Veyron, You have actually been offered 2 answers to your request for what is absolute truth. The question has been answered directly. May I simply point out that it is not reasonable to try and handwave away direct answers to a question by only saying they are not answers to the question. Vehn's math answer particularly, is a good example of an absolute truth in abstract form, verifiable as such in reality. The Nature answer stands too and not just specifically in regard to earth as you allude, but for everything there is, in and of the Universe. Here's another absolute truth; Existence. These answers are examples of what can be termed absolute truth, as demonstrations of them produces the very thing itself. So now you have 3 answers. If your only response is to be "They are not answers" as it has been up to here, it's not anything like the healthy debate in which you say you don't mind engaging. However the only debate there appears to be is between yourself and an imaginary 'atheist', wherein you provide all the questions and answers. More constructively perhaps you might be prepared to undertake a little experiment which I put forward to illustrate one particular mistake out of the many present in your last post particularly. I have extracted the following statements. I hope you can follow their own line of reasoning which should demonstrate at least one serious flaw out of all the other similar illogical and logically faulty assumptions you've made so far. ".....if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing." " if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin. " " if intelligence exists, then so to must it have its own point of instantiation " Now in light of what you state above can you see a problem arising in what you say next..... " And, if God exists, then who or what among His creation is capable of proving otherwise? " Well, it would seem you are capable. Capable by making the mistake of stating and assuming everything must have another cause..or "its own point of instantiation" From what you say must be , God " must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin." ID, just like Creationism, which is what ID is, falls over completely every time in that sorry state of infinite regress. Completely unlike real answers such like math, nature and existence, ID/Creationism as would be expected from any fantasy, provides no answers. It merely begs more questions.
Mathematics began exactly when? Is mathematics eternal or not? If the man ceased to exist, would the rule of mathematics also cease to exist? If the universe ceased to exist, would the rules of mathematics also cease to exist? If mathematics is eternal and absolute, does that mean the rules of mathematics are also eternal, whether or not there is a physical universe in existence? If mathematics is eternal, then what is produced from these eternal rules of mathematics has a beginning, and likely an end...at least anything that is produced that is physical has some beginning and some end. So something eternal and beyond the realm of time and space that has no "creator" responsible for its own existence produces that which is bound by time and space which is temporal and not eternal. So we have something without cause, i.e. mathematics, that produces and "causes" something that is material. So much for your theory of infinite regress... Consequently though the understanding of the eternal nature of mathematics it is easily seen that something without cause itself can give rise to causation...mathematics is after all about the relationship, the relativity of numbers. Therefore God could exist eternally without cause or creator and within God's own eternal unlimited existence, within Himself from Himself, out of that eternal existence of God, God could create limited, temporal, and material things...like the physical universe, all laws of nature, and everything within the boundaries of the physical universe.
Take it up with Veyron then, it's his infinite regress. Then so could the Universe, which would negate any need for a God to create it.
Maybe God was created as a result and several nanosecs after the universe, which would imply even God has limit. What that implies is God ain't much better than any of us :eek:
Take it up with Veyron then, it's his infinite regress. You spout it, it is yours... Then so could the Universe, which would negate any need for a God to create it. So could monkeys fly out of your butt... You really got nothing stu, nothing... Sadly, your two dimensional "natural" thinking just doesn't cut it when we go to the abstract...
Stu, not really. What was asked was: "Does absolute truth exist." What was given as an answer was: "In mathematics" and "In nature." Remaining intellectually honest, those were qualified answers and not absolute answers. The question itself defines that boundaries within which the answer is either qualified or unqualified. The answers given required precedent. An absolute answer would have by definition required dependency. So, logically, "in mathematics" and "in nature," cannot possibly be an answer for "what is absolute truth." This is not merely splitting hairs. This is a straight forward logical assessment of the facts as they were/are. The answer to the question was a very important one for the reasons I have outlined above in my second to last post. The question was answered with an oblique, open-ended, precedent standing and qualified response. Be logical definition, thus, not directly. Yes, you may point that out and you did so quite well, thank you. However, does that same rule for answering questions apply equally to all? If so, then the logical presupposition(s) demanded by questions that require absolute, unqualified dependency at their core, would strongly suggest that the application of the rule which you have established here for what qualifies as an answer to a question, was in fact, lacking in the respondents offering as a pure matter of logical consequence and intellectual vigor. However, "an answer" is established as relative at the core and logically cannot be anything other than what it is: conditional. "An answer," by logical definition, must have boundaries and is therefore restricted from ever being or becoming, an absolute answer. Therefore, while the respondents answer might indeed be "a good example," it cannot logically be considered as an unqualified answer. Then, are we both suffering under a question of definition? If the entire Universe is included in the respondents answer (which is what I asked prior to offering my proof for the logical existence of God), then that would be an unqualified yes to the question, "does absolute truth exist." Why? Simple. If it is absolute, then its application must therefore include all things in the Universe. So, to stipulate a differential qualifier by stating the answer as belonging to "mathematics" or to "nature,' creates a logical conflict and extends a definition to be considered, that should not truly be place into consideration at all. Agreed. Then we are dealing with an issue of extended definition, which is fine - no harm, no foul. You might want to read my logical proof of the existence of God again, as