Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Dear Presupposistionalists

Please contrast and explain the differences between truth and absolute truth.

Truth is defined as:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

As such, it would seem that an adjective applied to 'truth' in regards to how true truth is would be superfluous in the extreme. If something is considered to be true, then there is no reason to add any kind of qualifier to it, nor does said qualifier change the truth of the true stated fact. If the truth of the truism being discussed was in question, then it wouldn't be labelled as 'true' to begin with.

The definition of absolute is:

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.

Utilizing such definitions and synonyms, one can see how unnecessary adding such adjectives to a truth claim really is.

Pure truth
Complete truth
Unlimited truth
Ultimate truth
Certain truth
Outright truth

How do these words actually effect how true something is? What it is that differentiates absolute truth from regular truth?

In example:
It is true that gravity exists.
It is absolutely true that gravity exists.

Does my adding an unnecessary adjective to that sentence effect whether or not gravity actually exists?

Does me describing truth as purple make a difference in how true something is?

Because to me, this looks like simply more inane word games that the presupposistionalist engages in in lieu of offering any tangible evidence for the existence of a deity.

38 comments:

  1. Uck, not more presup discussion... It's like... impossible to counter, and I always somehow admitting that God exists.

    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can use presup to "prove" anything.
    Like Stephen Law "proving" Sye 10's brain was addled or Gorth Satana "proving" he was a god.

    http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/sye-dim-presuppositinalism.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will set you free." - John 8:31-33

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will set you free.""

    I wish someone would have told me this before... in bold no less.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait... Did I miss something? Has Daniel morphed?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Having reviewed both profiles, blogs and writing styles I feel justified in saying:

    I think Ezekiel is finally conclusive proof that Daniel either has multiple personalities or is intentionally lying.

    Someone should do a post on this...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kelley,

    Ezeki'El is just his stripper name.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In itself, the concept of truth may not admit modification, in the same way that "unique" doesn't either. (It always rankles me when someone uses the pharase "really unique.")

    However, some truths are more trivial than others. For example, the truth of a statement like, "Godzilla is coming," is significant. On the other hand, a reflexive statement like, "Pain is painful," is true enough, but doesn't add anything to the conversation.

    This prompts me to get around to posting some thoughts on the massive degree of FAIL in a lot of presup-like arguments. I'm getting tired of some Christians over at the Cesspool continuing to claim that God is the source of absolute truth, and thus of absolute morality, then concluding that belief in God means that no standards are valid and nothing whatever is true. (The old, "if you don't believe in God, then you don't have any reason to say that goat-fucking is wrong notion.") False on two grounds, I think. One, the Christian God and the Bible actually gives us an incredibly subjective moral standard. Second, just because you can't claim "absolute morality" doesn't mean that you can't hold valid and meaningful, subjective moral standards.

    Girlfriend ready to leave. Must abandon computer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. NonMagic,

    Ezeki'El is just his stripper name.

    Hah! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  10. In example:
    It is true that gravity exists.
    It is absolutely true that gravity exists.

    Does my adding an unnecessary adjective to that sentence effect whether or not gravity actually exists?


    Nonmagic, this is an example (I think) of something I've proposed in the past: theists often emote when they're trying to communicate.

    It's gonna sound a little weird, but one of the reasons I moved away from religion was this "imperfect" use of language.

    It's often redundant, imprecise and overly flowery - and that's not how I want ideas described to me. If you're gonna tell me "God did it", you don't need to add several paragraphs of reverent language which effectively says "Woooooooo!" at the same time.

    Maybe this is just an INTJ thing. I'm not sure.

    Anyhoo, my take on the presupp thing: they need to add "absolute" because even if it's redundant, it sure sounds much more god-like. They want you to be scared of the awesomeness that is their illogical deity...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ezeki'El is just his stripper name.

    Comment of the year!

    ReplyDelete
  12. WEM wrote: "Anyhoo, my take on the presupp thing: they need to add "absolute" because even if it's redundant, it sure sounds much more god-like."

    Great point. Presups sound like the kid on the schoolyard who says "I know you are but what am I -- INFINITY!!!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks guys! ::takes a bow:::


    WEM,

    I think you are right about the emoting when communicating. It's very uncomfortable and freaky for me.

    At most church services I've ever been too, even when I was an xian, the emotional content of the services made my skin crawl. Then add to it the emo language...ugh. No one was thinking logically!! Anybody could make any claim and so long as they got emotional about it and seemed like they thought it was real, it was accepted. Made me want to claw my own eyes out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NM,

    So are you telling me that strippers don't use their real names?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Geoff,

    I would never spread such a heinous lie.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One of the things that I've been wondering lately is this:

    Is it absolutely wrong to torture people?

    I'm thinking that because of hell, a christian would have to answer "No.".

    Following that logic, if it isn't absolutely wrong to torture people, then it must be (by the impossibility of the contrary) absolutely right to torture people.

    Therefore, there is no situation in which torture isn't a valid option.

    ...

    Which would go some way to explaining why fundie trolls are such a pain in the frigging arse!

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Kaitlyn - great blog entry.

    alt.atheism taught me a very long time ago that definitions are crucial to making sure the discussion is as fruitful as possible. Even when both sides take care to establish them, the context can be mangled to such an extent that meaning is destroyed.

    Proof that everything is relative...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just to clear up any lingering doubts; I am NOT the new Ezeki'El character.

    This is irreducibly true.


    However, I don't think it's Dani'El either.

