Jump to content

Argument From Absolute Truth, Get Your Plungers Ready.


Kaiser01
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/welcome.php

 

I was listening to an older Thinking Atheist podcast and the topic was centered around a debate between DPRJones, Seth Andrews and a Christian apologist. The apologist is a pressupasitionalist, basically meaning he thinks in order to prove God you must first start with God ( yea i know, stupid), Even for such an erroneous position he did manage to trip up a poor caller with a tactic i find more and more prevalent in theological circles, The Argument of absolute truth. The argument from absolute truth, in general states that you cannot have absolute truth without the existence of an absolute being. The second premise of the argument is that without God you cant argue anything since you have no certainty of anything. The third premise is that absolute morality does not exist without God.

 

This is an argument found more and more because of the fact many apologist have simply turned away from trying to prove God in places like science and history where they have been debunked multiple of times. This position is quite fallacious IMO for a few reasons...

 

1. The apologist is assuming absolute truth can only come from one place, excluding the fact absolutism is a reality even if we dont quite understand every absolute thing about reality.

 

2. All things are in fact possible, since there are no laws to define something is not. The apologist will argue this means we can have no certainty, i think this is logically false die to something i have said alot on the site the past couple of days. Just because something is possible does not make it reality, for example, we can say pigs can fly, but unless i actually prove that then the position has no value. We can be certain of the reality around us based on the burden of proof.

 

3. Absolute morality is not nessesary, it does not even exist and we know this by simple history and anthropology. Morality is embedded within us because of evolution, humans are naturally good, however when you have a biological defficiancy such as a lack of apathy complex's in the brain you can turn into a serial killer. Or genocide happens on a mass scale when there is an identity superiority complex issue or an economic issue causing that problem. Evil acts come from external problems, not internal ones, except in certain cases. Of course absolute morals would be nice but we know they dont exist and really dont need to.

 

So what about you bunch of Christians? What do you think? You avoided my last topic of Ex Nihilo but maybe you wont run away this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if you play around with the apologist's site, the link i posted, when you get to absolute morality question say "No there is no absolute morality" then read what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Unless you talking about the laws of logic, or things as simple as 2+2=4, everything is not static. We may well say find out that the gravitational constant at the ends of the universe are stronger then earth for example. The laws of science can change with new evidence.

 

Murder may well hypothetically become moral, but as long as your living in a society and thinking about the world you live, it won't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that podcast. The stupid hurt so bad it's the only TTA podcast I haven't listened to all the way through. I can't help but roll my eyes anytime I hear someone argue for god using absolute morality. All one has to do is open the bible to see that our morality has evolved beyond that of the god of the bible, proving that morality is not absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what about you bunch of Christians? What do you think? You avoided my last topic of Ex Nihilo but maybe you wont run away this time.

On behalf of the curiously silent xtian community I would like to pick up the mantle and take you on..

On second thought, forget about it - there's nothing to really discuss because of a VERY simple explanation you can use right from their own bible.

The thing can be explained via the philosophical development of the argument (very loosely put together I might add. I've been watching our granddaughter and believe me, if there's a literal hell, it's right here on earth. The place looks like a bomb hit it. ROFL). Anyway:

 

1. My morality exceeds anything demonstrated in the bible (the main premise)

2. The bible shows numerous examples of horrific behavior sanctioned by a god.

a. OT - the killing of men, women, children, and even animals to justify invasions

b NT - Jesus spoke repeatedly about you having to 'hate' your mother, father, all other relatives to follow his teachings

3. I refuse to kill anyone - it's against the law. I also refuse to desert my family to follow anyone.

4. My family knows they can count on me for anything (based on over 40 years of being a husband/father). They know I'll never reject them and will try

to provide any and all needs.

