Ok boys and girls...give me an absolute truth.
- Thread starter OliverJ
- Start date
§outh§tar said:
I am quite serious on this one. You see, the problem is, there are mulitple holy scriptures that supposedly wrote down the word of god(s). And all of them claim that they bear the absolute truth. That causes some problems, don´t you think? So, the truth can obviously only be determined without falling back on god as validation. If that is not possible, there is no truth, just faith.
Yeah, I know that you did only "reproduce" this question, the "you" was directed at anyone who felt addressed.
Dreamwalker said:
Since the other so-called "holy" books do not acknowledge the Truth of the ONLY Triune Deity, they can be considered heretic. However, knowledge of the "existence" of God, does NOT come about from reading the Bible or talking to missionaries and such and therefore cannot be classified as "falling back on God."
I also note that you use 'god' instead of 'God'..
§outh§tar said:
But the "Triunity" is not necessary, it may well be, that those ,who do not have it, are right. And if you cannot fall back on god, on what is your religion founded? And if you do not gain knowledge of god´s existence from the bible, where else do you get it? And on what basis?
And I use "god" for the same reason I use "tree", there are lots of them, so why should I write one of them in capitals?
Dreamwalker said:
Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
I don't think I need to explain it to you, but do note that it says God and not gods. Unless you have evidence, using the text, that there are gods.. It also shows that you dont need the Bible to know that there is God.
You just got served dreamwalker. How can you refute that? It says so right there in the bible. 
Ps. I promise to never utter that horrible phrase about getting served again.
Ps. I promise to never utter that horrible phrase about getting served again.
§outh§tar said:
You know, you should get this quote from the bible as signature. It seems that you always post it. Now, let me see, last time I looked, I saw no evidence for god, neither your god nor any other. For me, it is plain that God does not exist, I don´t know God, so I arrive at the conclusion that god does not exist.
I like that last sentence, nicely done so that everyone who does not believe in god thinks that he is a blind fool, attacking his selfconvidence. Designed to weaken the reader, making it easier to convert him. Nice retoric, but again, there is no proof for you God.
And you are right, it does not say "gods" but I do, because I don´t believe in a particular one.
Dreamwalker said:
John Gill's Exposition
-------------
here are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous
--------------
§outh§tar said:
And what exactly does that proof? The first people have personificated or idolized natural things linke fire, iron, stone and many more things. There are theories that such beliefs became more complex, alongside the human mind and civilization. Ending in the generalized and abstract single "GOD".
But tell me, what exactly does that text of yours proof anything? And if Adam and his descendants had knowledge of him, why were people believing in idols?
And now, stop glorifying your damn god and give me proof, evidence for I see none.
OliverJ said:
In fact, it is, yes. Everything is true, just like nothing is true.
Dreamwalker said:
These were acts of idolatry and heinous insubordination to the Almighty. Certainly, you will note that their lot did not survive the "wrath of heaven", as described in the text.
The evidence is you and in you. How can I show you what you don't want to see? Even if I showed you to your face this minute, do you think you would TRULY believe? I think not, but hope to be mistaken.
If this is your answer, there is no need to discuss. I have searched the answer in my, the only one I found was the fact that you cannot believe in anything because everything we perceive can very well be wrong.
Even if you would show me this very minute, I would look at it from all sides and then, I would decide if the thing I see is true, if it can be true.
The wrath of heaven? No, sorry, but where is anything written about the wrath of heaven in that passage. I really cannot see it.
Dreamwalker said:
Are you saying you don't have faith, or you don't need faith?
The wrath of heaven? No, sorry, but where is anything written about the wrath of heaven in that passage. I really cannot see it.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who..
H
Halcyon
Guest
Yep. You got got it. To get the ball rolling on this, define "I," prove it exists. Then take the part "I think," and prove it. While you're working on that, I'm going through some old texts of mine to bring some concrete references and refutations to the table.fadingCaptain said:
ha! Nope. Never claimed to. But I do engage in intelligent conversation wherever I can, and I have spoken with several deeply educated philosophers who allow the statement: "I thought that most people who study philosophy indepth..." I was given references to support their claim, which I read, and found the arguments compelling and to have foundation, so it cannot be argued that I don't know what I'm saying here. No, not a philosopher, but I assumed you to be due to your statements, and thus the particular wording of my reply.fadingCaptain said:
Yes you are:fadingCaptain said:
That's where my argument started, with those statements. You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. The purpose of my bringing up Descartes was that the argument that refutes his claim does that same for yours. Without observation, nothing can be said to exist; to claim that thought exists, it must be observed. To claim that thought is being observed, you must prove the existance of an observer.fadingCaptain said:
Ok Girls! This is what Descarte said:
Descartes begins Meditations with methodic doubt, rejecting as though false all types of knowledge by which he was ever deceived. His arguments derive from the Pyrrhonism of the Greek skeptic Sextus Empiricus as reflected in the skeptical writings of Michel de Montaigne and Pierre Charron. Thus knowledge based on authority is set aside because even experts are sometimes wrong. Knowledge from sensory experience is declared untrustworthy because people sometimes mistake one thing for another, as with mirages. Knowledge based on reasoning is rejected as unreliable because one often makes mistakes as, for example, when adding. Finally, knowledge may be illusory because it comes from dreams or insanity or from a demon able to deceive men by making them think that they are experiencing the real world when they are not. Descartes finds certainty in the intuition that when he is thinking, even if deceived, he exists: “Cogito, ergo sum” (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”). The cogito is a logically self-evident truth that gives certain knowledge of a particular thing's existence—that is, one's self—but the cogito justifies accepting as certain only the existence of the person who thinks it. If all one ever knew for certain was that one exists and if one adhered to Descartes's method of doubting all that is uncertain, then one would be reduced to solipsism, the view that nothing exists but one's individual self and thoughts. To escape this, Descartes argues that all ideas that are as clear and distinct as the cogito must be true, for, if they were not, the cogito also, as a member of the class of clear and distinct ideas, could be doubted. Since “I think, therefore I am” cannot be doubted, all clear and distinct ideas must be true.
