth in the parameters impossible. And so, their truths(of oneness, etc.) must be absolute, or the debate does not exist because their religion does not either. So whether or not they deny truth, the very act of denying truth must be subject to a truth value. Funny how life is, huh? :) Thanks again for the good debate!
11 comments:
My opinion: Yes, absolute truth does indeed exist. I present the following reasons:
a) God is existent, eternal and unchangeable no matter what man's opinion of Him may change to.
b) God has created a complex, sophisticated universe with set rules that govern the existence of all those within time and space's frame.
c) If those rules are from an unchanging being, the rules will not change unless the being does, or unless the universe's structure is changed in its innermost fibers.
d) God has not and will not change, and the universe has not yet been transformed in its foundation.
e) Thus, the truths that God set in place at the beginning of time remain the same even now, and will until the end of time when God remakes heaven and earth--and even then His eternal truths will not change.
f) Therefore, absolute truth does exist. :)
I invite debate on this; in fact I left some seemingly weaker logical points to argue on, and possibly so that we could discover more of truth by debating. :)
--Josiah C.
Hey, how about I give the "devil's advocate" point of view? It might help with the discussion, as I bet most of the people reading this have my first point of view. Whew, though, defending this shall be much harder than the other.... So:
absolute truth does not exist because:
a)Truth is relative. If one person says "it is warm outside", it may be true for him, but his friend might be quite cold. Or if one person says "this test is hard", it may be easy for another--how could the truth apply for both, unless truth was relative instead of absolute?
b)Also, even if someone says "the sun is shining whether we see it or not", the definition of the sun shining--warmth, light, and color--is /not/ true at the instant of, say, a rainstorm, or if you are on the side of the world with no sunlight(a.k.a. nighttime). Thus, it is not absolutely true that the sun is shining.(or for any similar case that someone brings up, a like answer can be given)
c)Definitions are changing. Thus, as one architect once said to another, "this cathedral is awful and terrible!", what he said was true at that time. However, that was when the definitions of awful and terrible meant "awe-filled" and "fearfully wonderful". Now, the definitions of awful and terrible have changed, and it is no longer true that this particular cathedral is awful and terrible--instead the reverse is true. Thus, there can not be absolute truth because the definitions which create truth are changing.
d)Therefore, absolute truth does not exist.
Yeah. that one has more logical holes that the other one...oh well. Hey, all you other readers--COMMENT! This is supposed to be a discussion, not a monologue! By the way, can the blog author take part in these discussions? :)
--Josiah C.
True enough...("this is supposed to be a discussion, not a monologue"), and yes, I can participate :-), in fact I intend to, I just need to have a bit of "down time" in which to think my answers through a bit more first-something sadly lacking at the moment. "This too shall pass", PTL.
Also if I have a minute, I hope to send my blog address to my family, and they are good debaters-hopefully they will be willing to add something to our debates (ahem, discussions - sorry, Uncle Dave! :-) )
A thought for you to chew on, Josiah, while I'm concocting a response and waiting for others to as well :-)...
How would you "prove"/argue for absolute truth if
1) you were talking to an atheist
2) you were talking to an adherent of an Eastern religion (such as Taoism, I believe) or New Age, who don't believe in absolutes, just a "life force"
?
Hmmm...you make a good point, Cara. What if I am speaking to one who does not have an absolute, unchanging God? Well:
For an atheist: I would argue that there are absolutes on this side of existence. For an atheist, you see, this life is everything. So to have an absolute truth, you must have something that exists unchanging until the parameters of existence can no longer be defined. Thus my answer: time and space. All existence inside the universe requires matter, and by definition, matter requires space. So space must exist so long as there is matter. Also, our existence is forever constrained by time, we cannot live outside it--else we would act as four dimensional beings, acting upon any area of time with no restraints, leading to endless paradoxes of invention dates and such. So, time and space must act as absolute, unchanging truths for our existence to continue. Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless. In other words, without eradicating our existence as it is, time and space must act as absolute truths. Therefore, absolute must exist.
