ABSOLUTE TRUTH: Is it Absolutely True there are NO Absolute Truths?

Defining TRUTH & ABSOLUTE is extremely dangerous for the charlatan who wants to push these contradictory notions to the unsuspecting public!
Defining TRUTH & ABSOLUTE is extremely dangerous for the charlatan who wants to push these contradictory notions to the unsuspecting public!
This is what happens when your wife BELIEVES in Absolute Truth. See below for details...
This is what happens when your wife BELIEVES in Absolute Truth. See below for details...

There are many people out there who have BLIND FAITH in an irrational concept known as “absolute truth”. These folks are positing the Positive Claim: that there is absolute truth. But, they have no rational argument to justify their claim. They can’t even provide you with a single propositional statement which resolves to absolute truth....not one! Their only “claim to fame” is the following catchy phase which is often heard in the halls of churches and atheist gatherings:


“Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”


OMG, quite a killer question, isn’t it? I mean, that’s it....you’re cornered....nobody can argue with that. It’s either a “Yes” or a “No” and you are automatically refuted, right?


Hey! Not so fast....


This is a classic example of the fallacy of Begging the Question; even though the emotional circumstances surrounding this question prevent almost anyone from seeing this hidden fallacy. The proponent of this question wants you to ASSUME that “truth” is the standard by which we evaluate everything, including what he just asked of you. Once you’ve swallowed his assumption and answer either “Yes” or “No”, you’ve already shot yourself in the face. Game over. The sophist has used the most popular trick in the book to force you to comply with his fallacious question.


Q: What is the trick?

A: The assumption that “truth” can be used to evaluate itself (i.e. Begging the Question + Circular Reasoning).


We need to remember that “truth” is just a word, like any other word. There is no magic associated with this word even though its proponents praise and worship it with God-like status. Truth is nothing but a concept; a relation established by humans. There is no universal standardized concept of validation which we can apply to all concepts, including “truth”. Each concept has to be evaluated on its own merits starting with its definition. This means that each concept of validation has its own limited scope or context. Truth’s scope of validation is predicated solely on our sensory system! We need to evaluate related sensory data in order to determine whether a proposition is true or not.


Again, “truth”, in and of itself, is first and foremost a concept. As such, it is impossible to use our sensory system to evaluate concepts. Concepts are evaluated analytically (i.e. conceptually) by following their definition. Remember: all concepts are defined, while all objects are amenable to illustration. All words will either resolve in the category of Concept or Object; there is no other option!


It is fallacious to use “truth” to EVALUATE “truth”. You cannot draw any rational conclusions from this obvious self-referential rhetorical exercise in futility. Consequently, whatever method we use to evaluate “truth”, the conclusion we reach cannot be a “truth”....period! Remember: “truth” is what is being evaluated here. So the proponent of the question: “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”,... is an ignoramus! Such a foolish individual is merely parroting what he heard his Priest say during Sunday Service without even understanding the critical issues.


We certainly don’t use the “Judicial System” to evaluate whether the Judicial System is “just”. Nothing objective can be achieved from such a circular exercise in futility. There was a preceding conceptual analysis which formed the Judicial System. It is at this stage and in this context where we need to critically analyze and evaluate the Judicial System in order to draw rational conclusions. Just like the Judicial System, “absolute truth” cannot be used as a standard to evaluate itself. We instead need to go to the root of the issue (the definition) and showcase where it fails by justifying how it contradicts itself. And the only means available to evaluate “absolute truth” is via conceptual critical analysis. We must use critical thinking to analyze the concepts of “truth” and “absolute”, and rationally explain why they are contradictory. We need to explain to the audience why “absolute truth” is a self-refuting concept; i.e. why it invalidates its “pre-supposed emotional” meaning.


In the following article on Absolute Truth I have explained why:

1) The word “absolute” resolves to the word “relative” under the scrutiny of critical analysis.

2) Similarly, the word “truth” resolves to the word “opinion”.

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth


And NO “truth” is required to do this because we are critically evaluating the words “truth” and “absolute” in 3 crucial categories:

1) Conception.

2) Definition.

3) Validation.


If “absolute truth” fails in any of these categories, then it is an irrational concept...meaningless/worthless. As it turns out, “absolute truth” is an impossible concept which had no critical thought put into it by the person(s) who first pre-supposed it. And yes, it was PRE-SUPPOSED by presuppositionalists who faithfully decreed it to be valid, even though it is impossible to be defined objectively.


Another trick the sophists will often parrot is: “To say ‘there are no absolutes’, is an absolute statement!”

Got any more tricks up your sleeve? I mean, c’mon....is this even an argument? Is this the BEST you can do??

How can supposedly intelligent people utter such lame statements?

Can’t they form an argument which is more than a sentence long? How about an analytical and rational argument which follows the definition to explain to the audience WHY there is absolute truth?

If they cannot reconcile their obsessive fetish of “absolute truth” with its definable terms, then all they’ve got is dogmatic faith.

Why do these folks need to resort to sophistry, tricks, obfuscations and lies to push their agenda? Just what is it that they are trying to protect/hide/defend?


Q: Isn’t intellectual honesty always the best policy?

A: Not if the proponent has ulterior motives! When the proponent realizes that your argument destroys their religion/agenda, they will vainly fight tooth and nail to prop up their position. They will curse, scream, Appeal to Ignorance and contradict themselves at every turn in order “drown out” your rational argument. After all, cursing and screaming is what “wins” arguments, right?



TRICK QUESTIONS, OH MY!


“Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”


Their trick questions are always predicated in the negative and arranged in such a way as to surreptitiously assume their intended outcome (Begging the Question). And of course, the questions only have 2 possibilities: Yes or No. No matter how you answer, you agree with their outcome whether it is or isn’t the case. Nice trick!

This is no different than declaring someone a “wife beater” by simply asking them: "Is it absolutely true that you stopped beating your wife?" No matter how they answer, they are automatically a wife beater!


Here are a few more.....

"Is it absolutely true that you left no evidence behind after sleeping with your neighbor’s wife?”

"Is it absolutely true that you no longer steal office supplies from work?”


You need to realize that even if you don’t answer these questions, you are automatically “implied” guilty at the instant these questions are posed to you!

Q: Is this how people have intellectual discussions?

A: No, but this is how the Sophists had intellectual discussions in ancient Greece.


The Sophists were like the Televangelist Priests or like the YouTube Pop-Philosophers of today. You paid your admission (i.e. donation) and watched the "artist" perform his tricks. They used rhetoric to give the illusion of valid arguments. It was nothing more than an art of persuasion - an appeal to emotion. Rhetorical appeals clearly had benefits over empiricism. People are usually certain of their emotions and instincts, and they are often used as a basis to motivate them to action.

In ancient Greece, the Sophist would, for instance, single out a man from the audience and address him as follows:

"You admit, sir, that you have that which you have not lost?"

The innocent answer was: "Of course."

"Then, my friend, as you never lost a tail, you must have a tail."


Among those laughing at the befuddled man, there was a woman with her husband. The Sophist turned to her and inquired:

"Madam, is this your husband?"

The woman proudly answered with a smile as she gave her husband a kiss: "Yes! He is the love of my life!"

The Sophist asks: "Has your husband slept with another woman?"

The proud woman affirmed without a doubt: “No, not my sweetie!”

The Sophist asks: “Is it absolutely true that your husband was a virgin when you met him?”

As the smile faded from her face, she answered: “Umm...No.”

The Sophist logically concludes: "Then it is absolutely true that your husband has slept with another woman!"

As the crowd explodes in laughter with tears rolling down their cheeks, the woman angrily turns to her husband and slaps him!


The Sophist's mental gymnastics were successful because it was little known in pre-Aristotelian times that formal logic is based on a strict technique of properly arranging your predicates. And the skillful "logician" can do amazing tricks when using these purely “logical” techniques coupled with hidden negative predication and Yes/No type questions. A logical argument may be logically correct/coherent, but it doesn’t necessarily correspond to reality. Logic is a rule-based descriptive tautology. It is NOT reality-based and has no explanatory power. Logic can only be used to subjectively describe whatever the proponent wishes to describe, and in the manner that suits his argument. Logic is always subject to a proponent’s biased usage. Logic and truth cannot ever be used to objectively explain anything in reality!

Those who vehementlydisagree are free to use the powers and infinite wisdom of their logic to explain why a simple pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Is it because of gravitons, gravity waves, warped space or God? What is YOUR logic? Can you analyze this question with formal logic, predicates, fancy symbols, axioms, laws and theorems? Will your concluding proposition be an “absolute truth” or a “relative truth”? I can already see all the proponents of Absolute Truth out there sweating buckets and running away in fear from such a simple question!


