There's no absolute truth? Are you absolutely sure?

[logical bob]

…or perhaps a better title would be Relativism Explained.

Anyway, the idea that there’s no such thing as absolute truth is much misunderstood, even though it’s actually quite simple. I don’t think you have to be a non-theist to agree with it either.

I’ll break this into three areas.

1. The key to relativism is that every truth is a truth of a particular type – it belongs to a certain discourse or language game. There are truths of mathematics, truths of science, truths of art and religion and politics and ethics and so on. But each type of discourse has its own rules for determining what’s true. In mathematics, truth depends on proof and stays the same forever. In science truth is about hypothesis and experiment. Scientific truth is never fixed as theories are continually revised and improved. Artistic truths are different again. It’s true that Shakespeare is a great writer, but you wouldn’t establish that by experiment. In many areas, especially art and religion, it’s not easy to be clear on what the criteria for truth are and not everyone agrees.

If you confuse the rules from different areas of discourse you get into difficulty. Confuse art and mathematics and you get the attempt to draw graphs to find how good poems are as ridiculed in the film Dead Poets Society. If you mistake moral truths for ones that can be measured you end up with rather sinister utilitarian ideas about justifiable evil and the greater good… it’s a slippery slope. If you confuse science and religion you end up with the rather lame central argument from Dawkins’ The God Delusion in which he asks what created God – theology as seen by a biologist, or the bizarre Harvard Prayer Experiment.

The point is that each of these many truths is a truth of a particular discourse, not a universal or absolute truth. Taken away from its context it makes no sense.

2. Sometimes it’s less helpful to ask “is this statement true?†than “what does this statement do?†Take for example the statement “this make of car is safe and reliable.†That means one thing if it’s said by a salesman or contained in an advert. It means something different if it’s part of a review in a motoring magazine and something very different if it’s a testimony in a trial for corporate manslaughter. The statement needs context to give it meaning. It doesn’t so much have a truth value as act like a move in a game. The salesman isn’t trying to pass information to you, he wants to make you buy the car.

This statement loses its meaning when divorced from its context. Its meaning is relative to who says it, where, when and why. This applies to apparently objective scientific statements. That drug trial data may look impartial, but who funded the research? It also applies in religion. For early Protestants to deny transubstantiation may have seemed to be part of a largely abstract debate, but the point was that it denied that the priest was bringing about a change that another person couldn’t. It was a move in a game that was about power more than theology.

3. If some absolute reality exists, we don’t experience it. Humans are tiny and limited. This isn’t a challenging idea for Christians. You get many debates on the existence of God where someone ends up saying “look, I don’t know about the philosophy, I just know what God has done in my life.†Their belief doesn’t come from contact with some absolute reality, it’s firmly rooted in their own experience.

Our experience is, by definition, all we have. If you believe in God, you’ll surely agree that all you can know about him is little bits from your experience – as far as the whole picture goes you haven’t got a clue.

We just can’t say anything about reality beyond human experience. As Wittgenstein said, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.â€

Going back to the thread title though, in saying there’s no absolute truth aren’t I making an absolute truth claim? No, because looking at my three areas
1. if my claim is true, it’s true in the context of this particular type of discourse – armchair philosophy on teh interwebz.
2. it’s a reaction to what other people have already said, a move in a specific discussion
3. there might well be absolute truth out there, but we can’t get at it so it makes no difference to us. What I'm claiming is that there are no justified statements human can make about absolute truth.

That’s nearly 800 words of my waffle, so if you’ve made it this far thanks for your perseverance.

 

[Danus]

Bob, I waited a whole week to see if anyone would engage your post here, but no one has.

 

[logical bob]

No, they haven't. I'll get over it. It would have been a better topic for a philosophy forum - it's not the sort of discussion people come to this site looking for.

I was trying to put our discussion about morality into a broader context.

 

[Danus]

[quote="logical bob":lvzz5rt0]No, they haven't. I'll get over it. It would have been a better topic for a philosophy forum - it's not the sort of discussion people come to this site looking for.

I was trying to put our discussion about morality into a broader context.

Ill bite Bob,

Could it be that there is an absolute truth and some people on this earth have access to that truth, but are seldom heard over the voices who falsley claim absolute truth?[/quote:lvzz5rt0]

I can get behind that Mujahid Abdullah. I would say that we all have access to it, but we also have a choice to accept or deny it. If we deny it, we have to have some sort of alternative construct for truth. Would either of you agree?

