The evolution of the Coca Cola can

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. My livelihood, and that of many others, depends on mathematics being a useful tool. But a tool nonetheless, made by man. They don't have any special significance or higher truth associated with them.

I think the issue here is how you differentiate between the tool and the truths highlighted by that tool. The properties of numbers for example are not 'a tool' but a 'truth' and may be discovered with the 'tools' of mathematics. But when we talk of mathematics we often include the findings in with the tools as they can be hard to differentiate. Calculus may be tackled from different directions with different tools, but the overall patterns involved are not a tool but a truth.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually it is -- logic, like mathematics, is entirely man-made.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a hypothetical other species might not also have developed similar tools or will at some point in the future, but neither logic nor mathematics are empirical fact.

Did pi not exist before Man discovered it?
All Math exists (even the undiscovered) it is not invented - no more than a new element is invented.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]Did pi not exist before Man discovered it?

Sure, but pie became non-existent after man ate it.

😞

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Did pi not exist before Man discovered it?
All Math exists (even the undiscovered) it is not invented - no more than a new element is invented.

But the table of the elements is an invention, a tool. And even the category 'element' is a human category for convenience. One could equally categorise atoms by atomic weight, but that would not reflect their properties so easily.
Pi as a ratio is a universal truth, but the decimal version of it is closer to a man made construct for understanding the ratio.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What is this 'absolute truth' as compared with regular common-or-garden truth?

And what makes you think that you can't have such truth simply by lacking belief in a god or gods?

Indeed what makes you think that you can have such a thing with a belief in a god or gods?

And why should anyone care?


Theists love to slap the word 'absolute' on t ...[text shortened]... 'buzzword of the day'" or explain why you can have
it with a god or gods but not without them.

In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right.

If you assume there is a God he is the only unchanging absolute from which all absolutes are derived.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Did pi not exist before Man discovered it?
All Math exists (even the undiscovered) it is not invented - no more than a new element is invented.

"pi" is not defined without making reference to certain axioms.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or trut ...[text shortened]... u assume there is a God he is the only unchanging absolute from which all absolutes are derived.

Given the many different assumptions that exist about supernatural beings, it doesn't appear to be "absolute" at all.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Given the many different assumptions that exist about supernatural beings, it doesn't appear to be "absolute" at all.

Ok should have been more specific: referring to a monotheism.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

You are yet to give any justification for tagging the word 'absolute' onto 'truth'. It doesn't change the meaning given your definition of truth.

This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation.
No, that is not where situational ethics comes from.

If you assume there is a God he is the only unchanging absolute from which all absolutes are derived.
Except God is not unchanging, and situational ethics are still required.

I have to point out that you use situational ethics and not absolute ethics. Don't believe me? List 5 moral absolutes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are yet to give any justification for tagging the word 'absolute' onto 'truth'. It doesn't change the meaning given your definition of truth.

[b]This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation.
No, that is not where situational ethics comes from.

If you assume there is a God h ...[text shortened]... at you use situational ethics and not absolute ethics. Don't believe me? List 5 moral absolutes.

You are yet to give any justification for tagging the word 'absolute' onto 'truth'. It doesn't change the meaning given your definition of truth.

Absolute truth implies that truth is not relative.

Except God is not unchanging, and situational ethics are still required.

Based on your definition of God?

I have to point out that you use situational ethics and not absolute ethics. Don't believe me? List 5 moral absolutes.

So based on the situation it's ok for you to rape?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]You are yet to give any justification for tagging the word 'absolute' onto 'truth'. It doesn't change the meaning given your definition of truth.

Absolute truth implies that truth is not relative.

Except God is not unchanging, and situational ethics are still required.

Based on your definition of God?

I have to point out t ...[text shortened]... 't believe me? List 5 moral absolutes.

So based on the situation it's ok for you to rape?[/b]

Compare God as he is presented in the Old and New Testament and tell me (with a straight face and honest heart) that He is not unchanging? (And the bible is your definition of God, not ours).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Compare God as he is presented in the Old and New Testament and tell me (with a straight face and honest heart) that He is not unchanging? (And the bible is your definition of God, not ours).

Which of his characteristics changed according to you?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Absolute truth implies that truth is not relative.

But your definition implied that.

Based on your definition of God?
Based on yours.

So based on the situation it's ok for you to rape?
The word 'rape' is itself a moral judgement. If by 'rape' you mean 'force someone to have sex', then I can think of cases where the morally correct course of action is to force someone to have sex.
Are you unable to think of any such situation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your definition implied that.

[b]Based on your definition of God?
Based on yours.

So based on the situation it's ok for you to rape?

Are you unable to think of any such situation?[/b]

But your definition implied that.

Which definition of mine?

Based on yours.

When did I give my definition of God?

The word 'rape' is itself a moral judgement. If by 'rape' you mean 'force someone to have sex', then I can think of cases where the morally correct course of action is to force someone to have sex.

Of course you can and you will find reasons to support genocide as well.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Which definition of mine?

You posted:

In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.”

Clearly 'absolute' is implied and there is no need to say 'absolute truth'. Just 'truth' should suffice.

When did I give my definition of God?
I never said you did. But you must have one. And it contradicts your claim that God is unchanging.

Of course you can and you will find reasons to support genocide as well.
This is the sort of response that kills the conversation. You are not denying that I am right, but you will later act as if you never read my post and actually disagree with it. If you disagree with something, say so, and explain why.

I must point out that people in the Bible committed rape on Gods orders. Was God immoral to so command them?