What are the "core Issues" ?

[Barry Desborough]

Do not, I repeat, do not quit your day job to become a philosopher/logician, Roy. You'd starve.

Jorge

What enlightening discourse.

How to choose between 'debating' with Jorge, or JM?

One is like having a snotty little kid trying jump up and kick you in the shins, the other is like being hit over the head repeatedly with a very large, very wet haddock.

Hey - anyone who knows Red Dwarf - my son sent me the first series on DVD recently -. Who, on TWeb, comes to mind when I watch Arnold Rimmer?

[oxmixmudd]

This is the old a failed democratic truth argument. Truth is the correct judgment of reason in conformity with the real. As mans intellect knows the natures of bodies as abstracted from the singular, it is the weakest intellect possible. Therefore we should and do find a diversity of opinions on a range of issues.

Yet, because truth is conformity of judgement with reality, truth still exists regardless of the errors of many. For even error presupposes truth. For if everybody were in error then we would either know we are in error, but to know you or anybody else are in error or any error, is to imply there is a truth to be known. Or if you don't know you are in error then you still know the difference between truth and error, which is then in itself a truth known. Or if you don’t know what an error is then you still know that you don’t know, which then is a element of truth. No mater what opinion men have on any issue there is always an element of truth to it. This is absolutely certain.

Essentially mans mind is made for truth, but because it is so weak he finds it difficult to know many truths for sure. In all your above examples you use contradictories which cannot both be true. Therefore in each case only one of the contradictories can be true. For example either the Catholics are correct about the Moslems or they aren't and so on. In each instance there is truth. Absolute truth is everywhere and atheism is absolutely false. That is absolutely true and will never change.

JM

Your argument fails here:

Or if you don't know you are in error then you still know the difference between truth and error, which is then in itself a truth known.

Before I continue, I believe in an 'absolute' truth, but the above is a very poor case for it. Why? Because the 'truth' known in the above case is itself a relative one. Because IF truth is relative, the above is still true (therefore it makes no case for absolute truth). Why? Consider the set of colors on a painter's palatte. For each color there is an 'opposite', a complement. That complement is often part of the shadow color when painting an object of that color. So, for example, the complement of Red is Green. OTOH, the complement of Blue is Orange. That is, there is not an 'abolute' value for the complement, it depends in the starting color. (and - of course - the use of compliments in color as applied to painting shadow is actually an artifact of the physical characteristics of afterimage color in the human eye)

Likewise, if there are multiple, relative truths, there are many complements to that truth standard (error). Error is merely the opposite of truth. If there is absolute truth, there is absolute error. If truth is relative, then there are equal numbers of relative error sets to compliment each truth set. Then, the ability to understand truth vs. error is not evidence of THE truth, but only evidence of the ability to distinguish and compute compliments, the ablity to know truth within a given context.

THE truth is established by an absolute standard of right and wrong, and that can only exist if there is a God. Why? Because someone must decide which set of truths is the 'correct' one. However, I believe that, even from an atheist standpoint, one can work from the existing reality and derive the basic morality that is the 10 commandments (sans those about God) just in terms of overall benefit to human society. That is, within the context of what is best for a human society, the truth that God has declared is to a certain extent self-evident (I think there is a document somewhere that says something like that ... )

However, even within an absolute framework of truth such as that declared by scripture, there are subsets of relative truths dictated by culture. This was a hard lesson learned by early missionaries.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You forgot about the Buddhists, Hindus, Krishnas, Taoists, Snake Worshippers, etc... etc.

What people such as yourself conveniently disregard is that ONLY Christianity is based on all of the following : a foundation that has historical corroboration, that is not a fabrication of man, that claims and supports a direct link to the one, true God and that has a Book containing God's Words (not man's).

Now, if you wish to review your list and show me another candidate that covers all of these criteria then you may have a point. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to find such a candidate.

BTW, I did see the other questions that you asked. However, there's no sense trying to reach second base if you haven't even made it to first base, is there.

Jorge

You can probably make a case like that (with a different set of only's) for most religions. That is not why Christianity offers truth, and it is not why someone should chose to follow Christ over Buddha or Mohammed. The only proof that allows/requires Christianity to take precedence over any other religion is the truth or falsity of the deity and resurrection of Christ. If He is God in the flesh, if He rose from the dead, then we should follow Him. Otherwise, take your pick. "If Christ be not raised, we are of all men most to be pitied".


Jim

[Avin]

Hi all,

I just read through this thread and I have to say that I am absolutely disgusted at the way this discussion has gone. I think the fault is not with any one person, but rather almost everyone who has participated in this thread has contributed to the general feeling of disgust.