 

[Danus]

Now, only God can define this few. But the absence of OUr understanding of who are the truthfull ones and who are falsley claiming truth, does not negate the fact that there IS one ultimate truth, and that there are some who posess this truth.

Here is where I have to make an adjustment for Christianity. No one person holds the truth. Only God, which includes Christ. Christ was God in the flesh with us ion earth for his time. So, God has no need to define who holds the truth among us since non of us meet the standard.

Would you say Gods truth is available to those who seek it?

 

[Danus]

If He alone Giudes, but you already have a definition of "Him" before you beseach His guidance, can you receive Absolute Truth?

Well, here is where we get into the slippery slope if we are speaking about our two religions. see, I'm not sure of your motives behind the question. Your not clear there.

We have a choice to choose God or not. if we chose God then we have to have a definition of God. Bob knows this as well. He does not chose God and maybe he does not because he can not come to terms with a definition of God. (Bob I don't mean to speak for you, but I feel I know you enough to say this. Your welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.)

So your definition of God differs from mine as as much as the nature of God, the word of God and our salvation. Does that mean nether of us can have some truth? No. I think you receive some truth from God and so do I, but neither of us can hold the full truth because of our fallen nature. But, that does not change the fact that God is truth and that that truth is the absolute standard. Can we seek it? Yes! Can we receive it? Yes. Will we perfectly hold it? NO, but we know the source, we know it's there and where to get it.

 

[Danus]

I am not speaking of christianity or Islam, religion is the for man, and one of the cheif sources of relative truth.

I am strictly speaking of the primal connection the creation has to its Creator.

You, as a christian, have a connection to your Creator
Bob, even though he may not beleive in a Creator(I may be wrong, I cant remember if your atheist or agnostic or what), still has a primal connection to the Creator
Me as a Muslim, have a connection to my Creator.

As a creation of the Creator, which we both agree created us. We are obligated to seek His truth, which is the ultimate truth.

Now speaking in these simple terms - leaving aside all our previous notions of holy Books and Laws and sin - we must beseach this creator for guidance to His truth.

Now when we talk of realative truths, we have to realize which truths we are bringing into the discussion thata re realative. For example: You speak of us as debased and incapable of being without sin. this is a realative truth, because I do not beleive this - and neither one of us can prove the other wrong. So already, you have aproached the Truth (The Creator, Source of Truth) with a preconceived realative truth handed to you by others or concluded in your own mind.

The thing is, I was once in a postion where I needed to simply let go of all preconceived realative truths, and focus my energy on The Absolute truth. I feel I found it, but now that feeling is realative and unprovable. This is the reason I say some people think they have knowledge of absolute truth and some people actually have it. Only God can see who actually has it. Even now, after I think I found absolute truth, I can not claim that today. I have to keep on submitting to my Creator and beg Him to guide me to His absolute truth. Without Him there is no guide.

You speak of us as debased and incapable of being without sin. this is a realative truth, because I do not beleive this - and neither one of us can prove the other wrong.

No, see this is what I mean. Christianity does prove you wrong in this regard of sin. I can prove to you that you are not without sin, but What does Islam say about sin?

The problem is you don't accept my source, my definition of sin as stated in the holly bible that I consider the word of God. If you say that you can be sinless, then my standard is higher. If you say you can be sinless then your standard matches more closely to Bob's. bob is in fact sinless.....in his own mind based on his standards. he may not be perfect and he may admit that, but it's of far less consequence to him.

 

[Danus]

Thats the essence of this conversation Danus, you bring realative truths, and you claim to uphold absolute truth.

YOU keep bringing this back to christianity vs. Islam.

I just pointed that out to you show how your realative truth, which you hold as absolute, rears its head.

I, personaly, am not without sin. But I have the capability to live without sinning. This is a realative truth, something neither of us can prove to the other, that both of us carry.

How can you pursue Absolute Truth, if you continue to hold on to realative truths given to you by someone or concocted in your limited mind (Im not calling you stupid, all our minds are limited)

The only sicere way to receive Absolute Truth, is by elliminating all realative truths and go directly to the Source.

You can't live without sinning. You may chose not to sin, but you can't live without sinning. That is an absolute truth I'm bringing to you base on my standard of truth as a Christian. based on what I know to be the word of God absolutely. Your standard of truth is relative...to what I don't know, but you just admitted it in saying you can live without sinning and that that notion is a relative truth. Well, it may be to you based on what Islam teaches, but it's not to me based on what God says.

