Somebody said it, I forget who, but it does make sense:
There are absolutely no absolutes!
The end.
Printable View
Somebody said it, I forget who, but it does make sense:
There are absolutely no absolutes!
The end.
It's still hard to argue for either side. But the relativists seem to be winning today. It's at least all the vogue nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
But it's important to keep in mind that if we prove relativism we have proven God doesn't exist because nothing is more absolute than the Unmoved Mover. It's a critical part of the theory.
edit: I tried to track it down. But I think the specific quote is just one of those things that's been floating around forums for a long time.
edit2: The Christian God is the solution to Plato's problem of the source of moral and physical absolutes. If we reject that there are absolutes we've also removed the necessity of the Unmoved Mover. If we are relativist and Christian, we're simply lost the roots of our religion. Then it's a house built on mud.
TomOfSweden with having pointed out these truths, you have assisted all Christians in what they must argue in defending their faith, if only we will listen to you. Plato's God was absolute. So is the Christian God. The Absolute does not change. Change is an appearance and not really real. The the secret is to continue to have a better revealing of the Absolute.
That is what history and the Bible does. History and the Bible should both be viewed as a revealing by those who believe in the Absolute. God does not change but our conception of God improves. There are serous consequences for the world if Christians do not view history and the Bible from their world system's point of view, that is. that God is Absolute.
Christians falsely believe the Book of Revelation in the Bible is prophesy. Thus, they come up with many self-fulfilling prophesies that even our nation's politics is conjoined. The belief by both the Muslims and Christians that there is to be one last battle in the last days is a very dangerous prophsey in a nuclear age.
The first chapter of the Book of Revelation states clearly that the book is a revealing of Jesus Christ, that is, the Absolute. Author of books and T.V. ministers ignore this fact as they create scenarios for the end of days that can not be found in the Bible.
Well, I have really stepped into shit now! To argue from the point of view of the revelation of God, the revealing, will not go well with many ministers and authors who are making millions$ by scaring people about the last days as they continue their possible self-fulfilling statements.
If you all get a moment, you should read this short story. It written by the writer of Dilbert (the comic) its called God Debris and it has alot of stuff in there to make you think.
http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/...ods_Debris.pdf
I said earlier that my goal wasn't to discredit religion. I really don't. I'd say your above account is completely correct. But it still hinges on there being absolute truths we can know. This is not a matter of belief or faith. This is science. And we cannot prove either side.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
If you do think it is down to faith you haven't understood the word. Faith is when you've measured enough times to be sure that every time you measure the result will be the same. This is when we make the leap of faith.
Kierkegaard reasoned that humanity will never be able to know and therefore if we are to make any meaning of life, forced to make a leap to faith. But this was in the 1840'ies. I'd say he was probably a bit premature in his assessment. Science has progressed with leaps and bounds since then. There's no reason any more to make a leap to faith. Taking an informed leap of faith is actually possible in these informed times. The problem is of course that we're swamped by too much information and no single person can sort it our by themselves. But that is not the problem of truth/God. That is just the situation we find ourselves in and which we'll have to deal with. And the Christian theory of God is much to vague and abstract to be applicable to today's science. The Bible needs an update to be relevant in today's society. At least if you care about truth.
I personally see the Bible as a summation of what we knew, or thought we knew in 350 AD. But it was a snapshot of it's time. Modern science is the same Bible but for today. A snapshot of our time. Maybe truth is absolute. Maybe. Maybe science will find constants somewhere. Maybe. But it's not a matter of faith. Faith cannot change what is true. It is a matter of continued research by those who have devoted their lives to finding truth using the tools with which it is potentially possible. No, I'm not talking about Kukulcan priests smoking peyote or the Pope swigging wine.
But I'll admit that having this approach takes away the simplicity of getting the "truth" in easily digestible MTV formated packaging. It means you actually need to make an effort. You can't just sit and be opinionated on forums and read one single book.
Just to let you know, I'm already laughing out loud at p 9 ... and it's a funnier and easier read than summaries of Shopenhauer!Quote:
Originally Posted by Silus
I've only read the introduction and I'm already hooked. Sounds like it's right up my alley!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
I may not believe in a Christian God myself, but I do think that the point of God is that he is perfect; as in he is all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent and all the rest of it.
God created a world which was allowed to 'Fall' not because he was wasn't perfect and therefore incapable of creating a perfect world; but because he wanted to create a world with free will, and without the possibility of sin and the option to sin there is no freedom. Which in turn means there is no faith and no choice with religion, meaning that people cannot become Christian and choose to go towards God.
It's a difficult debate, but I do think that it's in the very nature of the Christian God that he is perfect. It may not always seem that way but that's my understanding of it.
I think it's rather that us as humans can't understand what perfection is, and that's the main problem when deciding what is and isn't perfect - because everyone has their own definition of what the 'ideal' is.