Jorge, let me start with you. You started on this thread with a post that attempted to address the topic, but as you continued to post your remarks were frequently one liners, filled with smileys, or baseless ridicule. Now I recognize that a couple more times you did attempt to contribute more substance, but by and large your posts seem to have been filled with the former, and it seemed that anytime you did really post you were more or less ignored because of the average quality of your replies is so poor. This irritated me to no end. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have indeed long since addressed many of the questions being asked previously in other threads on this forum. Yet, if that is the case, why use that as excuse to contribute nothing but tripe and inanity? To take Jesus as an example, he surely experienced the same sense of having to repeat himself to people who simply did not listen, and frequently used harsh rhetoric against his opponents for their actions, but note that he never came off sounding like a fool! However, you most certainly do, even though I can see that you really do have something you might be able to say if you took the effort. Perhaps you are younger than I am giving you credit for and are just immature, perhaps not: either way, if you are going to participate in discussions like these, if you do not wish to contribute more then simply don't post. You do nothing for whatever cause you might be defending if you act the way you have been; rather it almost makes me prejudiced against everything you say. The verse from Proverbs that oxmixmudd quoted at you applies completely, and I hope you are not above being deservedly reproached from your opponent.

Now, to HRG_new, Snarf, and bandecoot, regarding your initial response to johnmartin's first post on this thread, isn't his post exactly the sort of thing the topic was going after? You wanted a YEC to post a bullet point explanation : this sounds to me like a request to understand your opponents better. Yet as soon as johnmartin attempts to answer you, it feels like you all jump down his throat and immediately begin discrediting his points from your perspective, without attempting to even remotely understand his. What sort of discussion is this? It makes it seem like the entire point of the thread was to serve as bait to lure some unsuspecting non-Jorge YEC to post a sincere reply just so you could all jump down his back. If his initial post was not what you all were looking for, how about asking for clarification and steering him politely toward what you were looking for rather than dismissing everything he said? If you want to claim that you are on the side of truth, why are you so inclined to dismiss everything without trying to understand it first?

Now, johnmartin, although I have the least to criticize about your posting attitude, the one thing I do have to say is that you seem awfully persistent about trying to stick to a topic that it seems your opponents have no desire to talk about to your satisfaction, and vice versa, in your attempt to pin down a rigorous definition of "science" and their attempt to pin you down to a procedural definition and extract a set of principles. Perhaps it would be better rather than sticking to try to win your way to just post what you've got to say and then leave it at that.

As for bandecoot, the same thing above applies to you, but being the topic creator, you seem to have been abusing the role to try to control what happens in "your thread." That strikes me as being incredibly juvenile. Is it so bad if in trying to address your query, someone tries to do so in a slightly roundabout way that requires actual dialog and not just a list of bullets, especially given your propensity to just dismiss that as noted above? Admittedly as I mentioned above, johnmartin is being somewhat stubborn in his argument, but you are being just as stubborn in response. Now this is my first post on TWeb and I'm not too certain how things work here yet, but it still seems rather childish when someone posts something you don't like to threaten to kick them out of your thread. By doing that you will fill this thread with only people who already agree with you and declare a hollow victory because no one on the opposite side would want to have a discussion with you.

All that being said, I wouldn't dream of actually posting a serious response to the original topic given the history of the thread unless things shape up. Is it possible to hope that might happen?

[Roy]

[size=2] If reality is relative then that singular truth is unchanging, which is then absolute. Relative reality is then impossible. Only absolute reality is the only true option.

If reality is relative then there isn't a singular truth at all. Your opinion is based on an error.

No truth is what it is according to its nature.

Either you've forgotten a comma, or you're spouting gibberish again.

Truth is a relation of the judgement to the nature of a thing as correctly known.

Why not just say "truth is the relation between perception and reality"? It means the same thing, and is easily comprehended, unlike your version.

Even an atheist knows this according to his own thinking process. He only subjectively pretends to think otherwise.

The above is effectively an accusation of dishonesty, and as such, should be supported or retracted.

Roy

[Roy]

Do not, I repeat, do not quit your day job to become a philosopher/logician, Roy. You'd starve.

Thanks for the confirmation that what I wrote was irrefutably correct.

Roy

[Roy]

Hey - anyone who knows Red Dwarf - my son sent me the first series on DVD recently -. Who, on TWeb, comes to mind when I watch Arnold Rimmer?

No-one, really. But the episodes dealing with Cat religion and silicon heaven are very very relevant.