The reader is urged to read the following article to understand logic and its limitations:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS


Since logic and truth are useless when applied to reality, we instead use critical thinking and rational analysis to analyze such propositions concerning reality. We analyze them at the level of “DEFINITION” and “CONTEXT”, and always accompany our conclusion with a rational explanation to JUSTIFY their validity in reality. Now you can see why truth cannot be used to determine the validity of the concept of truth itself. So the trick question: “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”...is a circular exercise in futility. But nonetheless, the Sophist HOPES that you swiftly answer this contradictory question so he can declare a lame “win” over you.


People today are not much more intellectually sophisticated than those in classical times; and in many ways, they are more easily fooled. The North American educational system is one of the worst in the developed world. This stuff should be taught in introductory logic courses in Grade 7. So it’s no wonder that most people cannot even conceptualize the fallacies inherent in these trick questions. If you want evidence of this, then just Google “absolute truth” and you will see everyone parroting the party line: “Is it absolutely true there are no absolute truths”....unwittingly thinking this to be an argument in support of absolute truth. Hilarious! I mean, the trick is on those who ask this question, just as much as it is on those who foolishly answer “Yes” or “No” to it. So we have a situation where ignorant parrots are attempting to recruit more ignorant parrots into their Religion of the Absolute.

However, to be fair, it should be noted that sophistry does have value in our society as it creates jobs. And not surprisingly, the fields of employment which heavily depend on sophistry are: Lawyers, Politicians, YouTube Philosophers and Priests.


These tricks are very old....I mean, over 2500 years old! So they shouldn’t be able to fool anyone with a healthy dose of basic schooling. I am not presenting or exposing anything new in this article. This stuff is old news. But sadly, it is shockingly “new” to the overwhelming majority of readers out there. Regardless, it is their personal problem. They are free to choose whether to finally wake up, or continue to believe in what tricksters and fast-talkers preach to them.


Again, the KILLER question is: How can people fall for this gimmick and BELIEVE that such a trick question is EVIDENCE for an absolute truth?


Obviously, when you trust others to spoon-feed you information without so much as any critical thinking on your part; you usually end up believing in the impossible.

In any case, this article finally puts an end to this nonsense. All these tricks and unfounded “catchy phrases” are self-refuting because they are predicated on fallacies: Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, Argument from Ignorance, Fallacy of Equivocation....just to name a few.

Nonetheless, most people who navigate to my Absolute Truth article will usually gloss over the title and attempt to refute it (the “title” itself, not the article). This is why 99% of the respondents will say: “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? Ha ha, I just refuted your article, lol, you’re such a tool.”

Meanwhile, these clowns haven’t even read the article to understand the issues, nor do they care to do so. Again, their educational system has really failed North Americans if they can be deceived so easily and reduced to parrots and fools by their puppet masters. So, it’s of no surprise that when I ask them to give me just one “absolute truth”, they always end up contradicting themselves, getting angry, cursing and running away from their argument.



CONCLUSION:

All the Absolute-Truther (who has faith in absolutes) needs to do is answer the following question:

Q: Do these one-liner trick questions you utter, actually put forth a rational argument for “absolute truth”.... or are they self-refuting rhetoric from Priests who intended to impress gullible pushovers like you? Which is it?

An intelligent human has NO faith; whether in absolutes or in any other human-invented concept. An intelligent human can explain and justify his argument with the luxury of detail. And to do so, he needs to be a critical thinker, not a parrot!


So the next time a half-witted Priest asks you: “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”

You can respond: “Just define ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’. Then you’ll know FOR SURE!!”

More by this Author


Comments 114 comments

Allen 4 years ago

Another strike against "Absolute Truth":

The proselytizers of "absolute truth" can't seem to understand that their cherished concept EVOLVED. The power of religion is hard to break, however, as most of us are aware. Yet, Atheists are as prone to believing in "absolute truth" nearly as often as any overt Religionist.

Both "true" and "verity" both originate historically into what were ADJECTIVES describing SOCIAL INTERACTIONS within the family of languages known as Indo-European. Both terms described compacts, trust, fidelity and faith in others, examples being, treaties, oaths, friendships, etc.

As Fatfist points out, "true/verity" are ultimately opinions, and any look into Ancient Literature, history, and lore is enough to show one how tenuous such social interactions could (and, indeed, still can) be. It should be obvious that "truth" and "fidelity" are not THINGS or PROPERTIES of things, but descriptions of human relations writ large upon things thanks to the likes of Platonism and Christianity.

This evolution cannot be tolerated by the religionist, since it would render their beloved "truth" relative, both in the sense of having a historical development , but also in terms of it being a description of "lowly" or "mere" human relations. They must, therefore, attempt to sever all bonds by adding the idiotic, non-definable, pseudo-concept, "absolute" in order to preserve the emotional power of "truth." "Truth" must become an immortal god!

"Absolute truth" is nothing but a nihilistic notion at the end of the day, since it is basically saying one must place one's "fidelity" in the "absolute," given the latter term's own historical significations as something unlimited, unconditioned, unrelated, to anything else. No thing exists without relation, condition, limitation (i.e. shape, form). The very term "exist" IS relational, after all!

"Absolute"= Nihil; "Absolutists"= Nihilists.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks for the informative post, Allen!

This article is written from my response to someone in my Absolute Truth article, who had this same problem. People would throw these catchy trick questions at him and declare that there is absolute truth.

It is NO different than declaring someone a WIFE BEATER by simply asking them: "Did you stop beating your wife?"

No matter how they answer, they ARE a wife beater...LOL!


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

""Absolute truth" is nothing but a nihilistic notion at the end of the day, since it is basically saying one must place one's "fidelity" in the "absolute," given the latter term's own historical significations as something unlimited, unconditioned, unrelated, to anything else. "

I'm not sure that's a tenet of nihilism, in fact nihilists if anything are extreme sceptical-relativists.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Trying to prove absolute truth is like trying to prove that one end of a rope is the absolute beginning and the other end is the absolute end. Can't be done. And yet, people keep trying to prove things that can't be proven as we understand the word "proven".

Critical thinking skills are NOT taught in schools. You either have them or you don't.


Allen 4 years ago

@SOL

I'm using the term "nihilist" in one of the major senses (if not the primary sense) that Nietzsche used it. For Nietzsche, a "nihilist" here is one who conceptually, though arbitrarily, splits reality in two while concomitantly placing the higher evaluative preference upon their own non-existent idealizations.

“Second proposition. The characteristics which have been assigned to ‘true existence/being’(wahren Sein) of things are the charateristics of non-being, of *nothingness* - the ‘true world’ (wahre Welt) has been constructed out of the contradiction to the actual world: an apparent world indeed, in so far as it is no more than a moral-optical illusion.” (TI “Reason” 6)

Examples: Platonism ('the Good'); Christianity ("God"); many atheists and logicians ("Absolute Truth").

I think "nihilist" is an extremely apt term for those who literally take imaginary 'things' as their highest ideals and in which they seek their greatest comfort and certainty.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Nihilists, solipsists, materialists, immaterialists, empiricists, idealists, objectivists, realists, existentialists, freethinkers, brights, Randians...... OMG, I thought there were only 3 clubs: atheists, theists, agnostics. I need to keep up with all the terminology.

Before religionists segregated humanity into idealistic clubs, there were only human apes. If you want to understand reality you need to get rid of the crutches of any human-invented dogmatic club.

Lions, tigers and bears don't subscribe to any human-invented authoritative bullsh*t, nor do they invent their own.


Allen 4 years ago

"I thought there were only 3 clubs: atheists, theists, agnostics."

No. They're just one club. They are nihilists. They reject reality in favor of their own fables, including those used to designate between "true" and "false" religions...always to the benefit of the one doing the designating.

"... there were only human apes."

I dunno. Apes are pretty territorial, even while being irreligious.

"If you want to understand reality"

I'm not sure we can. We certainly talk like we can.

"Lions, tigers and bears don't subscribe to any human-invented authoritative bullsh*t"

Nope, they don't. And humans didn't evolve hairy-er, faster, and meaner than them, either. Our type of ape requires concepts, at this point, but that needn't entail *belief* in them as things.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"I'm not sure we can. We certainly talk like we can."

We can never "know" reality. Only God and His followers know everything. The rest of us are not so arrogant.

The best that we can ever hope to accomplish is to rationally explain phenomena of reality. And we don't explain phenomena by using irrational actors such as energy, warped space, dilated time, forces, fields, waves and other types of spirits. Concepts cannot perform actions via surface-to-surface contact. Reality is a synonym of existence. What is real is what exists. And only objects can be said to exist.

So if we want to explain the phenomenon of light, our task is simple: Propose an object which can be used as an actor to mediate this phenomenon. Our explanation of the phenomenon (i.e. why light is so fast 'c', why it travels rectilinearly, why it bends around corners, etc. ) is part of our Theory. If our theory is rational, then this "may" be the mechanism by which nature works.