There is no way you or I or Bob can come to this discussion without bringing our own moral yard sticks to measure truth. Bob's going to look at this from an Atheistic perspective. Your going to look at this from a Muslim perspective and I'm going to look at this from a Christian perspective.

Break all the confines of religion for one moment and sincerly beg to The Creator, The Truth, to show you the way to Absolute Truth. Im not claiming to have the Absolute Truth, Im just doing my best to find it. I have, in my life, broke down everything, cleared away every notion in my head except one...The Source, The Creator, The Truth - God. I beseached him for guidance, and I followed that guidance to the best of my ability, and Im still seeking. You may make a different choice then me, it may lead you right back to where you are now, but at least you will know you sicerly submitted to Absolute Truth.

You keep making it about our two religions, but its not. If the seeker kneels before his Master and begs for forgivness and begs for guidance to Him, The Truth, do you think He cares if that person is a muslim, or Christian, or Hindu?

These worldly religions come after the guidance, The Guide, The Truth, will guide them to one of these religions, the correct one, but only if the seeker follows his Guide. And The only way to truly follow The Guide to Absolute Truth is by submitting to Him and leaving all realative truths.

that means rather than saying "Man can not be sinless" or "Man can be sinless" say "The Guide knows best, and He willguide me to the absolute truth concerning sin". Our biggest obsticle to finding absolute truth is our pride, that we know whats correct no matter what, and this leaves us blind to Absolute truth and bogged down in realative truth which we have convinced ourselves is Absolute.

You can not step outside belief in this matter. Whatever you conclude in regard to truth is based on some sort of belief. That's my point. NO one reaches a conclusion of right and wrong without a standard to judge it, to measure it, to determine it by.

The Christian standard is absolute. God is everything that is right, just and good. We can not be that but we can aspire to it and be molded towards it through our faith in Christ which we choose. We can use God's standard to judge right and wrong. It's a huge standard. One that we can not completely live up to, but one that can exist through us by our faith in it.

You are going to use this thread to trash Christianity in your own subtle way. I fully expect that. Your going to refer to it as a worldly religion, man-made and concocted, which ironically is exactly what I think of your religion, but the problem I'm encountering is that your vague. Bob is more honest. He'll come right out and say it. He'll say what he believes and why he believes it.

It's an interesting thread because we have a Christian, and Muslim and an atheist/agnostic discussing the measure of right and wrong, or truth, and trying to answer the question of whether or not it's relative or absolute.

Bob gave some examples of relative truth in judging things like art, but he also gave some absolute truths found in things like mathematics. His judgment of morality (right and wrong)is that it is relative. So far he's right in that it is relative to ones belief. However, I believe in Christianity and that right and wrong is absolute in God. That's my standard to which I also believe is fully revealed to us if we choose to seek it.

There in lies a critical difference about right and wrong and it's relativeness or it's absoluteness. I believe truth/right and wrong, exist on it's own outside of myself, but available to me. I think Bob believes that truth/right and wrong does not exist outside of himself and that seeking it is pointless since it's not there to begin with......now let's here the Muslim side of it.

 

[Free]

…or perhaps a better title would be Relativism Explained.

Anyway, the idea that there’s no such thing as absolute truth is much misunderstood, even though it’s actually quite simple. I don’t think you have to be a non-theist to agree with it either.

I’ll break this into three areas.

1. The key to relativism is that every truth is a truth of a particular type – it belongs to a certain discourse or language game. There are truths of mathematics, truths of science, truths of art and religion and politics and ethics and so on. But each type of discourse has its own rules for determining what’s true. In mathematics, truth depends on proof and stays the same forever. In science truth is about hypothesis and experiment. Scientific truth is never fixed as theories are continually revised and improved. Artistic truths are different again. It’s true that Shakespeare is a great writer, but you wouldn’t establish that by experiment. In many areas, especially art and religion, it’s not easy to be clear on what the criteria for truth are and not everyone agrees.

If you confuse the rules from different areas of discourse you get into difficulty. Confuse art and mathematics and you get the attempt to draw graphs to find how good poems are as ridiculed in the film Dead Poets Society. If you mistake moral truths for ones that can be measured you end up with rather sinister utilitarian ideas about justifiable evil and the greater good… it’s a slippery slope. If you confuse science and religion you end up with the rather lame central argument from Dawkins’ The God Delusion in which he asks what created God – theology as seen by a biologist, or the bizarre Harvard Prayer Experiment.

