Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWithout God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense. And to cagtegorically say that there is no universal truth is self defeating, because for it to be true it would have to be a universal statement of truth.
Exactly. How can we speak of universal truths when we each have our own criteria.
The best you can muster is that 'God's existence is a universal truth',....for you.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou misunderstand. There may indeed be universal truths. You just can't talk about them due to your finite and limited existence. (I'm in the same boat).
Without God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense. And to cagtegorically say that there is no universal truth is self defeating, because for it to be true it would have to be a universal statement of truth.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWithout God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense.
Without God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense. And to cagtegorically say that there is no universal truth is self defeating, because for it to be true it would have to be a universal statement of truth.
“There are no gods.”
If there are, in fact, no gods, then that statement is universally true. If it turns out that there is, in fact, at least one god, then the statement is false.
The universal truth of this statement depends precisely on there not being a god. Thus, we have at least one logical case in which there can be a universal truth without any god. That is sufficient to refute your claim that universal truth requires a god in order to make sense.
Originally posted by vistesdIf there were no gods how would you logically be able to know that with absolute certainty?
[b] Without God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense.
“There are no gods.”
If there are, in fact, no gods, then that statement is universally true. If it turns out that there is, in fact, at least one god, then the statement is false.
The universal truth of this statement depends precisely on there not being a god. ...[text shortened]... t is sufficient to refute your claim that universal truth requires a god in order to make sense.[/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis question remains unanswered: What practical moral lessons can humanity draw from your concepts [i.e. 'all wrongdoing = equally evil' and 'real justice/fairness = same punishment for everything'] as it tries to formulate and implement justice here 'on earth'?
It is my stance on 'divine justice' as depicted by the Bible.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat do you mean by "universally true"? You see, the sentence: "I wrote this sentence yesterday.". Will be false for another twenty hours or so, it will then be true for twenty four hours and start being false again in 44 hours. So do you mean for all time, or just within a forward light cone? I think that it is possible to produce propositions which are in accordance with fact and have always and will always be in accordance with fact, in other words universally true. "This sentence was written by DeepThought." is entirely true. It is as true on Mars as it is here, in fact it is true throughout the entire universe and for its entire history, it is a universal, if unimportant, truth. I don't think that the word "universal" adds anything to the word "truth". You do seem to like adding qualifiers like "universal" and "absolute" in front of things, possibly to make them sound more profound, or did you mean something specific when you used the qualifier "universal"?
Without God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense. And to cagtegorically say that there is no universal truth is self defeating, because for it to be true it would have to be a universal statement of truth.
Originally posted by vistesdThere is a God.
[b] Without God the existence of universal truth doesn't make sense.
“There are no gods.”
If there are, in fact, no gods, then that statement is universally true. If it turns out that there is, in fact, at least one god, then the statement is false.
The universal truth of this statement depends precisely on there not being a god. ...[text shortened]... t is sufficient to refute your claim that universal truth requires a god in order to make sense.[/b]
There are gods.
There are no gods or God.
One of these would be universally true depending on the correct answer true?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf the following statement were true: "There is a red mustang parked in my driveway and it belongs to me". Can this statement ever be a universal truth? If so why can't I talk about it?
You misunderstand. There may indeed be universal truths. You just can't talk about them due to your finite and limited existence. (I'm in the same boat).
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdOk I should have said it this way: The existence of universal moral truth makes more sense to me if there is a God. If there is no God, what would the 'lawgiver' of universal moral truths be?
Why would you think that there can be no truths that we don't know--or even cannot know? I was only refuting your claim about universal truth being necessarily god-dependent.