that darn Jesus delusion!

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I dont understand it either it's like somebody is reading what i've posted putting it in a bin and responding to something else completely; maybe we would both profit from a third party looking at our posts on this matter and illuminating us, I appreciate it's a big ask so no pressure we may have to agree to differ and move on.

I think Islam circumvents ...[text shortened]... et of instructions from said entity in the form of the koran; but obviously I could be wrong.

I acknowledge agnosticism , no problem there. I am am just trying to explore with you your understanding regarding the absolute truth paradox. You talk as if this is something I made up all by my little old self!


Here's something we could discuss from a third party perspective........ thoughts?

from http://www.johnanning.com/philosophy.html

To Tell The Truth

Truth (Part I) — Relative or Absolute?
It may be argued by some, that "truth" is only "relative" and not "absolute" in accounting for what is. Those who are persuaded in the "relative" position regarding truth, would argue that "there is no absolute truth" In other words, they would argue that truth can be different for one person than for another. It is a philosophical system of belief that nothing is or can be absolute and that everything is only relative to one's perspective.

If you were to ask someone, who prescribes to the view that there is no absolute truth, if this can be absolutely true, then they would have to respond by either saying no (contradicting themselves about no absolute truth) demonstrated that there own argument cannot be a valid one based on their own definition of truth that lacks any absoluteness, or they would have to answer yes (contradicting themselves) by declaring that the nonexistence of absolute truth is absolute. Either way, it's either a contradiction (reckless reasoning), or a verbal paradox which lends no solution to reasoning.

Truth (Part II) — Absolutely No Absolutes? - A Verbal Paradox
This gets a little tricky, but consider this; If truth is only relative and not absolute, then the truth of this philosophy is not absolute and therefore subject to suspicion. Therefore, absolute truth is indeed possible, since relative truth cannot be absolute. But how can there be absolute truth if nothing is absolute? And how can there be relative truth absolutely, if nothing is absolute? So, if nothing is absolute, then there can be no relative or absolute truth absolutely. But if nothing is absolute, then this cannot be true either because nothing is absolute! As you can see, a philosophy of relative truth stops us cold at reasoning at all. Nothing creative or constructive regarding intellectual debate can ever be accomplished with a relative-truth mind set. What would be the point engaging in any debate without absolutes?

Truth (Part III) — Is Relative Truth Absolute? - Another Verbal Paradox
In reality, a philosophy of relative truth is a philosophy of self—contradiction. To reason that "relative truth is absolute" is a contradiction in terms and therefore an argument against itself. Something cannot be "true" and "not true" at the same time and in the same relationship for reasons explained earlier. If truth is defined as something that "may", or "may not" be, then the word truth has been stripped of any meaning or relevancy in even using the word to describe anything that is, or is not.

True or False? — But not Both!
I have not even mentioned the word "False" here, and will not belabor the point much further other than to say that if truth is absolute, then falsification is absolute. Something is either true or false, but not both at the same time and in the same relationship. If something is true, then it cannot be false; If something is false, then it cannot be true. Otherwise, these words have no meaning, or inverse relationship with one another, and again, debating anything would be a fools game without absolutes. So, accepting that truth and error are absolute, we can continue to reason together with meaning and purpose.

Originally posted by knightmeister
but remember You are challenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying

-----------------------------kevcvs----------------------------------

But have I not used your words in order to respond. I feel I am responding to EXACTLY what you are saying. Even in the statement above you have betrayed that you n absolute claim. You may balk at this but it's the logical implication of your own words.

Well if you're going to play the "you can't say no one knows absolute truth because that is a claim of absolute truth" game, then one can just as easily say that no one can say that no one can say no one knows absolute truth, since asserting this itself is a claim of absolute truth..

and so we spiral further into this mire of recursive sophistry 😞

Originally posted by knightmeister
I acknowledge agnosticism , no problem there. I am am just trying to explore with you your understanding regarding the absolute truth paradox. You talk as if this is something I made up all by my little old self!


Here's something we could discuss from a third party perspective........ thoughts?

from http://www.johnanning.com/philosophy. absolute, we can continue to reason together with meaning and purpose.

Please if you cannot, and it appears you cannot, tell the difference between a belief and an absolute truth then I've got better things to do, on the other hand if you can.