But knowing for certain (absolutes) is impossible!

Only religionists have knowledge & truth & certainty.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Humans are obsessed with the concept of absolute knowledge. They must have it before they can decide on anything.

They irrationally claim that it cannot be shown whether God exists or not. They reason that it is impossible for us to search every corner of the universe to absolutely determine if there is a God.

This is what the churches have been teaching for over 2000 years....that we are not "all knowing".

But "knowledge" plays no role here. A claim....any claim can be taken at face value and we can critically analyse it and determine right here and now whether it is possible for God to exist or not. We don't need to perform some stupid ritual like searching the universe for Him....as claimed by theists and atheists alike.

God is only a Hypothesis.....an "actor" in the Theory of Creation. If people understood this from the get go, there wouldn't be any religions today....including the Big Bang.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Correct as usual King Friday...er..uh.....I mean

Good explanation as usual King Fatfist!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

There are no kings, monkey.....just apes.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Ah good... I disagree! You are the King of the rational Hubs.

I was beginning to worry that since I never seem to disagree with anything that you say, perhaps I might be becoming a bobblehead!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

We all disagree on something or other, monkey. But that's normal. Subjectivities are always prone to disagreement. What is important is for those who make assertions/claims for such concepts as truth, space, time, etc...to step up to the plate and justify their claim.

This is all we ask. Inquiring minds want to understand...


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Have you ever thought of doing a thread on free will / determinism, oh mighty KING Fatfist? :P

I reckon that'd draw a few people to these hubs.


Allen 4 years ago

"What is important is for those who make assertions/claims for such concepts as truth, space, time, etc...to step up to the plate and justify their claim."

Yep. And what passes for 'normal' for those who make these claims is to presume them as unassailable realities, no questions asked.

And, I'd agree with your about 'knowledge.' Like 'mind,' knowledge is presumed to be something...or other.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"Have you ever thought of doing a thread on free will / determinism"

I try to stay away from religious arguments. Atheists have been arguing with theists on these issues for over 2000 years. And these knuckleheads will continue to do so until we go extinct.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Isn't invoking 'the absolute' a religious type of argument though?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Of course it is, SOL, but people are clueless of it as is explained in this article. Absolute is an impossible concept which was emotionally asserted by religionists. When these folks usurped the reigns of Philosophy 1500 years ago, everyone bought into their dogma....including the majority atheist philosophers.

Why did they do this?

Because their emotions had the best of them. They couldn't think clearly and reason that all words must have an unambiguous non-contradictory meaning. Somehow their brains missed this little bit of wisdom because they were too focused on the word GOD and less focused on the words OBJECT and EXIST. These atheist philosophers attempted to debunk the God arguments by first accepting most of the asserted premises the theists threw at them.

And we see this today. This is why William Lane Craig is the top philosopher out there. Not a single atheist has managed to refute his Cosmological Argument because these morons accept his assertion that the universe began to exist. Can you believe this idiocy?

Practically every single statement uttered by Craig is contradictory, but nobody can see it.

There is nothing new in any of my hubs. I don't have any breathtaking knowledge to offer. All the issues I raise and all the nonsense I debunk is OLD news. In classical times we knew there was no truth, no absolutes, creation is impossible, the universe is eternal...

But since those times, we have a NEW religion on board: ATHEISM.

This is why I have this hub. To expose just how stupid the Religion of Atheism actually is.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Weird - I am an atheist and have no absolutes or truths for you. I just don't believe a Majikal Super Being exists. I am just another monkey though. lol


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

You are one of the few smart ones, Mark. Of course there are atheists out there who can understand that creation and absolutes are impossible. I don't want to paint all of them with the same brush. There are independent thinkers. But it's unfortunate that the majority have woven their own religion where they reify concepts into entities of reality. They come to my hubs and argue with their ignorance. I ask them what mediates gravity; what causes a ball to fall to the floor....they reply: energy, 0D gravitons, warped space, etc.

I had a proud atheist "monkeyminds" here a few months ago. He realized that his beliefs in atheistic dogma made no sense. He quickly renounced his atheism. He is officially a human ape :-)


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Yeah - I know. I just don't believe in Majik myself. I do like to take an "absolute" position with my Theistic buddies sometimes. Just to hear how insane that is.

In it's purest sense A-Theism is simply a lack of belief in a God. The simplest explanation for "creation" I have is that existence is here (far as I can tell) and I see no reason to suppose a "time" when it wasn't. Therefore existence has always existed.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

I was de-coverted from relgiousity at WWGHA, where we routinely argued with the Intelligent Design and Creation Science creationist, using Big Bang Creationism. I had simply exchanged one belief for another.

Further, I was an agnostic atheist, that I 'believed' there was no god, but that I didn't "know" everything so a god may be possible.

Kudos to you Mark, for not falling into that trap!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"we routinely argued with the Intelligent Design and Creation Science creationist, using Big Bang Creationism"

So let me get this straight.....they argued that God created the universe, and you argued that Nothing created it? Sounds like the "who is on first" skit.

And you would have continued to argue like this forever, monkey...OMG, thank God you woke up!

"I 'believed' there was no god, but that I didn't "know" everything so a god may be possible"

Here monkey, I have an amazing deal for you: My lab has invented a pill which prevents your body from aging and keeps all your current atomic structures in tact forever. I am selling them at $50,000 per pill. You may BELIEVE there is no such pill, but you don't KNOW everything, so such a pill may be possible.

This is the type of reasoning which was taught by Christian Apologists for the past 2000 years, and is STILL taught in schools today, especially in "Science" and Philosophy class. The whole civilization of the world has been taught by Priests ever since Religionists took the planet hostage 2000 years ago. And we are still taught by Priests today. I mean, just look at these idiots who discovered the God particle a few weeks ago. I am glad to see that nothing has changed to this day. I look forward to selling my pills to theists, atheists and agnostics.

You see...this is why I say that atheists are no different than theists, except for the "God" part. They both have the same reasoning skills and arguments.

I hope that the atheists who enjoy reading my hubs (lol, this mean you, Mark) don't get offended when I publish a hub comparing the reasoning skills of most atheists out there, to the theists. I want these atheists to wake up. And the only way to do this is to ridicule them.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

FF:"So let me get this straight.....they argued that God created the universe, and you argued that Nothing created it? Sounds like the "who is on first" skit. And you would have continued to argue like this forever, monkey...OMG, thank God you woke up! "

Yes, it is funny in hindsight. I never realized it at the time that I was in many ways, just as religious as before I became an atheist with my believing and knowing and adhering to dogma. I tried to understand Big Bang cosmology and QM, and even though it made no sense to me I had to believe that my new authorities like Hawking and Kaku, Feynman and Green, had to know what they were talking about.

Yes, I might have argued like this forever, had I not discovered that anyone can use their rational mind to figure out just what is possible or not possible. AND THAT"S THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR!


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

I am not offended lol. Seeing as I ridicule theists all the time, that would be some what hypocritical.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 4 years ago from Australia

From what I see, the Absolute is not definable, not for the rational mind and therefore not subject to rational discussions. Religionists define the absolute in line with intellectual knowledge, which it is not, and therefore is outside the understanding of religionists who define their knowledge as they are told.

The absolute is a state - as is defined by Sanskrit texts (brahman, or by the Kabbalah as ain sof. This state is beyond duality. It's pure being, that which is 'uncreated' It has no archetype, it is what archetypes emanate from. It is not described as the creation itself.

Teachers who experience altered states of consciousness (without drugs), explain that this state is beyond the mind, therefore beyond the rational. To the rational mind, it is unfathomable.

When a religionist says they understand Truth, they are not of the truth, as the Absolute is not definable. Paradoxical. Most serious spiritual seekers will say they become confused with Truth. The confusion is within the rationalizing of the term, a fight within ones own mind. The real Truth or the Absolute is outside the mind and has nothing to do with thoughts.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jewels,

“From what I see, the Absolute is not definable, not for the rational mind “

Well, it’s not definable because it is self-refuting. It’s like trying to define a “married-bachelor”. It cannot be done...whether by a rational mind or by the mind of an alien, or by God. You see, the proponent of the word “absolute” is saying to the audience that this word conceptualizes “that which has no relations”. An “absolute” implies a stand-alone concept which is free from any relation/dependency or restriction. On the other hand, that which has a relation, is relative.

But....and here is the big BUT that most people do not understand: all words that any living entity can conceive; whether a human, an alien or even God Himself...are necessarily relations.

There is no word that is “stand-alone” without a reference to something else. For if there was such an alleged word, then it would have NO meaning. Neither we nor God would even be able to understand what such an alleged word is trying to imply or signify. So even if God tries to invent such a word and call it “absolute”...this word would be meaningless, not only to us...but to God Himself. It is no different than God inventing the word “married-bachelor” and claiming that He understands what it means. This is utterly ridiculous. Not even God can fool anyone with such claims.