For Taoists/New Age adherents: the whole purpose of their existence is alignment with the "life force", correct? For there to be alignment, there must be misalignment, as well--otherwise there is no way to be aligned; everything would be aligned unless there were misalignment. So, with that proved, we now turn to this: you must be perfectly aligned to "have done it right", to have obeyed the religion and therefore made the religion true. So for the religion to exist as true, and therefore the parameters of the absolute truth search within the religion obeyed, there must be a "right" and "wrong", a misalignment and alignment. The religion can not exist without those, as stated previously, if there were no misalignment, anything we do would be aligned and therefore there would be no need to follow Taoism/New Age. Ergo, absolute truth exists within Taoism/New age/other such or else their religion is false(which it is, but for the sake of logical argument, the adherent to that religion must accept that there is absolute truth or accept his/her religion as false.).
Well, both arguments have weak points, but that is good--I invite discussion. :)
Did that answer your question?
--Josiah C.
Oh, yeah--I just realized what could be mistaken for a faulty argument: I mentioned that the previous arguments were absolute within the parameters of the debate; the definition of absolute truth is that it is "unalterable and permanent fact; something non-negotiable and unchanging irrespective of opinion; always valid regardless of parameters (boundaries) or context".
I would like to point out that it is always valid regardless of [change in] parameters or context. However, if the parameters are erased, the meaning of the debate (truth) has also been erased. By this I mean that going outside of the parameters, i.e. eliminating them, you have also gone outside of our means of determining truth and therefore nullified it. So if we are to debate on the topic of absolute truth, there must be parameters for the debate or further discussion is inconsequential due to lack of means to debate. Thus, my arguments still stand, as for them to be invalid the parameters must be eliminated.
I hope this cleared my arguments up....
Hey, can someone argue against me? I need someone else to point out the weak spots.....yes, that means commenting, other people. :)
--Josiah C.
So I have found that I will not *have* time to respond until I *make* time to respond. Therefore, taking a break from Spanish verbs /ad infinitum/, here is my doozy of a comment, a response to each of your positions, Josiah (but for the rest of you, this discussion is not over yet! :-))
Responding to “my opinion”…
(Note: e) “even then His eternal truths will not change” is true, but has nothing to do with your argument and is, I’d say, impossible to prove.)
Summarizing your argument…
1) God is unchangeable.
2) Therefore, the rules God sets in place are unchangeable unless He changes them.
3) He hasn’t changed them.
4) Therefore, absolute truth exists.
A few thoughts…
~God could make it so that the rules change, since He is all-powerful.
~It doesn’t matter whether He has changed them or not. Since He *can* change them, they are not “unalterable and permanent fact(s)”
~The problem is, no rule God sets in place is unalterable by Him, therefore, although they appear absolute to us, He *could* change them (though He chooses not to)
~Therefore, no there is no absolute truth
Responding to “devil’s advocate”…
a) What you mention (hot/cold, easy/hard) are not truths, or, in a sense, laws, they’re descriptions.
b) Define “sun shining” :-). I know you did, but the definition makes the debate here. If you defined “sun shining” as “the sun emitting radiation,” then “someone” is correct.
c) Hmmm… so if language (which defines and explains truth) changes, then so does the truth? (Again, you’re using descriptions, not truths, but it’s an interesting point). I’ll have to think a bit to get a good counter-argument…and of course anyone else is welcome to post on my behalf :-).
More to come later, but hopefully this will get you started... (And feel free to poke holes in my arguements, too!)