Then what I cannot grasp is Why you think/insist that i am claiming that there are no absolutes. I am stating that I believe we ( that's me/you/and everybody) cannot have Knowledge of them that's all; to put it in terms of this forum I do not believe that god if that entity exists is knowable i.e I do not believe in the validity of any written testament referring to the entity god. Explain how it is I have to accept you as someone who presumably believes that creation is only circa 6000 years but you cannot seem to accept that people can believe that absolute truths, whilst they may or may not be true are unknowable by us it make sense to me and until some one opens a so far unopened box and shows me proof, not conjecture, or events much more likely to be random chance or medicine show trickery; then I will remain unmovable in my beliefs.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well if you're going to play the "you can't say no one knows absolute truth because that is a claim of absolute truth" game, then one can just as easily say that no one can say that no one can say no one knows absolute truth, since asserting this itself is a claim of absolute truth..

and so we spiral further into this mire of recursive sophistry 😞

"and so we spiral further into this mire of recursive sophistry :"

Which I believe is exactly where he would like us to be rather than deal with the contradictions in his own philosophy because he tries to pretend he has something more than faith, which for a christian should be enough.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well if you're going to play the "you can't say no one knows absolute truth because that is a claim of absolute truth" game, then one can just as easily say that no one can say that no one can say no one knows absolute truth, since asserting this itself is a claim of absolute truth..

and so we spiral further into this mire of recursive sophistry 😞

I don't understand your objection. I actually agree 100% with what your "no one can say" statement. I'm not prohibiting him from making claims that are absolute at all.

I don't have a problem with people claiming they know absolute truth or that absolute truth exists. I don't believe it's possible to make a statement of truth that is not absolute in some way. (I just made one!)

It's him that has a problem with it not me. The problem is that he cannot state his position without unconsciously entering into a paradoxical situation. It's a self contradictory belief system. The mire is his not mine.

Whether we like it or not we are all making claims about what we believe is the nature of reality. He thinks he is different from me but actually we are not that different in this respect and I don't think he likes that idea.

BTW (edit) I am aware kev , that it's not polite to talk about you in the third person like this. I am not saying all this out of spite or anger , it's just part of the rough and tumble of a debating forum - nothing meant by it and no offence taken I hope.

Peace to you both

🙂

Originally posted by kevcvs57
"and so we spiral further into this mire of recursive sophistry :"

Which I believe is exactly where he would like us to be rather than deal with the contradictions in his own philosophy because he tries to pretend he has something more than faith, which for a christian should be enough.

because he tries to pretend he has something more than faith, which for a christian should be enough.

-------------------kev--------------------------

Faith yes , but also grounds for faith and revelation as a result of faith.

It's not me should be taking issue with really it's Jesus. Take it up with him. He said "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". He did not say "you will have faith and then one day maybe know the truth , possibly"

So actually your statement is false because Jesus makes it very clear that his followers will "know the truth" . Therefore any Christian who pulls away from making bold claims about the truth is not actually being a follower of Jesus. Faith should not "be enough" - Jesus expects more from us. He said we would be lights in the world. If we pretend we don't have The Truth then we are selling Jesus short. To shrink away and pretend that as Christians we don't have the most utterly incredible truth anyone could possibly ever know to share with others , that would be disingenuous and incongruent with what we "say" we believe. You would rightly be able to call us hypocrites.

Now all this will no doubt sound arrogant to you because you probably don't understand that knowing the truth is a total gift from God. There's no way in the world I am able to boast about knowing this truth because it's not my doing at all. It totally blows me away sometimes.

As I said - take it up with Him not me.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Please if you cannot, and it appears you cannot, tell the difference between a belief and an absolute truth then I've got better things to do, on the other hand if you can.

Then what I cannot grasp is Why you think/insist that i am claiming that there are no absolutes. I am stating that I believe we ( that's me/you/and everybody) cannot have Knowledge of ...[text shortened]... ly to be random chance or medicine show trickery; then I will remain unmovable in my beliefs.

what I cannot grasp is Why you think/insist that i am claiming that there are no absolutes.

------------------------------kev------------------------------

Er - you said it that's why! I thought you were an agnostic. I thought you had stated your position. Below is a copy of the statement that drew my attention and started this whole thing off............................


Kev - "Agnostic to me is someone who does not believe in ultimate truths about god or anything else...." ( this is what YOU said on page 2)


Should I be confused? Can you at least understand why I am confused?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't understand your objection. I actually agree 100% with what your "no one can say" statement. I'm not prohibiting him from making claims that are absolute at all.

I don't have a problem with people claiming they know absolute truth or that absolute truth exists. I don't believe it's possible to make a statement of truth that is not absol rum - nothing meant by it and no offence taken I hope.

Peace to you both

🙂

I don't understand your objection. I actually agree 100% with what your "no one can say" statement. I'm not prohibiting him from making claims that are absolute at all.

I don't have a problem with people claiming they know absolute truth or that absolute truth exists. I don't believe it's possible to make a statement of truth that is not absolute in some way. (I just made one!)
It is clear you don't understand my objection because you don't seem to understand that many of us non-theists (me included) hold it is not possible to hold absolute truths (at least in a religious sense) - I realise you don't have a problem with people claiming they know absolute truth or that absolute truth exists since, as is goes with the territory for the religious deluded, you make such statements all the time. Your means of defending your belief that one can hold absolute truths is just plain silly - it is nothing more than hollow sophistry.