You need to remember the definition of the word “concept”, then all this will fit in place.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

Since the word “absolute” is a concept, then it follows that it is necessarily a relation. There is no other option! And this is why the word is self-refuting. At the end of the day, the word ABSOLUTE resolves to the word RELATIVE.

“To the rational mind, it is unfathomable.”

As explained, even to God it is unfathomable. Not even God, who is all-knowing, would even consider using the word “absolute” in His vocabulary!

“The absolute is a state”

Yes, you can think of it as a state because a state is a concept. In this context, it is an alleged state of non-relation or non-dependency. But a state is always in relation to something else because a state is a condition. So again, this is self-refuting because the “absolute” is alleged to be free from condition, relation, circumstance, etc.

Thank you for your comments, Jewels.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 4 years ago from Australia

Exactly, no arguments here. I think we were in agreeance in our statements. I will quote my teacher: "The term 'relative' is used for anything that is not the Absolute. However, even though the Absolute is beyond anything relative (all worlds and levels of duality), nothing relative can be beyond the Absolute. For if there existed anything beyond the Absolute, then the Absolute would no longer be Absolute. The Absolute, therefore, necessarily encompasses all relative levels." (Samuel Sagan M.D., A Language to Map Consciousness 2001)

If one were to bring 'God' into the argument, and understanding God is the All knowing, omnipresent State and included perhaps in the Absolute, then it is necessary to recognize that we have no cognitive abilities in this human body to fathom it's existence. It therefore says to me (from my rational standpoint), that the arms and legs creature religionists refer to as God, is not God at all! We are, relatively speaking, a speck, a very small emanation of this 'All that is' and we have Absolutely no way of attaining such a state of consciousness while being a human being. This of course becomes subject of rational discussion which is circular and ridiculous if you want a satisfactory outcome. It won't happen! To the Gods, we are but ants with brains to match.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jewels,

“I will quote my teacher: "The term 'relative' is used for anything that is not the Absolute. However, even though the Absolute is beyond anything relative (all worlds and levels of duality), nothing relative can be beyond the Absolute. For if there existed anything beyond the Absolute, then the Absolute would no longer be Absolute. The Absolute, therefore, necessarily encompasses all relative levels." (Samuel Sagan M.D., A Language to Map Consciousness 2001)”

Nice quote!

“If one were to bring 'God' into the argument, and understanding God is the All knowing, “

Once you get to know me, you will see that I never bring God into any arguments. But I LOVE to use the Almighty in hypothetical scenarios, like this one, where He is all-knowing. Even the Almighty wouldn’t understand what “absolute truth” is. And that is quite ironic....not to mention, funny ;-)

Thanks Jewels.


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

Absolute truth does exist, but it is not in the realm of the intellectual. Our Intellectual is very limited. It's awesome, but limited nonetheless. Absolute truth is something to be experienced, something that cannot be defined, this is as far as the intellect can define absolute truth.

There is a zen quote that goes something like "the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon" we have had many people and scriptures that points us to the moon that, in this case, is an analogy of the absolute truth, but the problem is almost all of us do the big mistake of worshipping the finger which is an analogy of Jesus, Buddha,Vishnu or bible, bhagawad Geeta, and none of them tries to seek the moon that is the absolute truth. Everyone thinks praising the finger will get us to the moon. Let me ask you this, if you are lost on a road and you ask someone for direction and he tells you, if you keep praising him forgiving you direction, will you reach your destination, saying thank you and go on your way will be more helpful.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Let it be like a finger, pointing to the moon." SLAP "Don't concentrate on the finger , our you will miss all the heavenly glory."

Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj,

“Our Intellectual is very limited.”

How so? Please explain what could possibly be wrong with your brain or anybody else’s brain. I assume you went to school and understand the difference between an object and a concept. If so, then you are intelligent! Where is the limit? You need to justify such an argument.

Intelligence: the ability to conceive of concepts (relations), understand them and apply them.

Where in the definition for “intelligence” do you see provision for limits or boundaries???

Can you understand the concepts of furniture, parents, siblings, numbers, arithmetic, eating, time management, society, laws, motion, relative, etc?

If so, then you have the BEST “intelligence” mother nature can ever give any entity in the universe....even to God! And there is NO limit to this because you have the capability to understand ANY concept which is related, defined and explained to you. All concepts are conceived by MAN...and he is responsible to define what he conceives. If he can’t....then he is nothing but a charlatan...a Priest with an ulterior agenda!

If someone comes along and invents a word, say “klamokaptica”....it is very easy to make this word God-like by associating tons of mysticism around it. AND....it is even easier to brainwash the whole population of the planet to parrot this word day in and day out for the rest of their lives, by simply appealing to emotion and the unknown. When you ask these parrots WHAT “klamokaptica” means.....they simply parrot to you:

“Uh, duh...our intellect is limited, so we can never understand what it means, it cannot be defined, it is outside the human realm. But nonetheless, it EXISTS, it is real, we can experience it with the right frame of mind, etc.”

Oh pleeeeez.....do people in this day and age still swallow this BS?

It doesn’t work that way for the rest of us humans who aren’t pushovers for authority. We can reason and understand ANYTHING on our own! We simply ask this person to unambiguously define the word “klamokaptica”. All concepts are defined. All objects are named and illustrated. There is no other option. Limited knowledge, wisdom, intellect, etc. plays no role here.

We have reached the highest level of intelligence possible in the universe. We can understand ANY CONCEPT that is explained to us by an Alien or by God Himself! In the case of Aliens we would merely have to go through a learning curve to understand their technology or other concepts just like we go through a learning curve to understand Math, the Legal System or computer software. There is no fairy godmother to grant you any more intelligence. Mother Nature does not HOLD BACK intelligence of its species in order to MYSTIFY them. We are as intelligent as we will ever get. The people that are unsatisfied with what they got should take the issue up with their parents.

“Absolute truth is something to be experienced, something that cannot be defined”

This sentence is completely incoherent. In fact, you didn’t even understand what you typed here.

Again, only OBJECTS can possibly be experienced by humans. Objects have shape, a surface....which humans can experience with their sensory system. We point to objects and name them. Then we can use them and experience them in our daily lives.

Concepts are IMPOSSIBLE to experience....they can only be UNDERSTOOD! Concepts are relations established between 2 or more objects. Like a parent-child relation. Concepts can only be....and MUST be DEFINED! Otherwise, nobody has a clue what you mean by the word “klamokaptica”.....and neither do YOU...and neither does God!

“moon..... is an analogy of the absolute truth”

You are confused, so please pay attention....

The moon is an OBJECT with shape and location. The moon exists.

Exist: object + location

“Absolute truth” is a CONCEPT. Concepts do not exist, they have no shape or location.

Similarly, objects, like the moon or your finger are not analogies of concepts, like “absolute truth”. They are in 2 different categories!

Objects are standalone and don’t depend on concepts. The moon existed before a human saw it and uttered a truth statement about it.

Objects have nothing to do with truth....whether it’s absolute, relative, universal, or any other gimmicky truth a human can invent. Understand?


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

Fatfist,

You seem to be simply playing intellectual games and play with words(i don't blame you since this is hubpages.) Unfortunately for you this one thing is the cause of hindrance to EXPERIENCE the absolute truth.

What is the absolute truth? The absolute truth is to simply see things as they are not as what you would like it to be. But simply telling you this will not make you experience what it is to simply see things as they are. Because it is already in our mental habit to put our own labels and to judge people and things the moment we see them. Although labeling and judging does have its place of importance, it is not absolute truth, it is partial truth, the truth according to what YOU see and not what the object itself actually is. We only end up seeing the labels we create for them and we don't see things for what they are. Our mind has formed a habit of reacting instead of observing.

You can read a lot of books on patience or positive thinking, but these are all intellectual, you wont automatically be positive or be patient the moment you close tht book, tht needs training and learning from your experience. You need to make yourself conscious and alert to be patient and positive and reminding it to yourself and then the mind will gradually make it a habit.

Try finding a person who has read and dwell deeply in the topic of patience and then test his patience, lets see if his patience is as deep as the pile of books on patience tht he has with him. Reading is simply a thing of the intellect.

For people who dwell in word play (or who invents new funny words in your case) will never EXPERIENCE absolute truth. That would be like going to the restaurant and thinking you can EXPERIENCE the taste of the food simply by reading the menu.

Understand?


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"playing intellectual games and play with words"

No that is what YOU are doing, and engaging in projection psychologically speaking, i.e. saying FatFist is doing exactly the thing YOU are doing.