5. Therefore, my morals far exceed anything shown in the bible.

 

I know this is kind of a lousy set of logical statements but it shows, I think, that there is definitely no need for an external source of absolute morals/truth,et.al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went over and never got past the first page which said, among other things, The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him

 

See, that's their fucking strawman - they hit you with the 'bible teaches' or the 'bible says' and argue from that. So if you say I don't believe anything the bible says, you're hitting a brick wall with them. It begs the question - what would they do without a bible to use? Probable answer - they'd make one up.

 

Actually, after studying and reading Ehrman and other biblical critics' works I realize that they DID make one up after all. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Apologists are the stupidest fucking humans on earth.

Ain't that the absolute truth!! And to think I used to be one. I'll be 'repenting' of that the rest of my life..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I remember that podcast as well. The apologists of that ilk tend to conflate the ideas of Absolute Morality and Absolute Truth while I think the notion of Absolute Truth is much broader and involves epistemology and the analysis of truth claims more that the notion of Absolute Morality, which is limited to an ethical sphere.

 

At any rate, the presuppositionalist /apologist rarely defines what is "absolute" about morals or truth. Nor do they really understand the kind of "certainty" we deal with. We operate on a level of probablistic or functional certainty. We are certain things are true because. 100,000 times out of 100,000 rocks, papers, pens, basketballs and horseshoes have fallen to the ground when I have thrown them up in the air. Therefore, I function with a sense of certainty that gravity will continue working the same way it always has. There are some things that are true no matter who is around to believe or know them like Valk010 mentioned. But they would still be true even if a god being wasn't around. In fact, the laws of logic and mathmatical axioms like 2 + 2 = 4, etc.would have to be considered greater than or co-equal to a god being because they don't need the god to be true, yet the god being can't make them untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Apologists are the stupidest fucking humans on earth.

Ain't that the absolute truth!! And to think I used to be one. I'll be 'repenting' of that the rest of my life..

I became atheist TRYING to be one. You have to set logic aside and branch further and further into speculation and lay down some of the basics that the bible teaches. Science and religion have 2 very different and constantly diverging creation stories. For religion to ride science and say hey look at this verse "god stretches the heavens out like a curtain", that proves the writers were aware that the universe was expanding. Every new scientific discovery leads to a hand plucked verse in the OT that was originally misinterpreted and now makes sense when aligned with reality. I was not prepared to bend and twist in that way. I admire a lot more the xian that says the earth is 6000 years old. At least they are standing FIRM in their belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire a lot more the xian that says the earth is 6000 years old. At least they are standing FIRM in their belief.

I understand what you're saying there - they're at least maintaining 'logical consistency' if you wanna call it that. However, I find it to be at times intellectual dishonesty when the apologist is backed into a corner with proof of a billions year old earth and still maintains the young earth mentality. But, either way, whether they keep changing their tune, based on what you said about the universe expanding aka curtain, or whatever - their position is still actually funny.

 

I can't believe I bought into the bs for as long as I did (written with a red face).. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire a lot more the xian that says the earth is 6000 years old. At least they are standing FIRM in their belief.

I understand what you're saying there - they're at least maintaining 'logical consistency' if you wanna call it that. However, I find it to be at times intellectual dishonesty when the apologist is backed into a corner with proof of a billions year old earth and still maintains the young earth mentality. But, either way, whether they keep changing their tune, based on what you said about the universe expanding aka curtain, or whatever - their position is still actually funny.

 

I can't believe I bought into the bs for as long as I did (written with a red face).. LOL

LOL! it is pretty funny to look back. Intellectual dishonesty is correct. But thats the irony of having that apologist mindset. You can use reason for everything up to a point and then fill in the gaps and inconsistencies with bible rubbish and use faith in the face of improbability. but if you think about it, they HAVE to evolve otherwise people wont buy into it. We have a completely different version of christianity today than we have 1000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is exactly backwards in this way: if the universe operates according to certain limits and rules, and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules, then the universe does not operate according to limits and rules. If there's an omnipotent God, there can be no absolutes. For example, as far as we know, the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is about 299,792,458 miles per second. If God can make light go any speed he wants, then there is no absolute. Omnipotence doesn't define absolutes, it obliterates them.