The point is that each of these many truths is a truth of a particular discourse, not a universal or absolute truth. Taken away from its context it makes no sense.

2. Sometimes it’s less helpful to ask “is this statement true?†than “what does this statement do?†Take for example the statement “this make of car is safe and reliable.†That means one thing if it’s said by a salesman or contained in an advert. It means something different if it’s part of a review in a motoring magazine and something very different if it’s a testimony in a trial for corporate manslaughter. The statement needs context to give it meaning. It doesn’t so much have a truth value as act like a move in a game. The salesman isn’t trying to pass information to you, he wants to make you buy the car.

This statement loses its meaning when divorced from its context. Its meaning is relative to who says it, where, when and why. This applies to apparently objective scientific statements. That drug trial data may look impartial, but who funded the research? It also applies in religion. For early Protestants to deny transubstantiation may have seemed to be part of a largely abstract debate, but the point was that it denied that the priest was bringing about a change that another person couldn’t. It was a move in a game that was about power more than theology.

3. If some absolute reality exists, we don’t experience it. Humans are tiny and limited. This isn’t a challenging idea for Christians. You get many debates on the existence of God where someone ends up saying “look, I don’t know about the philosophy, I just know what God has done in my life.†Their belief doesn’t come from contact with some absolute reality, it’s firmly rooted in their own experience.

Our experience is, by definition, all we have. If you believe in God, you’ll surely agree that all you can know about him is little bits from your experience – as far as the whole picture goes you haven’t got a clue.

We just can’t say anything about reality beyond human experience. As Wittgenstein said, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.â€

Going back to the thread title though, in saying there’s no absolute truth aren’t I making an absolute truth claim? No, because looking at my three areas
1. if my claim is true, it’s true in the context of this particular type of discourse – armchair philosophy on teh interwebz.
2. it’s a reaction to what other people have already said, a move in a specific discussion
3. there might well be absolute truth out there, but we can’t get at it so it makes no difference to us. What I'm claiming is that there are no justified statements human can make about absolute truth.

That’s nearly 800 words of my waffle, so if you’ve made it this far thanks for your perseverance.

So, based on what you've said, we have absolutely no reason to believe anything you have written, including that there is no such thing as absolute truth or that "we can't get at it."

 

[Danus]

This example of the nature of man and sin is good example of realattive truth. Its something that you claim is absolute, yet can be disputed by others as false and there is no way to prove it.

It may be relative to you and to atheist. You simply choose to ignore it and so it can't be proven to you. That does not mean it can't be proven.

There can only be one Absolute truth - and either you have it or I have it or neither one of us has it.

There is only one absolute truth. it's not something you "have". It exist outside any of us. It's something you can only experience. If that mean "have it" to you then fine.

If you cant even recognize the realative truths you beleive than you are filled with pride and you will never be open to Absolute truth.

The key word is "IF" but since that does not apply to me in regard to this I can see why you might think I am filled with Pride. The truths I believe are not relative. They are absolute. Relative to you as stated above. Let me clarify the pride thing. I get my truth from God. It's not of me, it's of God and Gods word as written in the Holly bible. That is my standard, but again, it's not something I've concocted. It was here long before me and it will remain long after.

I can recognize that my beleif that a peson CAN live without sin is a realative truth, a truth I have acquired through both Islamic teachings and my own logic, I think it is Absolute Truth, and I base my belief on the fact that I continuely stop and ask the source of Absolute Truth to guide me. but none the less, I accept that it is a realative truth. An 7 year old child CAN NOT commit a sin, they can comit acts which appear to be sinful, but God does not hold them accountable, therefore they are sinless. A grown man has the ability to sin, but strives to live sinless and can be succeful in this endeavor, therefore rendering him sinless.

...Your contradicting yourself a bit. If we say relative truth, we have to say relative to what? Then we can talk about that "what". Sort of the same when we say Absolute truth we have to say absolute to what standard, but then we have to also agree ion the standard if we are to agree it's true.

For example an atheist would say that a particular moral decision is based on what the individual things in regard to that decision. That's relative to what the person thinks of feels. on the flip side, if God says it's wrong to steel then that's an absolute truth to those who accept the standard.

You and I can have a discussion, yet recognize what we bring forth to the discussion to be absolute or realative.