If you disagree, fine. Define the following unambiguously:

Absolute: ______________________

Truth: ______________________

"absolute truth is to simply see things as they are not as what you would like it to be"

What on earth does that mean? Is a cup of tea the Absolute Truth then? I mean, I see a cup of tea, right here. I don't want it to be anything else. So hallelujah! Absolute Truth! No? Why not? This is why definitions are crucial. It's not a matter of word games. We're not being cruel to you. We're asking you to make sense; to be coherent.

"For people who dwell in word play (or who invents new funny words in your case) will never EXPERIENCE absolute truth. That would be like going to the restaurant and thinking you can EXPERIENCE the taste of the food simply by reading the menu."

So experiencing food (aka 'eating') is Absolute Truth?! So AT is a synonym for 'eating', 'doing', 'fucking'? A synonym for experiencing pretty much anything? We already have a word for that: experiencing. So you're whole argument is: 'experiencing is experiencing' ... ??

Great! So what did we learn?

Again, it's not about word play. It's about using language coherently. So far you've not made any arguments. All language is invented (artificial) so of course we have to define terms! What does "flippywibble" mean? Is "flippywibble" a concept or an object?

"Although labeling and judging does have its place of importance, it is not absolute truth, it is partial truth, the truth according to what YOU see and not what the object itself actually is."

Define truth. Is truth opinion? If so, fine. What we SEE (experience) is "partial truth/opinion" because the senses can be fooled, right?

So what the object actually is must be distinct from our ability to sense/experience it. Otherwise you end up in a circle. What we experience/sense/measure/believe = Object; and Object = what we experience/sense/measure/believe.

Here is the object/conceot distinction to help you out and get you started:

Object: that which possesses shape

Concept: that which does NOT possess shape

Ball's in your court. So let's hope you also have balls in your court!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj,

“The absolute truth is to simply see things as they are not as what you would like it to be.”

Great, this is your own definition of “absolute truth”. Let’s test it out and see if it’s applicable to reality, i.e. if it works as advertised by you.

Now, Suraj.....please tell the audience just one ‘thing’ that you “saw”, AS IT IS in reality. Please don’t tell us you saw trivial things, like dust, chairs, lions and bears....any infant or mouse or ant can do that. How about any of these 3 items of reality:

1) Can you tell the audience what the mediator for light looks like? Is it a particle, like a photon or is it ‘a’ wave?

2) How about the mediator for gravity....is it a particle like a graviton, or is it warped space which pulls the pen to the floor?

3) What does an atom look like? Is a Hydrogen atom comprised of two particles, a p+ and an e-? Does it consist of a proton bowling ball and an orbiting electron bead? Does the atom look like this: p+ O . e- ,where the e- orbits the p+ ? Are these the ‘things’ that you “saw” AS THEY ARE in reality using your version of “absolute truth”?

I mean, if you can’t tell FOR SURE what ‘thing’ mediates any of nature’s basic phenomena (i.e. light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.) or even what an atom looks like....then your definition of “absolute truth” is mere useless opinion. This is a fair statement, right?

“labeling and judging.....the truth according to what YOU see and not what the object itself actually is. “

Well, labelling simply means to point to an object or to illustrate it and give it a label/name. For example, if the absolute truth is that light is a particle, then you can illustrate it on paper how it looks like in reality, so the audience can understand, and label it: photon.

So please tell the audience the absolute truth of what you experience light or gravity or an atom to be.

“For people who dwell in word play (or who invents new funny words in your case)...”

Well, mere assertions without justification don’t cut it. You have to explain to the audience what WORD PLAY I am guilty of committing in any of my posts here. Please COPY & PASTE any sentence of mine word-for-word and explain to the audience WHY it is a play of words. You need to justify to the audience why you think I am guilty as charged by showing my sentence to be ambiguous, rhetorical, or contradictory (i.e. play on words). Can you do that, Suraj....or were you not able to refute my last response to you and now hope that the audience agrees with your assertion?

But....my dear Suraj.....if by your next post you cannot tell the audience what real ‘thing’ mediates any of nature’s wonderful phenomena, or even what an atom looks like......then it will be self-evident that it is YOU who is dwelling on WORD PLAY.

So yes, I agree with you...word play is not conducive to an objective intellectual discussion.

“....will never EXPERIENCE absolute truth”

Don’t worry about those people who will NEVER experience your absolute truth. Those blind fools are not worthy of “absolute truth”.

Right now you need to worry about yourself. You need to answer any of the 3 questions I asked you above and tell to the audience what you saw AS IT IS in reality, ok?


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

Haha worry about myself? Really? That's how you end your argument? As a thug?

Why should I worry about myself? Granted your so called "audience" might ridicule me, it seriously doesn't matter. But the fact that you refer to them as audience and think that I should worry about myself is just HILARIOUS. oh, how small of a world you live in.

Of course, what you seem to call your world and your audience, I perceive to be hubpages which is really a pass time for me and all for fun, you seem to take things too seriously.

You are telling me to do something which is impossible, you are telling me to explain to your..ahem...audience MY absolute truth of what i experience. Impossible because things as it is, cannot be defined, the moment they are defined they become labelled, labelling is not absolute truth it is partial truth. Try to see and observe what is beyond the label and you will get to the absolute truth.

Jesus tried to explain the absolute truth and look what happened, they made a religion out of the poor person.

So im not going to entertain your "audience"..you may perceive yourself to have an audience but what i think you have are "a few readers". See? we have different labels for the very same thing. Labels upon labels only hinders us to getting to the absolute truth.

A cup is a cup, yes true-for you and for me and everyone else, but for a person or an alien who has never seen a cup he/she might perceive it to be a plate, a funny cap for a new born that is made out of porcelain. So definitions and labels are mere partial truth.

That which is absolute can never be defined by words or labels, they are devoid of it. So if you tell me to explain to your audience what is MY absolute truth it is not possible. Because absolute truth is not mine or anyone's. It cannot be defined or explained. But you cannot dismiss it and say it doesn't exist. The same way you are made of atoms and molecules, but you can't feel atoms and molecules tht make up your body, this doesn't mean molecules and atoms don't exist. Everyday an atom that is a part of your physique dies and a new one appears, do you feel this phenomena as it is happening to your physique?

The only condition for you to dismiss absolute truth is only when you have seen and experienced EVERYTHING that it is to see and experience in this whole universe and probably beyond it. Have you?

PS: Word play? Why, everything here in this website and the whole internet and everything is word play, my dear friend. I am as guilty as you are. Absolute truth however is beyond words and word play.

Just so you know, I will not be entertaining you or your many audience after this. Not that I yield or admit defeat. I just don't want to sink to your level. I don't wanna be someone who's world only exist in the internet and has a few reader that he calls "audience". And also to show that i DON'T HAVE TO be worried about myself if i don't make a reply and explain myself to His Excellency Supreme Grandmaster Fatfist, RULER of his own teeny tiny very partially true little world


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Well - you certainly entertained me suraj. You sound like all the other religionists out there. If you cannot define or explain something - how can you claim to have EXPERIENCED it? And if absolute truth is beyond words - why did you even start a conversation about it?


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Exactly Mark! Another religious loon.

"absolute truth is only when you have seen and experienced EVERYTHING that it is to see and experience in this whole universe and probably beyond it"

Then:

"That which is absolute can never be defined by words or labels"

Hmm, smells like a definition! Unfortunately it's contradictory in numerous ways. I like how he just openly admits he's just engaging in nonsensical language manipulation. Then wants us to take him seriously 'cos he makes SO much sense!

"A cup is a cup, yes true-for you and for me and everyone else, but for a person or an alien"

What the?! "True" for everyone, but not everyone. OBVIOUSLY!


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

Scienceoflife before you call me a.religious loon at least learn how to quote me properly. I said a cup is a cup for you and me and for everyone else. But for a person or an alien WHO HAS NEVER SEEN A CUP might even consider it to be a plate, a funny cap for a newborn that is made out of porcelain.

At least this "religious loon" reads a discussion properly before posting a comment.

You name yourself scienceoflife and yet you don't show the important qualities required to dwell in science which is objectivity (calling me a religious loon is just immature) and observance, you obviously didn't read my comment thoroughly, or you would have quoted me properly. How about douchebagoflife?


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"a person or an alien WHO HAS NEVER SEEN A CUP might even consider it to be a plate"

Eh?! What's anyone's OPINION or PERCEPTION got to do with it?! Hopefully if the Moon exists, whether you cease to SEE it or BELIEVE it, it still exists! If you THINK or KNOW the Moon's a Car, it doesn't morph into one magically. Neither does your special cup.

An object doesn't exist AND not exist at once, depending on, you know...who's the most stoned (probably you?).

Wake up! Grab a coffee. Put down the scriptures, put away the LSD, and get with reality. You have no idea what 'objectivity' means! FatFist is trying to teach you if you listen.

