Well Pat the scientist in me is screaming that even those universal constants did not start out that way, umm constant I mean!
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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