You and I are speaking about God as the source of absolute truth, but when Bob jumps in, he will probably say that our notion that a mysterious creator being as the source is a realative truth. This is philosophy, there is rarely a conclusion drawn from such discussions, but it allows us to step back for minute and observe our thinking and our understanding of the Universe.

You and I have concluded in our own minds that There is one absolute truth which comes from The Creator - we base this on simple faith - we have no concrete proof. But we have accepted it as Truth.

Sort of....We might say that our truth comes from God, but we are going to differ quite a bit in our conviction of that. In part due to the nature of our religions. Your's is based more on law and accepting that law. Mine is based on faith and trusting that faith. Big difference. I can prove what i believe, but only to myself and others who have chosen to believe as i do. I know how that sounds to you, but the Christian life is a clear understanding of God's glory that believers see clearly working through them. That's not to say that Muslims don't know God, just not in the same way.

If I judge everything by my understanding of Islam, I will fall into the same trap you have fallen into of calling realative truths Absolute. But if I differ everything to the only Source of Truth, God, than I can be lead by Him to Absolute truth, which in my case, leads me to Islam.

You would say Im wrong for following this docterine - so the cycle continues - the Absolute truth is guised in realativity, which the test mankind was put in this earth to pass. Once you have found the Absolute Truth, as soon as you accept it, it turns into a realative truth.

So let me ask you, define realative truth and define Absolute Truth. Then we can recognize the two when we see it.

I'm not in a trap of any kind. I have stated my belife very clearly, very simply, with full conviction. I'll do it again.

I believe that God is truth. God is just and everything GOOD. I like to say that God is LOVE. That is the standard of truth that I use to judge what is truth. For example, If I see something I want I could just take it. Steel it. That would be wrong. Why? because God says steeling is wrong. That's his truth that I accept. In faith. So Steeling is absolutely wrong.

If I did not accept God' truth then steeling would be relative to my situation, or how I feel, or what i think of it.

So I just defined relative truth and absolute truth.

 

[logical bob]

Mujahid Abdullah and Danus, a fascinating discussion which I've read with interest. Let me summarise what seems to be the key difference between your viewpoints and you can comment on whether I'm representing you fairly.

You both agree that absolute truth exists and that it's defined by a creator and supreme being. Mujahid Abdullah views the various religions as relative, man-made truths which humans use to approach that absolute truth so some extent. No religion is the unique means of approach. For Danus, on the other hand, Christian beliefs are themselves examples of absolute truth and Christianity is the one and only source of truth.

Am I close?

So, based on what you've said, we have absolutely no reason to believe anything you have written, including that there is no such thing as absolute truth or that "we can't get at it."

That's precisely the misunderstanding I wanted to clear up.

I'm not saying that nothing is true. Clearly lots of things are true. The moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun. Pi is not a ratio of whole numbers. The Battle of Hastings was in 1066. Macbeth murdered King Duncan. These are all true, but true within different discourses with different criteria of truth. Each is rooted in the context it comes from and so none are absolute.

I'm claiming that in the context of philosophy in the western tradition, and according to those criteria of truth it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. This is a claim of relative, not absolute, truth.

 

[Free]

So, based on what you've said, we have absolutely no reason to believe anything you have written, including that there is no such thing as absolute truth or that "we can't get at it."

That's precisely the misunderstanding I wanted to clear up.

I'm not saying that nothing is true. Clearly lots of things are true. The moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun. Pi is not a ratio of whole numbers. The Battle of Hastings was in 1066. Macbeth murdered King Duncan. These are all true, but true within different discourses with different criteria of truth. Each is rooted in the context it comes from and so none are absolute.

Incorrect. Those are all absolute truths regardless of their context.

I'm claiming that in the context of philosophy in the western tradition, and according to those criteria of truth it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. This is a claim of relative, not absolute, truth.

I still think you are wrong. Of course philosophy maintains that truth is absolute. Certainly the Law of Non-contradiction, for example, would be considered an absolute truth.

 

[jasoncran]

if the law of non contradiction was negated ie relative then why even have logic or math or science. as one must be wrong or right. not both.


2+2=4 or it doenst not both 4 or 5.

 

[logical bob]

Of course philosophy maintains that truth is absolute. Certainly the Law of Non-contradiction, for example, would be considered an absolute truth.

The laws of logic are just that - laws of logic. Are you familiar with Barbara Kruger?