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I love challenging arguments. (pun intended and meant both ways) :)
Now I could just answer all the arguments to my first point by saying that God exists and leaving it there because He is the absolute truth; and refer to my atheist/Taoist arguments for any other worldview. I could. But I won't, because that would be unfair, ending of arguments, and entirely not fun. :)
So: Combining your point against e) and your first point, I present the following defense: what I meant be "His eternal truths cannot change", was His holy will. True, He can do anything He wants having to do with the laws of space-time, but as for the truths about how He acts upon us and sin, those are grounded in the truth of who He is. God is all-powerful but cannot(bear with me here) go outside His holy will. To do so involves a well known paradox involving a unstoppable force and an immovable object, which, simply put, is impossible. So God can do only do what is in His will, which means that the way he deals with us and sin and such stays the same, unchanging as He is. So, this also ties into your point of "The problem is, no rule God sets in place is unalterable by Him, therefore, although they appear absolute to us, He *could* change them (though He chooses not to)"--not all rules set up by Him are alterable by Him, if you follow what I am saying, if they are outside His will. So, for example, by the rules He set up, sin must be punished by death and hell. That is an unalterable fact of this and the next existence. And therefore absolute truth must exist; as we are qualifying its existence(not its permeation of everything), we have to realize--if there is /any/ absolute truth, than it must exist. So whether or not something like space and time are not absolute, that does not mean that absolute truth does not exist, it just mean that those things are not absolute.
As for the "devil's advocate" counter:
a) Well, I guess I concede this point--you have deftly dealt with it by proving its irrelevance to the argument--good job! :)
b) However, b) almost seems to agree with my corresponding point; let me explain. My point was that the truth of the sun's shining revolved around the definition of its shining, and therefore there was no absolute truth due to the truth changing by definition. So when you said that when the definition of the sun shining changed, "someone" was correct, you proved my point because the truth had changed by definition.
c)(not actually for your point c)These points do have(like you said) the weak point of being descriptions, not laws or truths. However, what is a law but a description of what happens? And so if the description changes, the "law" changes also. Our words and descriptions have an existence like(but inevitably different from) the laws which govern our lives, our thoughts must "exist", or they cannot be understood--something that does not exist cannot be used in any way, to be used must mean it exists. So our words, thoughts, and descriptions exist to be used, just like laws. So in essence a description could be a truth, like a law.
Well.....I kinda went on a logical cliff line on the last one there....but I shall try to hold it up. I find it particularly comical that we are both arguing for both sides of the debate, though. :)
You are really calling me out on the weak spots; I will have to strengthen my arguments in the future....
Thanks for debating me--you have some good argumentative skills; I look forward to more debates with you!
--Josiah C.
Responding to “no absolute, unchanging God”…
Atheist: Getting wayyy out of my depth, but if you’re willing to leave holes, I’m willing to extrapolate a little from my haphazard knowledge (pleading forgiveness if I commit any glaring errors-I haven’t even taken basic physics yet--I plan to next year--no less any of this complicated stuff)…
So our existence is defined by the absolutes of matter, space and time. What do you mean by that? That the existence of matter/space is absolute (and what would that mean?)? Or that the laws that govern matter/space are absolute? If the latter, how is it that quantum physics and relativity theory do not agree, in fact, seem irreconcilable? And as far as time goes, it does strange things when anything approaches the speed of light-hardly absolute. I believe that something similar also occurs around black holes. Speaking of which, don’t they have a singularity at their cores-a point where matter and space are mind-bendingly infinite, and where, more pertinently, the physical laws do not apply?
Can you explain further “Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless”?
And by the way, if we could transcend time, I think we’d have more problems than just patent quibbles :-).
