On 24 Aug, 14:43, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Well Pat the scientist in me is screaming that even those universal
> constants did not start out that way, umm constant I mean!
>
So, you think there was a time when True meant something other
than "not(False)"?
> On 24 Aug, 13:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