In a logical context the statement "You are not yourself" is an absurdity. Illustrated, Kruger makes it into a statement about women's experience of social control which is certainly meaningful and quite possibly true. Context is everything.

Also, consider that once everyone thought it was an absolute logical truth that Euclidean geometry was the geometry of the universe. Now we know that it isn't because space-time itself is curved.

Quantum mechanics involves events that contradict classical logic, particularly the distributive law, meaning that a new system called quantum logic was developed to deal with it. QM also violates other ideas that used to be "absolutely" true because it has things like effects that happen before their causes.

Now if classical logic is absolutely true, how come it fails to describe the physcal world?

ETA: And the Trinity doesn't sit very well with the law of non-contradiction either - how can one entity be three entities if one isn't three? Are you sure non-contradiction is absolutely true?

 

[logical bob]

Sometimes this truth can be misunderstood and thus becomes relative - once it was held as an absolute truth that the earth was flat - There are things in Physics that 20 years ago were considered Absolute and concrete - then M Theory came about and all those former Absolute Truths became relative.

I agree that sometimes superseded theories are better seen as less true rather than as wrong. Surely, though, what we learn from this steady advancement is that we shouldn't mistake our current theories for absolute truth. If M-Theory does become dominant (and although it's elegant it has no experimental support yet) we should expect it to one day be superseded it its turn.

What matters about a theory isn't whether it's "true" but whether it explains our past experiences and makes relaible predictions about those in the future. No physicist worries about whether magnetic fields or neutrinos are "real" - the theory is justified because it works. If the weird fields and particles were to be a useful fiction that justification would not be decreased.

The same goes for the religious sciences - which is an individual esoteric venture - and has few tangible, demonstrable proofs.

It's good to focus on what we agree seem to agree on - the search for religious truth is very different to the search for scientific truth.

Much conflict is caused by "category errors" where the difference is ignored. To me, young earth creationism and Richard Dawkins attempt to argue scientifically against religion are primes examples of these errors.

 

[Danus]

Mujahid Abdullah and Danus, a fascinating discussion which I've read with interest. Let me summarise what seems to be the key difference between your viewpoints and you can comment on whether I'm representing you fairly.

You both agree that absolute truth exists and that it's defined by a creator and supreme being. Mujahid Abdullah views the various religions as relative, man-made truths which humans use to approach that absolute truth so some extent. No religion is the unique means of approach. For Danus, on the other hand, Christian beliefs are themselves examples of absolute truth and Christianity is the one and only source of truth.

Am I close?

So, based on what you've said, we have absolutely no reason to believe anything you have written, including that there is no such thing as absolute truth or that "we can't get at it."

That's precisely the misunderstanding I wanted to clear up.

I'm not saying that nothing is true. Clearly lots of things are true. The moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun. Pi is not a ratio of whole numbers. The Battle of Hastings was in 1066. Macbeth murdered King Duncan. These are all true, but true within different discourses with different criteria of truth. Each is rooted in the context it comes from and so none are absolute.

I'm claiming that in the context of philosophy in the western tradition, and according to those criteria of truth it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. This is a claim of relative, not absolute, truth.

I can't speak for MA, but just to tweek the Christian view. God is absolute truth. Christians believe we can be examples of that, but we fail to totally live up to the standard which is God. Other than that your pretty dead on.

 

[jasoncran]

on the trinity, bob

synergy what is that. are we just a bunch of chemical reactions? or more .if we God fully understand God we wouldnt need him for he would be like the goauld. killable and removable as god. a superior alien.

 

[logical bob]

Jason, I agree. If there were a God I wouldn't expect him to be constrained by a human understanding of logic. That's why I was surprised that Free thinks the laws of logic are absolute truths.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, I agree. If there were a God I wouldn't expect him to be constrained by a human understanding of logic. That's why I was surprised that Free thinks the laws of logic are absolute truths.

but it has to be the case. would the h.neananderthalis understand us?or earlier transitional?

 

[logical bob]

would the h.neananderthalis understand us?or earlier transitional?

If a lion could talk we would not understand him. Wittgenstein

...by which he meant that no, someone with a completely different culture and viewpoint could not fully understand us, or we them.

Mujahid Abdullah, thanks for the insight into your beliefs. I can't say I agree (which won't surprise you), but I can say that if more people believed as you do the world would be a happier place. Your open-mindedness is admirable. Too many people of all worldviews lose the big picture and are dogmatically attached to the specifics of what they believe.