 

The response might be, "I don't mean physics, I mean Truth." To that, I would ask, "What do you mean by Truth if it doesn't include the speed of light?", let the other guy talk nonsense for a while, then wander off and find someone more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is exactly backwards in this way: if the universe operates according to certain limits and rules, and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules, then the universe does not operate according to limits and rules. If there's an omnipotent God, there can be no absolutes. For example, as far as we know, the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is about 299,792,458 miles per second. If God can make light go any speed he wants, then there is no absolute. Omnipotence doesn't define absolutes, it obliterates them.

 

The response might be, "I don't mean physics, I mean Truth." To that, I would ask, "What do you mean by Truth if it doesn't include the speed of light?", let the other guy talk nonsense for a while, then wander off and find someone more interesting.

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You wrote 'and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules'. Then entity is OUTSIDE of the universe, at least according to the apologists. Therefore, the entity is BEYOND any limit or rules that science will find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire a lot more the xian that says the earth is 6000 years old. At least they are standing FIRM in their belief.

I understand what you're saying there - they're at least maintaining 'logical consistency' if you wanna call it that. However, I find it to be at times intellectual dishonesty when the apologist is backed into a corner with proof of a billions year old earth and still maintains the young earth mentality. But, either way, whether they keep changing their tune, based on what you said about the universe expanding aka curtain, or whatever - their position is still actually funny.

 

I can't believe I bought into the bs for as long as I did (written with a red face).. LOL

LOL! it is pretty funny to look back. Intellectual dishonesty is correct. But thats the irony of having that apologist mindset. You can use reason for everything up to a point and then fill in the gaps and inconsistencies with bible rubbish and use faith in the face of improbability. but if you think about it, they HAVE to evolve otherwise people wont buy into it. We have a completely different version of christianity today than we have 1000 years ago.

Quick example to validate what you just said. In a recent set of debates with one of them via YouTube, regarding the alleged inerrancy of the bible - I spoke about that one little verse in 1st John which they use to defend the doctrine of the trinity. I hit him with quotes from Ehrman's book which he couldn't refute. His response? He laughed me off and claimed he was surprised I would even bring that up since he never used that single verse to defend the trinity doctrine. He then went on quote other verses in the nt which vaguely referenced what he assumed was the trinity. In addition, he also used an ot verse to support it.

 

I immediately shot back with:

1. Your nt references are too oblique to interpret as such

2. While you don't use the 1st John reference I would suggest that 99.99 percent of your kind DO in fact use it

3. You have to resort to an ot verse to support a trinity? Where's the nt xtian in all of this? Also, you cannot use ot to support something that any Levitical Jew would deplore, ie: a triune god.

 

He has yet to respond and it's been over 4 days. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Argument of absolute truth. The argument from absolute truth, in general states that you cannot have absolute truth without the existence of an absolute being. The second premise of the argument is that without God you cant argue anything since you have no certainty of anything. The third premise is that absolute morality does not exist without God.

I didn't check the website... too lazy. :)

 

Here's my take on what you said here though.

 

First, I'm not sure how absolute truth relates to absolute morality. To me, they're two different concepts. Absolute morality requires that absolute truth exists, but absolute truth can exist without absolute morality.

 

Secondly, absolute truth can (and probably must) exist without any being creating it. If a truth is absolutely true, regardless of existence of anything, anyone, or any source (like humans), then by definition, God can't be the creator of the absolute truth either. Absolute truth is a precondition for God, not the other way around, i.e. if God exists, absolute truth must exist, but absolute truth can exist without God existing. Just think about it. If truth can be created (in other words "made"), then that truth is not absolute. Absolute means that it is absolute in all conditions and never false. So an absolute truth can't be created, it must always exist and always existed in the past (and future). So there's this other Christian apologist argument that says that absolute truth is part of God's nature, but then this truth is part of God's nature and hence a precondition for God. It doesn't prove God. It only shows a dependency between God and truth, which is that truth must exist for God to exist, but not the reversed. Ergo, it doesn't prove God at all. If God is proven to exist, absolute truth is proven automatically, but not the opposite.