Roy

[Roy]

What people such as yourself conveniently disregard is that ONLY Christianity is based on all of the following : a foundation that has historical corroboration, that is not a fabrication of man, that claims and supports a direct link to the one, true God and that has a Book containing God's Words (not man's).

Now, if you wish to review your list and show me another candidate that covers all of these criteria then you may have a point.

Judaism and Mormonism qualify as well as Christianity does.

Roy

[Roy]

All that being said, I wouldn't dream of actually posting a serious response to the original topic given the history of the thread unless things shape up. Is it possible to hope that might happen?

It's possible to hope, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you want to make a serious post on 'core issues' I suggest starting a new thread, to avoid it being lost in the general mayhem in this one. This would also have the advantage that you could restrict participation to those you consider likely to respond with serious and/or worthwhile points.

Roy

P.S. Welcome to TWeb

P.P.S. I feel somewhat left out. Have I not done anything to disgust you?

[Avin]

P.P.S. I feel somewhat left out. Have I not done anything to disgust you?

I don't believe so, no.

[wattsr1]

You forgot about the Buddhists, Hindus, Krishnas, Taoists, Snake Worshippers, etc... etc.

What people such as yourself conveniently disregard is that ONLY Christianity is based on all of the following : a foundation that has historical corroboration, that is not a fabrication of man, that claims and supports a direct link to the one, true God and that has a Book containing God's Words (not man's).

Now, if you wish to review your list and show me another candidate that covers all of these criteria then you may have a point. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to find such a candidate.

BTW, I did see the other questions that you asked. However, there's no sense trying to reach second base if you haven't even made it to first base, is there.

Jorge

Gidday Jorge,

What people such as yourself conveniently disregard …

How about demonstrating that I do “conveniently disregard” that which you claim to be truth Jorge?

That which you claim to be truth:-

Jorge:- that ONLY Christianity is based on all of the following : a foundation that has historical corroboration, that is not a fabrication of man, that claims and supports a direct link to the one, true God and that has a Book containing God's Words (not man's).

is, to quote you, “your perception”. You do understand that people of other beliefs make precisely the same claims for their faiths, don’t you? You also understand that within Christianity people make precisely the same claims for their own version of it and condemn other Christians as heretics? You do understand this – don’t you?

So if the latter happens, how can you argue “ONLY Christianity”? Which flavour of it are you talking about? Or are you making the claim on this thread to be the only ONE TRUE CHRISTIAN?

Not only that, you do understand that atheists (and people of other faiths) would find fault with one or all of your claims? You know this, don’t you? Thus, is the fact that they find fault, some kind of proof that you must be correct? How does this curious form of logic work Jorge?

Now, if you wish to review your list and show me another candidate that covers all of these criteria then you may have a point. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to find such a candidate.

Why should I bother? I did not offer you a candidate in the first place. It is only an assertion that your chosen candidate covers all these bases. If I was a fundie Moslem, I would make my own particular claims for TRUTH then throw precisely the same statements back at you.

So I kind of feel that when all you guys who claim to have the ONLY TRUTH can sort yourselves out and come to me with a unified version of the ONLY TRUTH, then you may have something for me to look at. Until then, by simple demonstration of what really happens, you are blowing smoke and telling me it is the ONLY TRUTH.


So Jorge, like Jim, I too accept that there is an absolute truth. In the final reality there can only be one thing true about the universe. It is just that I do not think we humans have the capacity to really and truly know what that final reality is. But we can try and we can form our own opinions.

Still unanswered from above:-

From your point of view, is it possible for any atheist to be interested in the truth? Is it possible for any atheist to tell the truth?

BTW, I did see the other questions that you asked. However, there's no sense trying to reach second base if you haven't even made it to first base, is there.

Jorge justifying why he is always too afraid to come and knock my head off, even when I supposedly put it on the chopping block for him. (As I have so often said Jorge, “I have exposed my self to you, come and knock me down”. But you simply disappear, post an inane comment, call me a looney, tell me my post is too long, tell me the issue is too complex etc. Tch.)


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

This is the old a failed democratic truth argument. Truth is the correct judgment of reason in conformity with the real. As mans intellect knows the natures of bodies as abstracted from the singular, it is the weakest intellect possible. Therefore we should and do find a diversity of opinions on a range of issues.

Yet, because truth is conformity of judgement with reality, truth still exists regardless of the errors of many. For even error presupposes truth. For if everybody were in error then we would either know we are in error, but to know you or anybody else are in error or any error, is to imply there is a truth to be known. Or if you don't know you are in error then you still know the difference between truth and error, which is then in itself a truth known. Or if you don’t know what an error is then you still know that you don’t know, which then is a element of truth. No mater what opinion men have on any issue there is always an element of truth to it. This is absolutely certain.

