Originally posted by Starrman That is not an absolute statement, or a self-defeating statement. That you don't understand that is not my problem, go back to your cut & paste jobs, I have no time for your lack of reasoning ability.
So the statement, "There is no absolute truth" is not an absolute statement ?? 😲
Originally posted by Starrman That is not an absolute statement, or a self-defeating statement. That you don't understand that is not my problem, go back to your cut & paste jobs, I have no time for your lack of reasoning ability.
so lemme get this straight....we have to have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of our doubt (which of course would no longer be doubt under such conditions)...yet you need only to tell us that we don't have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of your faith?
ok...If you don't have the absolute truth then the flying spaghetti monster is the only true god...do *YOU* have the absolute truth?...do you have absolute knowledge?
better still...If you don't have the absolute truth then God *does not exist*......and your answer is?
Originally posted by Agerg so lemme get this straight....we have to have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of our doubt (which of course would no longer be doubt under such conditions)...yet you need only to tell us that we don't have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of your faith?
ok...If you don't have the absolute truth then the flying spaghetti mo ...[text shortened]... dge?
better still...If you don't have the absolute truth then God *does not exist*...well?
hmm...wrong reply and quote (sorry starrman)....but from the nature of what I wrote it should be blatantly obvious that I was reffering to you!, I'll try again
so lemme get this straight....we have to have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of our doubt (which of course would no longer be doubt under such conditions)...yet you need only to tell us that we don't have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of your faith?
ok...If you don't have the absolute truth then the flying spaghetti monster is the only true god...do *YOU* have the absolute truth?...do you have absolute knowledge?
better still...If you don't have the absolute truth then God *does not exist*......and your answer is?
Originally posted by Agerg so lemme get this straight....we have to have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of our doubt (which of course would no longer be doubt under such conditions)...yet you need only to tell us that we don't have absolute knowledge to demonstrate the credibility of your faith?
ok...If you don't have the absolute truth then the flying spaghetti mo ...[text shortened]... ill...If you don't have the absolute truth then God *does not exist*......and your answer is?
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.
Making the claim that absolute truth exists does not require absolute knowlegde.
Originally posted by whodey So the burden of justification is always on the person who makes any positive claim and not a negative claim? Try saying that in a court of law after you have defamed anothers reputation by expousing negative untruths about them. At least you see one truth, however, the theist holds claim to the postitive and the atheist holds claim to the negative. That w ...[text shortened]... r to hold on to the positive claim. I suppose the atheist will always see the glass half empty.
When someone says, "Hitler was a good man," that is a positive claim. They are asserting something as being true.
When someone counters by saying, "No, Hitler was not a good man," that is a negative claim. They are denying the truth of the first person's statement.
The terms "positive claim" and "negative claim" have absolutely nothing to do with the moral content or desirability of the claim. As christians so often do, you are egregiously committing the fallacy of equivocation. I do not understand why, but christians are drawn to this fallacy like moths to a flame.
Originally posted by dj2becker "Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.
Making the claim that absolute truth exists does not require absolute knowlegde.
Wrong, my claim is a parsimonious one, not an absolute one. It is relative to my common sense view of existence. Read my initial post about the nature of inductive acceptance again.
Originally posted by Starrman Wrong, my claim is a parsimonious one, not an absolute one. It is relative to my common sense view of existence. Read my initial post about the nature of inductive acceptance again.
By saying "There is no absolute truth" you are making an absolute statement whether you would like to admit it or not.
oh...and if your answer is no, then I say that you are making an absolute statement that there is an absolute truth when you clearly do not have absolute knowledge, and thus how could you know there is absolute truth and that it is knowable!!!
and as such you should see the futility in your favourite line of attack and get back to the drawing board
Originally posted by Agerg oh...and if your answer is no, then I say that you are making an absolute statement that there is an absolute truth when you clearly do not have absolute knowledge, and thus how could you know there is absolute truth and that it is knowable!!!
and as such you should see the futility in your favourite line of attack and get back to the drawing board
In order for me to know that the statement "There is gold in China" is the absolute truth, all I need is to validate one ounce of gold within the borders of China. I do not need absolute knowledge to do that.