Where did I misquote you EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY, gentle emotional sir? I will gladly retract any misquote, contradiction or fallacy of reasoning once you point it out, oh wise one. But I suppose language is only a game to you anyway, right?!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Everyday an atom that is a part of your physique dies and a new one appears, do you feel this phenomena as it is happening to your physique?"

I hope atoms don't die! I think you meant cell. But anyway, very entertaining Sir Raj.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj,

Your emotional tirade is quite entertaining. If you can’t refute them....just cry like a little virgin. Do you have anything objective to offer to this discussion?

“Granted your so called "audience" might ridicule me.....your audience, I perceive to be hubpages... but what i think you have are "a few readers".”

Nobody ridicules here. It is always the fool who ridicules himself. And he does so by contradicting himself left, right and center....all on his OWN!

Any fool understands that Hubpages is not a little box isolated from the Internet. These articles are indexed right on the top of Google searches. The audience = everyone who has internet access on the planet. The few readers who post here are less than 0.0001% of those who read these articles. Prove this to yourself: Google absolute truth....there are over 9,000,000 hits. This is obviously a very popular topic. My articles on absolute truth are my most popular ones...getting hundreds of hits every day. And since you’ve posted, my traffic has more than doubled! So yes....the whole world is reading the bullsh*t you are posting here. And they don’t need to ridicule you.....you do a great job of that all on your OWN!

Most people are SHY to post on Internet articles (not just on mine) because they are not knowledgeable on the subject....they came to learn. They may not have anything constructive to offer, so they don’t want to look like FOOLS....unlike yourself who has no conscience and no self-respect!

“You are telling me to do something which is impossible, you are telling me to explain to your..ahem...audience MY absolute truth of what i experience. “

No...STOP LYING...it is YOU who CLAIMED you can do the impossible....and I quote:

Suraj: “The absolute truth is to simply see things as they are not as what you would like it to be.”

I asked you 3 SIMPLE questions about reality and you crapped your pants!! You ran with your tail between your legs.

Can you answer any question about reality with your bankrupt concept of “truth”? Can you give the audience ANY statement that is a truth? I will bet you $5000 you cannot. I am on the record! Please post ANY truth here.....whether absolute, universal, Godly, or whatever....and I will PayPal you $5000 USD....deal?

Let’s see how fast you run away from this challenge.

And you already know that absolute truth is impossible because I have another article explaining WHY in extreme detail.

“things as it is, cannot be defined,”

Listen up, and learn the basics:

1) THINGS (I.E. OBJECTS) ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE. All things are illustrated and labelled (i.e. named). We point to the fruit hanging from the tree and utter “apple”. This name is the label for this object.

2) ONLY CONCEPTS ARE DEFINED. Concepts are relations between objects and are always defined otherwise they have no meaning and no word can be associated with them. Got it?

We learn this stuff in primary school. Please ask your parents if they have enough money to enroll you in primary school, ok?

Did your Priest tell you that you can define a “coconut” when he had you on his lap? If so, let’s see if you can define it. Please give us an objective definition of “coconut” and I will PayPal you $5000. Here is your chance to make some money and enroll that cabbage brain of yours in primary school

“labelling is not absolute truth it is partial truth.”

Labelling has NOTHING to do with truth, absolute, relative or otherwise. Wrong context! You are out to lunch....out in left field! We label ALL objects with a NAME so we can refer to them. How can anybody not understand these basics of human language??

Please...do yourself a favor and ask your dad & mom to enroll you in primary school. This is where these basics about language, objects and concepts, are taught.

“but for a person or an alien who has never seen a cup he/she might perceive it to be a plate”

No! All the alien has seen is an object with shape. He doesn’t know anything about function. Function is subjective and irrelevant. What is a cup to an idiotic philosophizing fool who doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground...can be a weapon for woman who is getting raped. Understand?....or are you so caught up in yourself thinking that YOUR God created this universe and all the cups & plates just for your own personal pleasure? You inject your personal biases and opinions in everything...no wonder you don’t understand reality.

“That which is absolute can never be defined by words or labels, they are devoid of it.”

1) All objects are pointed at or otherwise illustrated and named/labelled.

2) All concepts are defined.

There is NO other option. Which part did your brain miss?

“MY absolute truth it is not possible.”

Exactly! This is why all you’ve said is nothing but bullsh*t!

“absolute truth.... It cannot be defined “

But you did define it you brain-dead fool...remember?? Here, you are on the record:

Suraj: “The absolute truth is to simply see things as they are not as what you would like it to be.”

You have the intellectual capacity of a head of cabbage. You said that absolute truth is what an observer sees AS IT IS in reality. Then you unwittingly contradict yourself and claim it cannot be defined because you now realize that you were lying to the audience all along. You also claim that people cannot hope to have absolute truth....even though your definition explicitly invokes an OBSERVER! What a knucklehead!!

You know....Suraj.....for a Religionist like you, even electro-shock therapy is useless. You may want to consider euthanasia.

“atom that is a part of your physique dies”

Atoms are INERT objects; not living entities. Please....go to primary school right now!!

“word play, my dear friend. I am as guilty as you are. “

I asked you in my last post to cut & paste my alleged word play. You ran away from that challenge after you realized you lied. Now, being the brain-dead fool that you are....you ADMIT that it is YOU who is playing with words and uttering nonsense. Please....consider my $10,000 challenges so you can afford to pay a doctor for euthanasia!


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

some people just love shoving their opinions to people's throats. i just agree with the concept of absolute truth. what's your problem? geez, get a life. MY GOD. if you don't believe it fine, but don't act like some religious fanatic who tries to shove opinions down our throats. we are all entitled to our opinion. you may proclaim youself to be an atheist, but you sure act like a religious maniac. oh well. its your hub. keep singing. as for the us$ 5000 or us$ 10000. no thanks. please keep them to yourself. you might need it one day. us$10000 is small change for me seriously. but maybe not for you.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Absolute Truth IS an opinion, and only that!

But anyone that says they CAN show otherwise and get $!0,000 yet doesn't even try, is a fool. Or selfish. You could give that 1oK to some charity or person in need.

More likely a liar!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj,

“some people just love shoving their opinions to people's throats.”

Then for the love of your God....why do you do it? I have given you many opportunities to justify your assertions with an explanation. I have even offered you $$$ cash just for posting a single objective “truth” here....and it doesn’t even have to be absolute. You are a glutton for punishment. I give you a baseball bat and you use it to bash your own head every single time.

“i just agree with the concept of absolute truth. what's your problem?”

Nobody gives a rat’s ass what you agree or disagree to. This is not a Religious Congregation where we all nod our heads in agreement like a bunch of idiots. You came here to present YOUR argument and have an intellectual discussion. But you only forced your FAITH upon the audience. No justifying argument whatsoever....just emotional childish rants and antics.

Belief and faith is for the lesser evolved apes we call Religionists or “bobbleheads”. The rest of us can rationally explain our arguments in detail.

“we are all entitled to our opinion”

On your Priest’s lap perhaps...you are entitled to be molested & raped too.

But not here! This is an intellectual forum where we dissect arguments and analyze people’s proposals in detail. This how we are able to offer $$$ challenges to folks like yourself. What did you think....we give away money just for listening to your foolish beliefs and subjective opinions? This is why you are scared to post a single truth here....you know it will be refuted instantly.

“you may proclaim yourself to be an atheist”

Where did I proclaim that? Copy & paste it. You don’t even have the slightest clue, do you? Any God is impossible! Here, educate yourself before you continue to bang your head with the bat....

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...

Since God is impossible, there are no theists or atheists or agnostics. There are only human apes. Didn’t your mysterious “absolute truth” tell you that? No wonder....the concept of truth (absolute or otherwise) is useless at explaining anything in reality.

Now....go study and learn the basics well enough to form an argument which you can justify. Then you are welcome to come back and present it any time you like. Hopefully, at that point you will be able to answer the questions I ask of you.


John 4 years ago

Fatfist,

What is your opinion then on science? Doesn't the very notion of science depend on absolute truth, or is it just an opinion shared by a multitude of people?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion.


suraj punjabi profile image

suraj punjabi 4 years ago from jakarta

I have been reading your article thoroughly again, and it seems that i have misunderstood the concept of absolute truth all this time. You do have very good points.

I guess a wise person should never take any concept at face value and should observe and study a concept objectively before accepting them.

I believed in the concept of absolute truth because like many other people was made to be believed that if we follow them we shall one day experience thw absolute truth one day. But now i think i wont be accepting that concept until I have actually..u know..experienced it.

But that does not mean i will accept whatever you say at fave value either. Im not going to accept any concept at face value at all now for that matter before i observe and study them and question them.