On the basis of clear and distinct innate ideas, Descartes then establishes that each mind is a spiritual substance and each body a part of one material substance. The mind or soul is immortal because it is unextended and cannot be broken into parts, as can extended bodies. Descartes also advances proof for the existence of God. He begins with the statement that he has an innate idea of God as a perfect being and then intuits that God necessarily exists, because, if he did not, he would not be perfect. This ontological proof for the existence of God is at the heart of Descartes's rationalism, for it establishes certain knowledge about an existing thing solely on the basis of reasoning from innate ideas, with no help from sensory experience. Descartes then argues that, because God is perfect, he does not deceive human beings; therefore the world exists. Thus Descartes claims to have given metaphysical foundations for the existence of his own mind, of God, and of the world.
------------
From the Britannica Encyclopaedia
Descartes begins Meditations with methodic doubt, rejecting as though false all types of knowledge by which he was ever deceived. His arguments derive from the Pyrrhonism of the Greek skeptic Sextus Empiricus as reflected in the skeptical writings of Michel de Montaigne and Pierre Charron. Thus knowledge based on authority is set aside because even experts are sometimes wrong. Knowledge from sensory experience is declared untrustworthy because people sometimes mistake one thing for another, as with mirages. Knowledge based on reasoning is rejected as unreliable because one often makes mistakes as, for example, when adding. Finally, knowledge may be illusory because it comes from dreams or insanity or from a demon able to deceive men by making them think that they are experiencing the real world when they are not. Descartes finds certainty in the intuition that when he is thinking, even if deceived, he exists: “Cogito, ergo sum” (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”). The cogito is a logically self-evident truth that gives certain knowledge of a particular thing's existence—that is, one's self—but the cogito justifies accepting as certain only the existence of the person who thinks it. If all one ever knew for certain was that one exists and if one adhered to Descartes's method of doubting all that is uncertain, then one would be reduced to solipsism, the view that nothing exists but one's individual self and thoughts. To escape this, Descartes argues that all ideas that are as clear and distinct as the cogito must be true, for, if they were not, the cogito also, as a member of the class of clear and distinct ideas, could be doubted. Since “I think, therefore I am” cannot be doubted, all clear and distinct ideas must be true.
On the basis of clear and distinct innate ideas, Descartes then establishes that each mind is a spiritual substance and each body a part of one material substance. The mind or soul is immortal because it is unextended and cannot be broken into parts, as can extended bodies. Descartes also advances proof for the existence of God. He begins with the statement that he has an innate idea of God as a perfect being and then intuits that God necessarily exists, because, if he did not, he would not be perfect. This ontological proof for the existence of God is at the heart of Descartes's rationalism, for it establishes certain knowledge about an existing thing solely on the basis of reasoning from innate ideas, with no help from sensory experience. Descartes then argues that, because God is perfect, he does not deceive human beings; therefore the world exists. Thus Descartes claims to have given metaphysical foundations for the existence of his own mind, of God, and of the world.
------------
From the Britannica Encyclopaedia
Yo SouthStar dude
Quote SouthStar:
"The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely."
The above statement is an absolute truth only to yourself, and only in your own reality. Unfortunately the statement can never be considered a universal truth. But I dig where you are at. Ultimate truth can ever only be subjective. I can never walk in your shoes SouthStar dude, so our individual truths can never merge. They can merely nudge each other tenderly.
"If something cannot be detected, it does not exist."
The voices in a schizophrenics head, although undetected by us, is a reality that exists in the mind of the schizophrenic. Do the voices exist?
Allcare.
Quote SouthStar:
"The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely."
The above statement is an absolute truth only to yourself, and only in your own reality. Unfortunately the statement can never be considered a universal truth. But I dig where you are at. Ultimate truth can ever only be subjective. I can never walk in your shoes SouthStar dude, so our individual truths can never merge. They can merely nudge each other tenderly.
"If something cannot be detected, it does not exist."
The voices in a schizophrenics head, although undetected by us, is a reality that exists in the mind of the schizophrenic. Do the voices exist?
Allcare.
§outh§tar said:
First, I think that I am saying both, I don´t have faith and I don´t need faith. And I think that it is not the first time I said this...
Ah, you were speaking about that text...I tried the whole time to find meaning in this one
You see, I did not find anything about the wrath of god in there.