Open Your Mind

" Ignorance is indiscriminate " ;) edited , Jed wisely erased his orignial reply Mike I enjoyed the input. I'm not put out because of Copy and paste . Truth is just that no matter how it is presented . Wisdom is not a commodity .

I prefer original opinions. If I wanted to read pro-christian opinions posted on a pro-christian website then I would go there.

http://www.gotquestions.org/absolute-truth.html

The Bible itself, for all its virtually infinite sanctity, is a relative document.

Written by The Father Himself..

The sheer effort Mike expended incorporating all these strands of thought deserves some serious admiration, and distinguishes him from others of all persuasions who merely state an opinion while making little or no diligent attempt to comb out the loose ends and reconcile inconsistencies.

I am going to sidestep the core issue of religion here, along with the issue of faith, except to say I have both of them in abundance, that by Mike's definition I am certainly more relativistic than evangelical, but that while I have less problem than most wading through what I take to be mortal overlays of intent on and in the Bible, I continue to hold the belief that for Westerners, Christianity and Christ offer the purest path to eternal truth. I reference that it has not been a clean path historically, a spiritually pure one as often practiced, nor even a Christian one in some instances except in name only. Beyond that, I have to say that it's a problematic thing, very tempting, but very problematic, to attempt to employ logic in pursuit of religious conclusions. Not saying it shouldn't be attempted, but logic will not get you there.

If we are shooting for absolute truth, we have to be constantly on guard against the vagaries of language which shifts like a cloud at the slightest change in cognitive pressure. What I mean is perhaps best illustrated by the old use of two plus two equals four business. We have all used this in one way or another. 2 plus 2 literally equals 22 and that is the only absolute interpretation. Yes it does equal 4, but it can also be said to equal 3+1, 5-1, 8/2, 1+1+1/2+3/2. All of those, including 4, are less than literal, therefore less than absolute. To make them absolute you have to go to great lengths to define many terms, create an abstract system, and keep that system inviolate and uncorrupted. I try to keep my eyes open and stay humble. Over the millennia a lot of longbeards have allowed their own minds to seduce them and we have fought wars for such hubris, wars which included loss of life, limb, honesty, decency, and definitely loss of sanctity.

Great words, great thoughts, and great deeds have been re-interpreted countlessly and modified to meet the needs of different people at different times in different places speaking different languages. The Bible itself, for all its virtually infinite sanctity, is a relative document. Believe me. Or not. My faith will remain unshaken either way.

We all have God size holes in us...but..we look everywhere else but to the One who can fill it up.. :dry:

Seems appropriate at the moment

Question: "Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?"

Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.

The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.

To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.

Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”

Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you,<

...Continued....

Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is alright to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.

The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For 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. For 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. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).

Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiv

I thought you might enjoy this http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/10/carl-sagan-goes-techno-trance-with-cosmos-video/

Velikovski's theories played well on the best-seller lists, but didn't do so well under scrutiny. No matter how wild the assertion, it will gain adherents IF it makes testable predictions, and IF experimental evidence can be collected that supports the assertion. Evidence is rarely clear-cut: it is the accumulation of data points, derived through different means and subjected to many different error analyses, that generally point the general direction of "truth". Once someone has accumulated the evidence, then a key contributor to the confidence, is the reproduction of the results by other people following similar or modified protocols.

Cold fusion was a really exciting idea, but it fell apart when the results could not be reliably reproduced.

Plate tectonics was first proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener, but not accepted as a solid theory until experimental proof, especially at the mid-ocean ridges, revealed that the ideas expressed in the theory were collaborated by the evidence in the field. That took technology that allowed humans to send submersibles down to the bottom of the ocean, in the mid-1960's.

The current discussions regarding global warming should also consider the Milankovitch theory of planetary cycles, but evidence supporting the theory is proving very difficult to obtain. For a long time Milankovitch was placed in the same camp as Velikovski, but there is gradual accumulation of evidence that suggests that at least some aspects of the theory are correct.

The theory that disease could be spread by infectious agents (what we now recognize as bacteria and viruses), was extremely controversial when it first started to form in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it took much experimental evidence (and development of technology such as the microscope) before it was accepted.

I do agree with you that ideas that run counter to the current orthodoxy or conventional dogma, often face hostility, resistance, and in some cases, persecution. In the end, however, it is the evidence that will determine whether the ideas expressed by the theory are full of hokum or are inspired insights.

As for the presence or absence of UFO's on this planet - I don't know. We haven't yet figured out if the speed of light is truly a barrier that cannot be overcome. If yes, then any beings visiting us must have travelled very long distances and times, and must have lifespans that are dramatically different from ours. There is a whole area of astro-biology where scientists are speculating about the forms that life can take on other planets, and understanding the possible biochemistries that could support life. There is nothing, as yet, that rules out the existence of life on other planets, and there is nothing that says that we can't be visited. However, what would be the motivations of such visitors, given the effort required to travel the vast inter-stellar distances? All human societies have some form of economics at their base. Can you think what kind of resource commitment that must be made to travel interstellar distances? If someone/something comes here, it must be for more than just seeing what's going on. But then, why the hide-and-seek? I am not smart enough to figure it out.

Exactly prigz " nothing " I'll try to explain . Back in the day not to long ago , the prevailing theory's that passed the muster of peer-review publications were biased to prevailing theories and education . Though today other more credible ideas have come forward and are excepted as norm , were at the time of inception not excepted and the author of these theories ridiculed distaine thrown out embarrassed and called a whack job and quack . Do you know who I'm giving as an example ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

Chuck, not following you. What does "narrow minds of the evolutionist" have to do with the "edge" of the solar system?

As for the "thesis" of Mr. Masters (as per your link), I read a lot of gobblygook. If that person is serious about presenting his theories, then perhaps some reference to peer-reviewed publications, or even presentation of experimental results backing up his assertions, would give a little bit more credibility. Experimentally, gravity has been seen only as attractive (not repulsive), and linked to mass. Gravity is a property of space-time, when mass is contained within that space. The expansion of space (caused by so-called "dark energy" because we don't know what it is) appears to be a property of space itself, and not related to any mass contained in that space, so linking expansion to gravity acting in a way no experiment has revealed, is nonsense. Who knows, maybe he has figured out what no other scientist has yet understood, but there are ways of showing the rest of us heathens his logic, so that we can see whether his insights have merit. That document wan't it.

Some thing else that puts this outside the narrow minds of the evolutionist . This is an amazing universe http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/ibex/

.........er, Patty, that's a little more than ten plus.....more like Forty plus.....jus sayin'>>>

My father in law seen a UFO once on a fishin rip down't the strip mine's nearin Belmont conty.

Sirius

>>>

This just in : http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09091407-new-transient-radiation-belt-discovered-at-saturn>>>