With that being said. I would like to once again say that im very sorry if i made you and your readers upset. Thank you and please keep writing hubs i really enjoy your writing. Thanx.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

John, great question!

FatFist will give you a more detailed response I'm sure, but basically, Science only deals with rational (i.e. possible) explanations. The "rule" is a 1/0 binary kind of rational or irrational; possible or impossible. This explanation stage is known as a theory.

Science must be objective in order to explain reality, i.e. rule out subjective (observer) interpretation wherever possible to aid in clear communication. To have a theory, we require a hypothesis. In short, all this means is this:

If your 'pet' theory explains why the cat got stuck up a tree and didn't come home (arf, see what I did there?), then your hypothesis must include all the objects (cat, tree, bark scratchmarks, etc) in your presentation, either illustrated or actual mockups, so the audience can understand what you're talking about.

You can't have a dynamic movie without invoking static objects first. Hypothesis = static (pictures). Theory = dynamic (motion).

But the hypothesis must also include objective definitions of any ambiguous or key terms, and the statement of the facts (setting the initial scene/conditions for the audience).


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Suraj: "I have been reading your article thoroughly again, and it seems that i have misunderstood the concept of absolute truth all this time. You do have very good points."

Holy shot! I take my hat off to you, sir.

Suraj: "But that does not mean i will accept whatever you say at face value either. Im not going to accept any concept at face value at all now for that matter before i observe and study them and question them."

Excellent! Always study the task at hand, never accept an idea on faith or authority.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj,

“But that does not mean i will accept whatever you say at fave value either. Im not going to accept any concept at face value at all now for that matter before i observe and study them and question them.”

Thank you for your honest reply, Suraj. It is people like yourself who are the most respected, not just here, but anywhere. The discussions here are not intended to be used as pissing contests....although regrettably, some do end this way. The purpose of my articles is to ignite just a little spark of doubt in the reader’s mind. Perhaps what we’ve been taught as kids may not make sense when we subject it to critical thinking and analysis. And this is what my articles are trying to explain. People are free to bring their argument here and explain it, or they can refute mine. Either way, this is what philosophy is about.

And of course you should not accept whatever I say. It’s not my intention to do this. I don’t care what position people walk away with after reading my articles. All I ever want to accomplish is to get the reader to think for himself. It’s that simple. Most readers never respond in the comment section....not just here, but in blogs all over the internet. It doesn’t matter....at least they were exposed to another option and perhaps gave it some thought. This is all good.

You didn’t make anyone upset, so there is no need to apologize. We were just having a discussion. And in turn, I would like to apologize if I made you upset, even though it wasn’t my intention....though sometimes, people can interpret emotions in responses. But at least people can walk away from a discussion with something positive.

Thanks for the discussion!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

John,

“Doesn't the very notion of science depend on absolute truth?”

There is no provision for truth in the Scientific Method. Remember, the sci method consists of only a Hypothesis and a Theory. It’s that simple. If the sci method was based on truth, then when the Earth was flat that was a truth. So how can that be a lie now?

St. Augustine said: “Orbis judicat terrarum" (The verdict of the world is conclusive; the whole world cannot be wrong). St. Augustine said this in a time when all reputable scientists believed the Earth was flat! Clearly, science cannot depend on a human’s perception of truth. It is impossible for any being or alien to know what mediates light, gravity, magnetism, electricity. It doesn’t matter what amazing technology they invent....it will never happen. Absolute truth is impossible to attain because humans and their techno—toys will necessarily have a limited sensory bandwidth.

Science is more analytical than that. But at the same time, not as arrogant as to assert certainty. Theories can only conclude what is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE.

The Hypothesis is where we spend the most of our critical thinking and analysis. This is where we have to visualize the actors (i.e. objects) which will take part in our Theory. This is also where we provide unambiguous definitions for all the KEY terms we use in our presentation. This helps the audience understand exactly what we wish to convey to them.

A Theory is a rational explanation of an event. Say for example, a ball falling to the floor. This is an event of nature. Our Hypothesis will PROPOSE what actors/objects will mediate this event in nature. Our Theory will use these objects to explain how they pulled the pen to the floor, and alternatively, why the pen didn’t otherwise fall to the ceiling. If we can explain this rationally without contradiction, then our theory is said to be “rational”. If not, then it is irrational. There are NO correct/incorrect, true/false, right/wrong theories....just rational/irrational.

If our theory is rational, then it is POSSIBLE that nature uses this proposed mechanism to mediate gravity. If it is irrational, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for nature to use this mechanism, and we will need to propose a different mechanism.

There are no truths in science. Only people who don’t understand the sci method will make such proclamations.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

John,

Also forgot to add, there are no PROVEN theories. And no theory can be a FACT....like the fundamentalist Christian proclaims: “Evolution is just a theory, not a fact”. This is nonsense. Truths, proofs and facts are divorced from the sci method. Science can only rationally explain. Now what the mathematicians of math physics do, is a totally different discipline. They are doing religion instead of science.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

suraj - I have to say I am impressed. Good for you backing down like that. Most would have continued on.


Allen 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

I was thinking the same thing. Matt Slick and Matt Dillahunty Suraj is not...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Suraj has shown that he is an intelligent and respectable person. He puts to shame most of the people who come here to argue their position. Especially those self-refuting atheists from a couple of weeks ago: openairatheist and fiesta.


Monkeyminds 4 years ago

Kudos! To Suraj. Your intellectual honesty deserves to be acknowledged!


John 4 years ago

fatfist and ScienceOflife,

Just because science is wrong doesn't mean it is not grounded in a "search for truth". I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that's what I was asking. Isn't science the search for something objective, like the laws of nature, how humans evolved, etc.? Scienceoflife said it when he said that "science must be objective to explain reality". Even if science only talks about the possibilities, and not with certainty, it still presupposes that an absolute truth exists.

From what I've gathered so far, science says "Here's a phenomena, and we're going to try to find the cause of the phenomena. Now we know that an objective cause exists, but we will not be arrogant to assume that the solutions we find IS the cause. We may never get the whole picture, but we'll try."

Now note how the scientist still says there's an absolute truth (the cause) even though he may not obtain the whole picture with his work. For if there was no absolute truth to that phenomena, what's the point of trying to find it? I doubt you will find scientists will say that evolution is a relative truth, or else creationism and evolution can both be true!

Again, when you say that absolute truth is a matter of opinion, this merely postulates that humans have no way of knowing absolute truth, rather than the notion that absolute truth itself does not exist. That's an entirely different proposition.

Although the word "truth" may be a human invention, it doesn't invalidate the concept - it just changes the wording. We can be talking about absolute fact, absolute truth, absolute knowing. They are all different words but talk about the same concept. It is this concept we are discussing - whether there are realities that are independent of human emotion.

Sorry for my hasty response, thus I may have misrepresented some statements, but I appreciate this discussion.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"Scienceoflife said it when he said that "science must be objective to explain reality". Even if science only talks about the possibilities, and not with certainty, it still presupposes that an absolute truth exists."

Objective does not mean true. In science we must ASSUME certain things, in order to explain. So we say, 'let us ASSUME a rock hit the earth, and this explains why the dinos died bla bla'. Is that the TRUTH? Are we omniscient? Do we have a time machine? No!

To be objective means we rule out interpretation in the hypothesis and ideally the theory as well. It is not TRUE that the Moon exists, or that God does not exist. Gods or Moons either exist, or not, by definition. A definition is also not a truth.

In science, the facts are really just assumptions, aka the statement of the facts. "Cat hair and scratches were found on the tree, this mans the kitty must have got stuck up a tree, which explains why bla bla".

We assume (hypothesise) existence of trees, cats, hair, whatever. We invoke objects like scratch marks or assume there was even a cat in the first place, in order to explain our theory about the Lost Cat (or where the dinos went, or what physically binds the planets, or whatever).

Does that help?


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

In other words we're not trying to PROVE or DISPROVE a cat, or god, or our theory about what happened. We're trying to explain. To be objective means we rule out any possibility of misunderstanding.

So if we invoke an object, we'd better be able to illustrate it, or a mockup. Objectively, an object must have shape. Was Napoleon really poisoned? We can't prove it. It's not a matter of proof. There might be two competing theories, both rational. Which is true? Which do you believe? That is EXTRA scientific. That comes later. What's proven to you is your own affair. The scientific method cares less about absolutes or truths or proofs. It's there to communicate a theory unambiguously.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

John,

“Just because science is wrong”

Again, we need to get our language straight otherwise we will be talking in circles. Science is never right or wrong. There are NO correct/incorrect, true/false, right/wrong hypothesis or theories....just rational/irrational. There are no authorities in science who can decree a theory as being correct/right/true. Who voted this person and made him God? Besides, an authority is an automatic fallacy. We don’t strong-arm people, knock them to the ground and force them to comply and agree with us. They only do this in the legal system.....they have cops and jail cells for this job. Even if science did in fact work this way in the Dark Ages, this is not how science works today. Today, everyone is welcomed to explain their case in the debate!!