 

This is an argument found more and more because of the fact many apologist have simply turned away from trying to prove God in places like science and history where they have been debunked multiple of times. This position is quite fallacious IMO for a few reasons...

 

1. The apologist is assuming absolute truth can only come from one place, excluding the fact absolutism is a reality even if we dont quite understand every absolute thing about reality.

Agree. And they assume that it must come from a thinking, sentient being. I don't know why. Why is pi equal to 3.1415926... for a perfect unit circle? God created the number? Before God created it a circle's circumference had another relationship to it's diameter? Don't think so. Either it always was (if it's an absolute truth), or it's not. If not, then it doesn't disprove God. But if it is, it means it wasn't created and God is not necessary. These arguments are quick-n-dirty jumps in logic to throw people of guard. They're not thought through... or perhaps too many "thinkers" are just not smart enough to see it. :shrug:

 

2. All things are in fact possible, since there are no laws to define something is not. The apologist will argue this means we can have no certainty, i think this is logically false die to something i have said alot on the site the past couple of days. Just because something is possible does not make it reality, for example, we can say pigs can fly, but unless i actually prove that then the position has no value. We can be certain of the reality around us based on the burden of proof.

Agree again. I've seen many Christians in the past argue that "since you don't know, then it is possible, which means that it is true..." It's not verbatim, but the concept is exactly that.

 

3. Absolute morality is not nessesary, it does not even exist and we know this by simple history and anthropology. Morality is embedded within us because of evolution, humans are naturally good, however when you have a biological defficiancy such as a lack of apathy complex's in the brain you can turn into a serial killer. Or genocide happens on a mass scale when there is an identity superiority complex issue or an economic issue causing that problem. Evil acts come from external problems, not internal ones, except in certain cases. Of course absolute morals would be nice but we know they dont exist and really dont need to.

Right. The only "absolutes" in morality that we can come to agree upon are closer to the "golden means" ethics. It's a matter of balance between different decisions and outcomes which all together leads to a better society and also a better life for each individual. We do allow and accept killing people, or lying, or torture, or ... in this Christian country. Which is terrifying. And now, lately in the news, even rape is acceptable if it's labelled "legal" or whatever...

 

So what about you bunch of Christians? What do you think? You avoided my last topic of Ex Nihilo but maybe you wont run away this time.

Sorry. I'm not a Christian. I just thought it was an interesting topic and had to give my silly 5 cents. :)

 

We'll see if any Christian picks up on it and try to explain the "logic" behind the reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is exactly backwards in this way: if the universe operates according to certain limits and rules, and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules, then the universe does not operate according to limits and rules. If there's an omnipotent God, there can be no absolutes. For example, as far as we know, the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is about 299,792,458 miles per second. If God can make light go any speed he wants, then there is no absolute. Omnipotence doesn't define absolutes, it obliterates them.

 

The response might be, "I don't mean physics, I mean Truth." To that, I would ask, "What do you mean by Truth if it doesn't include the speed of light?", let the other guy talk nonsense for a while, then wander off and find someone more interesting.

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You wrote 'and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules'. Then entity is OUTSIDE of the universe, at least according to the apologists. Therefore, the entity is BEYOND any limit or rules that science will find.

His point is that if you have a being that doesn't follow any absolute truths, but is a being that is necessary for absolute truths to exist, then there's a contradiction. Absolute truths means that they are absolute, not subjective to xyz or relative to xyz. Absolute are absolute are absolute. And a being without those absolutes just means that they're not absolutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is exactly backwards in this way: if the universe operates according to certain limits and rules, and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules, then the universe does not operate according to limits and rules. If there's an omnipotent God, there can be no absolutes. For example, as far as we know, the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is about 299,792,458 miles per second. If God can make light go any speed he wants, then there is no absolute. Omnipotence doesn't define absolutes, it obliterates them.