I have long since moved beyond this question/issue. Ok, if you don't prefer the word "Atheist," how about the word, "Unbeliever." Either way, they both describe the exact same thing: rebellion. Mind is not to argue - I doubt you will find any argumentative tone and/or demeanor in anything I've written here. Mine is to use simple math and even easier logic, to demonstrate the conceptual proof for the existence of God. If God does exist, then the next logical question to be asked would be: How has God decided to reveal Himself to His creation? This is truly the point at which the Unbeliever and/or Atheist is usually and very typically confused. First, if the God of everything truly had a singular point of instantiation, then He would not be the God of everything at all by logical definition. Second, the God of everything would also include the God of "intelligence" and "logic." In fact, this God would represent the highest level of intelligence and logic possible. If this God were to instantiate the Universe, then its existence (the Universe) would be bound (required) to exhibit or manifest both the attributes and characteristics of its source and origin. Third, even without the existence of humanity on earth, the entire Universe demonstrates function both on the cosmological and quantum scales of its existence. Function, exhibits the Universal signature of intelligence as a very simple matter of cause preceding effect. There can be no effect without a first cause, first premise coupled to the boundary layer of the effect. This sits are the core of all scientific proof. Therefore, the existence of the entire Universe (effect), must be a direct function of the singular source of intelligence which makes manifest its own signature coded directly into its creation, which is observed as being extensible in both its attributes and characteristics, namely the universal exhibition of intelligence. That's unbreakable. So, the only way possible for that to be true, is if God Himself was eternally infinite, which He has already declared Himself to be with: I am the Alpha AND the Omega. The First AND the last. The beginning AND the end. This is the total encapsulation of all that has been, is now and will be in our future. Thus, only that which is infinite, capable of existence outside of our known frame of reference (our Universe) and singularly having such capacity sufficient to formulate the instantiation of our known Universe, would be, can be and is the only possible source and origin for all that we know and all that we don't yet know. Why? Because within our Universe: [0+0] = 0, and, [0+N] = N, where 'N' represents a positive value. Therefore, one cannot seriously argue a "Big Bang," (effect) without dealing with its first cause/first premise, which by logical extension must imply a source and origin being both extant and pre-existing outside of itself (the singularity) as well as having sufficient intelligence to produce it AND the signature that points backwards to its point of origin, namely intelligence demonstrated through function. Function ~ Intelligence. Intelligence ~ Purpose. Purpose ~ Capacity for Design. Design ~ Function. An infinite, enclosed, self-sufficient, self-sustaining function, outside of which, nothing else can possibly exist. Yet, another definition for the God who creates all things. Intelligent Design, as co-opted by those unwilling to accept that [0+0] = 0 and that [0+N] = N, is most definitely not the same as the view held by Creationists, for the exact same reason why I asked the question in the first place: "Does absolute truth exist?" Put plainly, ID allows for a qualified answer to the question of how life began on earth and by logical extension how the Universe began. Creation, on the other hand, does not allow for such equivocation in its response to the question as it simply states that: "In the beginning God created...." So, to continue placing both ID and C in the same grocery bag of Universal ideas, is logically without purpose, because the notion is simply in error and with a great amount of evidence for such error. The answers provide here (above) were both logical, rational and coherent but most importantly, true and demonstrated reasonably.
Precisely! But, with some, derivation of the logical strata is necessary to leave no wiggle room for logical variations that allow for any other "excuse." That was my only purpose, here. Removing logical excuse. Once logical excuse is removed, the only thing that can possible exist in such a debate like this is: human ego and rebellion. And, once that is exposed, revealed and understood, one has the "opportunity" to properly deal with it and address it accordingly. This is the intellectual side of the problem. I could have used the "are you a sinner" path, but that allows people to wiggle too much into a morass of moral dungeons, out of which many people never come out to breath fresh air. It is easy for people to conclude that God does not exist, as long as they have logical wiggle room. Eliminate that, and they are forced to deal with [0+0] = 0, [+N] = N and the logical consequence and/or reality that only that which is infinite could ever create that which is temporal in its function & purpose - by design. Neither function or purpose, could possibly exist outside of design. Both function and purpose requires (by logical definition) design. Therefore, with its signature, intelligence absolutely eliminates the possibility that non-intelligence source and origin would or could self-instantiate[/b] the Universe, or anything contained therein. That leaves only one possibility for both source and origin of our Universe: The Intelligent Infinite, God. Fully self-sufficient and with fully sovereign authority over all that He creates. Thus, no "logical" wiggle room exists for the Unbeliever/Atheist, which then allows for the proper handling of human ego. Truly, only the Spirit can convict, but that's an entire different thread. What I'm dealing with right now, is the human ego, which all too often gets in the way of clarity of thought and well reasoned foundations for belief systems. Always have an answer for the reason...
Logically inconsistent, for the reasons just given above. The Universe is most definitely not infinite, basic physics 101. The proponents; Bondi, Gold and most notably Boyle in the mid 1940's, were simply proven wrong first by Einstein and then later confirmed by Hubble, with his proof of the existence of low level cosmic radiation. A derivation on the physics that explains this truth should be well understood by the eighth grade - if not most assuredly by the 11th, in most school systems throughout the U.S. So, that brings us back to my proffer above. Still, unbreakable.
I don't think I could provide a logical rebuttal that would make any sense to you, here. Other than to say that lowering the Creator, to the level of His creation, would not be a rational thing to attempt. However, I do understand the human ego's need to either: 1) Raise Himself and/or 2) Lower God to his level. If God is God, then the created could not logically instantiate that which creates all things. That would be logically inconsistent. A non-starter.