You put too much stock into the paradoxes that can one can manifest simply by stringing words together in a particular way - here's one:

this statement is false

is the above true or false? should we see there is a problem with the universe if we cannot resolve such paradoxes? You contriving some sort of paradox out of an assertion that no one can hold absolute truths is merely an example of the same.

Originally posted by knightmeister
what I cannot grasp is Why you think/insist that i am claiming that there are no absolutes.

------------------------------kev------------------------------

Er - you said it that's why! I thought you were an agnostic. I thought you had stated your position. Below is a copy of the statement that drew my attention and started this whole thing off... ...[text shortened]... OU said on page 2)


Should I be confused? Can you at least understand why I am confused?

I give up but I shall try one more time: Just because I do not believe that absolute truths are Knowable that does not mean that absolute truths do not exist I do not interest myself with absolute truths in the sense of searching for them I simply enjoy the journey and soak up the scenery/information you maybe keep getting confused because you have apparently already arrived. But I've changed my mind I no longer wish to discuss this subject with you any longer I hope there is a less polar discussion we can have at a future date. and to pretend that your still confused about something from page two after all the successive posts is your prerogative but its not cricket.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I give up but I shall try one more time: Just because I do not believe that absolute truths are Knowable that does not mean that absolute truths do not exist I do not interest myself with absolute truths in the sense of searching for them I simply enjoy the journey and soak up the scenery/information you maybe keep getting confused because you have apparent ...[text shortened]... something from page two after all the successive posts is your prerogative but its not cricket.

cricket? Pakistan zindabad!

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I give up but I shall try one more time: Just because I do not believe that absolute truths are Knowable that does not mean that absolute truths do not exist I do not interest myself with absolute truths in the sense of searching for them I simply enjoy the journey and soak up the scenery/information you maybe keep getting confused because you have apparent something from page two after all the successive posts is your prerogative but its not cricket.

"Agnostic to me is someone who does not believe in ultimate truths about god or anything else...."

---kev----------

I notice that you neither retracted nor addressed what you said above. Nor did you explicitly answer the question about whether you were an agnostic or not. Will you admit that you said the above and that it was a statement of your own belief? If it wasn't then why not end the confusion and clarify what you said on page 2.

You accuse me of not playing cricket but you didn't answer a straight question. Maybe you made a mistake or misrepresented yourself on page 2 - I don't know. If you did it's not a big deal , we all do it from time to time. I've been caught with my pants down more than once and the best thing I've found is to come clean and move on.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]I don't understand your objection. I actually agree 100% with what your "no one can say" statement. I'm not prohibiting him from making claims that are absolute at all.

I don't have a problem with people claiming they know absolute truth or that absolute truth exists. I don't believe it's possible to make a statement of truth that is not absolute i ...[text shortened]... f an assertion that no one can hold absolute truths is merely an example of the same.

I don't think it's just about language , it's about truth and how we make statements about truth.

I'm simply trying to get kev to see that we all have a world view which we believe to be true for everyone without really knowing if it's true. We all have to live by the conviction we have in that world view , all of us , theists , agnostics , atheists.

Christians are often criticized for having a world view which they believe is true for everyone. We believe that everyone will be held account to Christ one day. But in one sense we are no different from you because we all have a world view. You believe am deluded , I believe you are deluded. We are quits.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Please if you cannot, and it appears you cannot, tell the difference between a belief and an absolute truth then I've got better things to do, on the other hand if you can.

Then what I cannot grasp is Why you think/insist that i am claiming that there are no absolutes. I am stating that I believe we ( that's me/you/and everybody) cannot have Knowledge of ...[text shortened]... ly to be random chance or medicine show trickery; then I will remain unmovable in my beliefs.

.............then I will remain unmovable in my beliefs.

---------------kev-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting......sounds like you have a very strong conviction in your beliefs to the point of being "unmovable". This is curious because although you claim that absolutes are unknowable it does sound as if you feel that you "know" what you believe is true. In this sense you have a strong faith because you do not and cannot know whether your beliefs are true or not but you remain "unmovable".

So despite all you have said about embracing uncertainty and enjoying the ride etc it seems as if you are actually quite convinced of your world view. You are not as different from me as you like to think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
cricket? Pakistan zindabad!

Yeah thats right but there are always anomolies.

Originally posted by knightmeister
.............then I will remain unmovable in my beliefs.

---------------kev-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting......sounds like you have a very strong conviction in your beliefs to the point of being "unmovable". This is curious because although you claim that absolutes are unknowable it does sound as if you feel tha ...[text shortened]... quite convinced of your world view. You are not as different from me as you like to think.

You omitted the part where I said" until somebody opens a previously unopened box "etc. Thats tantamount to 'bearing false witness' and thats not cricket either It would appear that adhering to the bible produces a less honest approach to life than adhering to the rules of cricket. But I could be wrong. I thought purposely misleading edits of peoples posts on this sight were frowned upon, I can only assume from your behaviour that you take the same approach with the bible.