 

The response might be, "I don't mean physics, I mean Truth." To that, I would ask, "What do you mean by Truth if it doesn't include the speed of light?", let the other guy talk nonsense for a while, then wander off and find someone more interesting.

 

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You wrote 'and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules'. Then entity is OUTSIDE of the universe, at least according to the apologists. Therefore, the entity is BEYOND any limit or rules that science will find.

 

Good answer. It doesn't matter where the entity resides; if it can change the rules within this universe, then there are still no absolute rules that apply within this universe. Unless you claim the absolutes are also located outside this universe, in which case I don't have to care whether they exist since 1) they don't apply to me in this universe, and 2) you couldn't possibly know anything about them, so why should I even entertain the claim? If the entity is beyond any limit or rule in this universe, then it's beyond our examination, so you couldn't possibly know it exists, let alone support the claim that it does. (And by "you", I mean if you were the one arguing this claim, which I realize you may not be.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the original apologist every bother trying to define "Truth-with-a-capital-T"? There's your first attack. Without a clear definition, there's no way to evaluate the claim. Don't accept vague spiritual language, get it nailed down to something with specific properties that can be evaluated. That, alone, should take at least most of an afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is exactly backwards in this way: if the universe operates according to certain limits and rules, and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules, then the universe does not operate according to limits and rules. If there's an omnipotent God, there can be no absolutes. For example, as far as we know, the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is about 299,792,458 miles per second. If God can make light go any speed he wants, then there is no absolute. Omnipotence doesn't define absolutes, it obliterates them.

 

The response might be, "I don't mean physics, I mean Truth." To that, I would ask, "What do you mean by Truth if it doesn't include the speed of light?", let the other guy talk nonsense for a while, then wander off and find someone more interesting.

 

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You wrote 'and the universe contains an entity that is not subject to those limits and rules'. Then entity is OUTSIDE of the universe, at least according to the apologists. Therefore, the entity is BEYOND any limit or rules that science will find.

 

Good answer. It doesn't matter where the entity resides; if it can change the rules within this universe, then there are still no absolute rules that apply within this universe. Unless you claim the absolutes are also located outside this universe, in which case I don't have to care whether they exist since 1) they don't apply to me in this universe, and 2) you couldn't possibly know anything about them, so why should I even entertain the claim? If the entity is beyond any limit or rule in this universe, then it's beyond our examination, so you couldn't possibly know it exists, let alone support the claim that it does. (And by "you", I mean if you were the one arguing this claim, which I realize you may not be.)

Actually, I don't know what the f**k I'm arguing any more. ROFL

Forgive me but the kid is driving me nuts... (12 yr old granddaughter who acts as if she my mother)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't know what the f**k I'm arguing any more. ROFL

Forgive me but the kid is driving me nuts... (12 yr old granddaughter who acts as if she my mother)...

 

Heh. No problem. This is nothing but Recreational Typing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't know what the f**k I'm arguing any more. ROFL

Forgive me but the kid is driving me nuts... (12 yr old granddaughter who acts as if she my mother)...

:HaHa: One of those days.

 

I don't have any grandchildren yet, but I have family, friends, and dogs driving me nuts on a daily basis. Never alone. And noise...

 

We only have like one catastrophe a day now. It's improving. Nothing broke today which is surprising, but the day isn't over yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't know what the f**k I'm arguing any more. ROFL

Forgive me but the kid is driving me nuts... (12 yr old granddaughter who acts as if she my mother)...

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif One of those days.

 

I don't have any grandchildren yet, but I have family, friends, and dogs driving me nuts on a daily basis. Never alone. And noise...

 

We only have like one catastrophe a day now. It's improving. Nothing broke today which is surprising, but the day isn't over yet.

I've got tears coming out of my eyes from laughing so hard at your description of what you're going through. Plus, I was picturing you saying the end where the day isn't over yet. And then you hit the post button and you hear a loud crash somewhere in your house. ROFL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.