Taoist: Hmm…that makes sense - to my mind. Fortunately/unfortunately (fortunately for our debate, unfortunately for my ability to potentially understand an adherent of an Eastern religion that I might meet), it isn’t that simple. Let me see if I can explain this well… (for this information I am indebted to The Universe Next Door, by James Sire, an excellent book)
To be alive is to be “on the ‘right’ path,” to be pursuing oneness
Yet there are differing levels of oneness
But every road leads to further oneness
There aren’t any distinctions, logic, just /losing/ yourself
The fundamental rule of logic, “A” is not “non-A” doesn’t apply; A encompasses “non-A”---all is one
Therefore, oneness and “not-oneness” are actually the same---whether you call that “oneness” or “not-oneness”
WHICH DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE---
But that’s kind of the point :-). It’s a totally different system. I’m just giving you what I read, and what you might get from someone who actually /believes/ this sort of thing…I only wish I knew someone who did, so they could contribute…
Huh? It says "9 comments", but two of ours disappeared off the block entirely--I only count seven now.....ah, well. Anyway:
Haha, of course I am willing to leave holes--I only wonder if it is my choice--I seem to do it normally. :)
'Kay, atheist argument responding time: first, what I meant by space/time are absolute truths, I meant this: space and matter must exist as defined by their laws, and time must exist as a measurable concept according to its laws; both are absolutes during this existence. This is obviously not simple phrasing, so I will attempt to explain. The only way an atheist would be able to determine truth is during this life, correct? No atheist could claim "absolute truth" or "no absolute truth" outside this existence, according to their beliefs, right? So we must find absolute truths in the laws of this existence. With that, we first turn to this: space and matter must exist, or we do not. So without that law--or at least the truth of that law--then matter would not exist, and if so, then space would not exist and neither would we. Thus, space is an absolute for the grounds of this debate to exist(for atheists). Next, time. All life must submit to the constrains of time as an observable concept. So no one can change the past when he/she wants to, etc.. Thus, time must exist as an absolute for the grounds of the debate to remain. Do you follow what I mean here? Space and time and the laws which govern them and also us must exist for this existence to continue, and thus the atheist's means of finding truth as well.
Now on to your other questions: "If the latter[laws of space/time], how is it that quantum physics and relativity theory do not agree, in fact, seem irreconcilable?" Basically: they are using different equations to explain different phenomena--and those equations are not really compatible--they cannot be compared or applied to the other phenomena. I may be wrong here, so if you can refute this I would be pleased.
Next: "And as far as time goes, it does strange things when anything approaches the speed of light-hardly absolute. I believe that something similar also occurs around black holes. Speaking of which, don’t they have a singularity at their cores-a point where matter and space are mind-bendingly infinite, and where, more pertinently, the physical laws do not apply?"
These things can be explained by three observations.
1) "Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock." This is one of the laws of special relativity; as time still acts within its laws it must still be considered an absolute.
2) "Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called gravitational time dilation." Same argument as above.
3) The singularity point is actually only a point where space and time become infinite--and then only so because our equations cannot actually wrap around what exactly is there. However, to answer your point: even black holes exist because of space-time. Think about it: black holes do not exist outside of this existence, second, that they are exceedingly dense matter, but matter nonetheless, and third, that time still exists, and exists according to the special law of relativity--gravitational time dilation. As both space and time still exist according to their laws, they must still be considered absolutes.
By the way, you opened up an exceedingly interesting subject--I would love to discuss black holes and relativity with you sometime. :)
Wow, my comment exceeded the limit of characters--continuing in next comment.
Next comment, here goes:
To answer: "Can you explain further “Any attempt to say that the existence time and space would act as changing truths would mean to say that our existence, and therefore also our pursuit of what truth means and is, is also in permanent flux and therefore is meaningless”?", I give: from an atheist's perspective, the only means of pursuing truth is in this life, therefore, to remove an absolute for the existence of this life would be to remove the means of pursuing truth.
Moving on to Taoist/Eastern religion adherent:
first, thanks for continuing to argue this, even though you know it does not make much sense--it helps the debate(and our search for a greater understanding of truth) move on.
Anyway, even if someone like that denies all truth, their religion is still subject to the laws of truth values in logic. Let me explain:if all roads lead to further oneness(which I consider to be their strongest point to the non-existence of truth), this must be true(bear with me here)--otherwise, their religion is false and anything else they say will be considered false as well, making further points useless. You can apply this to any point they make; whatever the case, the facts of their religion must be true, or any points they make are irrelevant and must all be considered false--thus making their religion null and the ability to seek truth in the parameters impossible. And so, their truths(of oneness, etc.) must be absolute, or the debate does not exist because their religion does not either. So whether or not they deny truth, the very act of denying truth must be subject to a truth value. Funny how life is, huh? :)
Thanks again for the good debate!
--Josiah C.
Post a Comment