On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy that, in
> > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do you get past the
> > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in your
> > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the statement and say
> > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then,
> > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they could} be
> > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally, I don't think
> > you've stated your whole case, here.
>
> Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then Ian's
> strance is going to be the best you will get.
>
> Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse
> people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we practice a
> kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out the
> hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have done with
> it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend
> against, do you?
I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover the
truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In order to
defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no comprehensive
alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology. Once we've
determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it can do
and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why' questions to which
atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers,
leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to choose
and futher blocks progress.
One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no
evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is heading
in a particular direction with goals at the end. They overlook the
FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The continuum contains
ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already
defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already defined, then
the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling block
(of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one stone
(Einstein).
My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute
truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly useful until one
extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found special (and
general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually, things like
physical constants. But it is how those truths work together and
allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and makes
the absolutes seem less important or obscure.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