    This is just a hunch...a true hunch, but a hunch nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Kaitlyn
    I don't get you.Sye showed you that your ides on logic and mathematics were clearly wrong.
    You could accept the true foundations of logic and reawson but you continue to have blind faith in your worldview. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. And to clarify Sye was specifying whether something might be true for a person within a system or was universally true for everyone.
    I'm curious to see how atheists would account for absolute truth though

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm curious to see how atheists would account for absolute truth though

    I'm speaking for atheists right now: there is no absolute truth, and it does not need to be accounted for.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And FFS no that is not an absolute.

    I do not currently have the capability to perceive absoluteness; I'm not omniscient. And I'm not expecting those capabilities to be gained in the future.

    Nevertheless, I'm able to say with 99.999999999999999999999% surety that my inability to find an absolute corresponds to them not existing. Unlike my Fundamental brothers here, I am willing to entertain the possibility that I might be fucking wrong about this.

    But I fucking-well doubt it...

    ReplyDelete
  23. You don't need absolute knowledge in order to eat breakfast, drive to work, or debate idiots on a freakin internet blog.

    My proof? I currently lack absolute knowledge, yet I'm miraculously able to do all three.

    ReplyDelete
  24. WEM,

    Your writing and your profile picture are starting to converge...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Every minute I spend rejecting the ignorance found here and on other blogs, I get a little closer to the edge >.<

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I don't get you.Sye showed you that your ides on logic and mathematics were clearly wrong."

    Yeah, that was something. I never thought about it before.

    "You could accept the true foundations of logic and reawson but you continue to have blind faith in your worldview. Why?"

    I'm just stubborn, I guess. I mean, my faith guides me. It's hard to give up.

    ReplyDelete
  27. MFT,

    I don't get you.Sye showed you that your ides on logic and mathematics were clearly wrong.

    Nope, he used all sorts of rhetoric to make you (you as in MFT and others who have a hard time distinguishing rhetoric) think that he showed such things.

    You could accept the true foundations of logic and reawson but you continue to have blind faith in your worldview. Why?

    Which fucking true foundations? Having a hyper-god-of-the-gaps argument does not make such god-of-the-gaps true. Especially if the whole argument is filled with fallacies to begin with.

    Are you really that dumb? Sye can only convince the convinced and those with inferior intellects. Anyone else might try to get to him, only to be, by the end, convinced that there is no way of going around the blatant dishonesty displayed by Sye.

    That is it.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Whateverman said,

    My proof? I currently lack absolute knowledge, yet I'm miraculously able to do all three.

    Yep, and Sye and the like will always polarize these kinds of statements into "then everything you say amounts to moot."

    I hereby propose that we all treat Presupposhitional scatologetics the way it deserves. No respect whatsoever at-all.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  29. GE wrote No respect whatsoever at-all

    Presupposition might have, at one time, been capable of impressing me as a clever way of thinking about reality and logic - similar to solipsism, I think.

    However, the way it's been advocated has ruined any chance that I will take it seriously. It is nothing less than an attempt to codify belief in the Bible via dishonest linguistic acrobatics.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Whateverman, come on!

    I know the idea of basing your ideas off faith without any supporting evidence is stupid, but that's not what Sye and Mr. Freethinker are doing.

    They base their beliefs off a presupposition. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  31. WEM said:

    It is nothing less than an attempt to codify belief in the Bible via dishonest linguistic acrobatics.

    Yyyyyyyyyep!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kaitlyn wrote Whateverman, come on!

    I know the idea of basing your ideas off faith without any supporting evidence is stupid, but that's not what Sye and Mr. Freethinker are doing.

    They base their beliefs off a presupposition. Big difference.


    Ooo! I got Kaitlyn to yell at me - this should be interesting!

    (And I mean that respectfully)

    When that presupposition is something that requires faith, and a specific faith which rejects the power of logic and reason...

    It's exactly the same.

    My presupposition in the value of logic and reason does not involve the infallibility of the thing I'm presupposing. It's faith, but only to the extent of saying "I've seen it in action, and I've seen it produce tangible results. It's worth placing my non-absolute trust in".

    Sye and MFT are claiming their presupposition is beyond the questioning of the things which result from it.

    That's simply belief in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow, Whateverman! You're right!

    How was I so foolish as to not see that Sye's and Mr. Freethinker's arguments amount to nothing more than wordplay - a dressing up of faith.

    Thank you for correcting me. Now I can reject Sye's and Mr. Freethinker's arguments and continue in my heathenish ways.

    Hooray being an atheist!

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Kaitlyn
    I'm just stubborn, I guess. I mean, my faith guides me
    Yeah I know. Faith is tricky like that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Ezeki'El

    You wrote "Jesus said..."

    Incorrect! Someone wrote that jesus said...

    You have no evidence that Jesus said anything in partticular at all.

    @ Free

    You wrote "I'm curious to see how atheists would account for absolute truth though."

    Why do you continue to do this Free?

    All humans only have to account for objective, tentative knowledge. Since objective, tentative knowledge does not make any absolute claims then it does NOT require any universal source.

    Secondly Sye has shown nothing except that he is unable to prove that he can think rationally. I asserted that sye was brain damaged and unable to show that he could think rationally [using presupp rules of course]. Do you know what? Your hero was absolutely unable to show that he could think rationally.

    See Free, anyone can prove anything using presupp rules. Last time I checked that made an argument invalid. But you already knew the presupp argument was invalid didn't you Free?

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.