Essentially mans mind is made for truth, but because it is so weak he finds it difficult to know many truths for sure. In all your above examples you use contradictories which cannot both be true. Therefore in each case only one of the contradictories can be true. For example either the Catholics are correct about the Moslems or they aren't and so on. In each instance there is truth. Absolute truth is everywhere and atheism is absolutely false. That is absolutely true and will never change.

JM

Gidday JM,


It is posts like this from you that convince me that you have no idea of what you read, even with respect to Aquinas. You simply read something which may sound good to you and you cut ‘n paste from it as if it is holy writ. You simply read something which may sound bad to you and you argue against it using any argument that may spring to mind. No matter if the argument is silly.

This is the old a failed democratic truth argument.

No it is not. It is what other people claim.

Therefore we should and do find a diversity of opinions on a range of issues.

So you say that there should be a diversity of opinions. I throw some of those opinions back at Jorge in the form of a set of questions and you tell me I am offering the “failed democratic truth argument”.

How does you peculiar logic work JM?

In all your above examples you use contradictories which cannot both be true.

Odd-ball logic again JM.

In a world of diverse opinions (remember what you just wrote above), people really and truly do say these things and claim they are truth. I am not offering contradictions as truths at all. I am offering other people’s contradictory opinions and pointing out that they each claim “truth”.

Hopefully you can now see the subtle difference.

Therefore in each case only one of the contradictories can be true.

No kidding!

For example either the Catholics are correct about the Moslems or they aren't and so on.

Yep. And either the Moselms are correct about the Catholics or they aren’t and so on.

I have sat in church and been told that Christiadelphins are going to Hell. I have been with Christiadelphins and been told that Catholics are going to Hell. I know that both groups claim that they know this from the Bible which is God’s insipred and inerrant word.

As I said to Jorge, when you guys who claim to have THE ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH can sit down and sort yourselves out, then come back and see me. I shall be more impressed then.

In each instance there is truth. Absolute truth is everywhere and atheism is absolutely false. That is absolutely true and will never change.

?

Regards, Roland

[Roy]

I don't believe so, no.

I must be slipping. Anyway, welcome again, and I look forward to seeing your views if you choose to post them.

Roy

[Jorge]

Judaism and Mormonism qualify as well as Christianity does.

Roy

Read my lips : NO THEY DO NOT.

Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah ... the Son of God ... God in person ... as foretold in the OT.
There is no way that Judaism can be put into the same category as Christianity.
As God's chosen people, I love the Jews but on this matter they missed the boat big time.

Mormonism is primarily the creation of blasphemous madmen. I happen to own (and have read some, not all) of the Book of Mormon, their so-called "second Bible". It's essentially anti-Christ. Don't you know anything?

Jorge

[Roy]

Read my lips : NO THEY DO NOT.

Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah ... the Son of God ... God in person ... as foretold in the OT

Irrelevant, since acceptance of Jesus was not one of your criteria. Since you seem to have forgotten them, here they are again:

A foundation that has historical corroboration, that is not a fabrication of man, that claims and supports a direct link to the one, true God and that has a Book containing God's Words (not man's).

Judaism has foundations - the exodus and the building of the temple, both of which have at least as much historical corroboration as the resurrection. Nor are they any more a fabrication than the resurrection. The Jews claim a direct link to their one true god, who created their ancestors, and gave them their laws. Their book containing their god's words is the same as yours.

There is no way that Judaism can be put into the same category as Christianity.

It can, and I just did so.

As God's chosen people, I love the Jews but on this matter they missed the boat big time.

They say you're following a false Messiah.

Mormonism is primarily the creation of blasphemous madmen. I happen to own (and have read some, not all) of the Book of Mormon, their so-called "second Bible". It's essentially anti-Christ. Don't you know anything?

I happen to own and have read all of the book of Mormon, and know it is not essentially anti-Christ. I also know that you cannot be trusted.

In any case, Mormonism fits your criteria: they have a foundation (the finding of the golden plates) which has at least as much corroboration as the resurrection, and is no more a fabrication. They claim a link to their god via Jesus, as do you. They also have a book containing God's words, as transcribed by ancient prophets, catalogued by Mormon, and given to Joseph Smith by Moroni.

If you wish to continue to claim that these religions do not fit your criteria, you might do so by testing them against your criteria rather than by rejecting them out of hand; alternatively, and most probably, you could produce more of your trademark bluster and evasion.

Roy