If a theory is rational in its explanation of nature’s mechanism for gravity, then it is possible that this is how nature does its trick.

A person who disagrees with this theory on gravity,... all they have to do is showcase a contradiction to justify their point. This is how they show a theory to be irrational. This is the only objective criterion by which to show why it is impossible for mother nature’s mechanism to work as the theory explains.

What other options are available to us? Truth? Proof? Absolute Certainty?

Not even close. These are impossible options. If a God did indeed create space and matter, then only He has this certainty. The only way for us to have this truth, is if God whispers it into our ears and tells us how everything works. Otherwise it is impossible for us to find out with 100% certainty.

Why?

Because any object in the universe...including living beings....including high-tech high-wiz devices....have sensory bandwidth limitations. It is unavoidable!! It is impossible for humans to see what mediates light for a reason: because we would be blinded....all we would ever see is white as our retinas would be perpetually stimulated. Obviously, nature’s beings cannot evolve this way because they cannot survive. So we have a limited visual spectrum of sensory retinal bandwidth. Same argument applies to high tech devices which can allegedly detect light itself....they would just show us a blank white screen.

“Even if science only talks about the possibilities, and not with certainty, it still presupposes that an absolute truth exists.”

How so? Please explain in detail, in light of the fact that it is impossible for anyone to know for sure the EXACT mechanisms of nature.

Science does not have or provide knowledge. Science only provides rational explanations.

It is in technology where they SEEK TO KNOW measurements and quantities in order create devices that can put man on the moon.....or put a flatscreen TV on your wall. And they do this by trial & error.....NOT with certainty and rational explanations.

“Now note how the scientist still says there's an absolute truth (the cause) “

No absolute truths are required to make such a statement as it is impossible to verify every possible circumstance. Science is not in the business of VERIFICATION for the purposes of convincing you of truths. Science is about a “critically reasoned argument”.

Only objects can impart causal actions (causes) to other objects via contact. The void (nothing) cannot impart causes to itself or to objects. But before we can make such a bold statement, we need to define our key terms.

Object: that which has shape

Void: that which lacks shape

Now it’s easy to understand why only objects can impart causes to other objects via contact of their surfaces. And this is not an issue of truth or proof or validation......this is a critically reasoned argument.

“For if there was no absolute truth to that phenomena, what's the point of trying to find it?”

You need to be consistent here, otherwise your confusing usage of terms will lead you astray.

A phenomenon is an event of nature. It is a consequent of existence. It is what it is. This has nothing to do with any sort of truth. If there were no objects or events in the universe, we wouldn’t even be here having this discussion. So obviously, phenomena are NOT necessitated by a human observer who WATCHES them and declares them as absolute truth. Nature couldn’t give a rat’s ass about us petty humans and our opinions of truth.

Since nature is what it is, our job is to be objective, and not biased when attempting to explain nature’s mechanisms for light and gravity.

And we are NOT trying to find out....this is clearly impossible!

The BEST that any living entity, including aliens, can ever hope to accomplish is to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN the mechanisms of light and gravity.

“I doubt you will find scientists will say that evolution is a relative truth,”

Only clueless fundamentalist FANATICS will say that evolution is absolute truth....or that it is false. What is TRUE to these un-thinkers, is a LIE to their neighbor. How do we resolve WHO is telling the TRUTH and who is LYING? Do we VOTE on it? Do we ask an authority to decide, like evolutionist Richard Dawkins? Do we ask the Oracle at Delphi? Do we ask God?

An intellectual person can explain WHY evolution is rational....or otherwise, WHY it is irrational. It’s that simple.

“humans have no way of knowing absolute truth, “

Exactly. I explain in extreme detail here:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...

and here:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

“Although the word "truth" may be a human invention”

This is all it is, a human-invented concept. See the article above for a detailed DISSECTION of this concept so you can understand these issues and finally put these God-like words (truth, absolute, proof, fact) to rest.


John 4 years ago

fatfist and ScienceOflife,

Thank you both for sharing your views on the subject. There are still ideas that I find odd. For example, you didn't address the fact that just because we cannot find absolutes, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; It just means we won't find it. You also seemed to separate truth and logic as two separate entities, which I find perplexing. Also, I don't think truth is a human-invented concept; it's a concept that humans put a name to. Nature will always be nature whether humans invented truth or not.

So although I do not agree with your view, I do get a sense of where you are coming from. I would talk more, but I'm a busy guy so I probably won't come back for a while.

Thank you for this discussion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

John,

“you didn't address the fact that just because we cannot find absolutes, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; It just means we won't find it. “

This is already addressed, John. Did you read the article on Absolute Truth I linked? Absolute truth is a concept....like love and justice are concepts.

1) How do you propose we FIND the concept of love? Do we find a heart? What is “it” that we need to find?

2) How do you propose we FIND the concept of justice? Do we find a statue of woman blind-folded holding a set of balance scales? Is that what justice is? What is “it” that we need to find?

The difficulty that you are having is that you don’t understand the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT. You are using ordinary speech to talk poetically and metaphorically i.e. “love exists and it can move mountains”.

Not in science it doesn’t. In science we use Scientific Language which is LITERAL, without euphemisms and metaphors.....i.e. an ace is an ace. In reality, only another object, like a bulldozer can move a mountain. Concepts are relationships between objects. Concepts do not exist. Concepts have no form/shape, no boundary, no structure, etc. Only objects exist. This is all explained in the article on abs truth.

In order for an object to exist, it must be located somewhere in the universe. Exactly where, is irrelevant to our discussion.

Exist: physical presence (i.e. an object having a location) = object + location

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects.

Buggs Bunny is an object. Buggs Bunny doesn’t exist because he has no location.

Superman is an object. Superman doesn’t exist because he has no location.

The moon is an object with shape. The moon existed before life on earth because it has location. Hence, the existence of the moon is independent of observers and their truths. The moon was physically present in the universe irrespective of human observers.

Therefore, we conclude that existence has no dependency on truths, proofs, facts, opinions, wisdom, knowledge, observations, experiments, mathematics, authorities, faith, hope, belief, etc. Existence just IS, all on its own. Existence is objective, so our definition of ‘exist’ MUST be objective (observer-independent).

Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects (or other nested concepts).

When humans came on board, they looked at all the objects in nature, pointed at them and uttered a word/name/label for them. Remember how God brought the animals before Adam, who pointed at each animal and gave it a name/label? Well, the Bible is right on the money here!!

After we named all the objects, we used the objects to conceive of relations between them. These relations are called CONCEPTS. This is how we built languages. All words of any language are concepts i.e. RELATIONS between 2 or more objects. For example...husband & wife are concepts (relations between 2 humans, like Adam & Eve). Running is a concept (a relation between the legs of a living being and the ground).

Existence is a concept (a relation between an object and location)

Location is a concept (a relation between objects and their static distances)

Exercise for John: Please fill in the blanks so you can help yourself understand these critical issues.....practice makes perfect.

1) Love is a concept (a relation between_____________)

2) Justice is a concept (a relation between______________)

3) Laughing is a concept (a relation between______________)

4) Motion is a concept (a relation between______________)

5) Truth is a concept (a relation between______________)

6) Logic is a concept (a relation between______________)

“Also, I don't think truth is a human-invented concept; it's a concept that humans put a name to. “

All concepts are first and foremost RELATIONS between objects or other concepts (nesting). Existence is a concept! What does that mean? It means that the DEFINITION we assign to this word ‘existence’ needs to RESOLVE to reality. Exist is a synonym for real. What exists is what is real. Existence = reality.

We perform this exact same analysis for every single word we invent, including truth.

NOTE: It is important to understand that concepts which apply directly to reality, do NOT invoke an observer in their DEFINITION. Please check the definitions I provided above for object, exist, location....none invoke observers! They are a direct one-to-one mapping to reality. We refer to such definitions as OBJECTIVE.

OBJECTIVE = OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT

SUBJECTIVE = OBSERVER-DEPENDENT = OPINION

“Nature will always be nature whether humans invented truth or not.”

Yes, John! This is another way of saying that reality is objective i.e. observer-independent.

Q: Is truth objective? Is truth observer-independent?

Now....John....please listen very carefully to what I am about to say: if you think that the concept of TRUTH applies to reality without a human observer....then please fill in the blanks above in your exercise for “truth” so that an observer is not invoked in the realization of truth. If you can do that, then you have summarily refuted all my articles on absolute truth. Congrats!!

Please come back and answer these questions when you have time. Thanks!


marquees87 4 years ago

Dear Fatfist,

I recently was in a debate with an "Absolute Truth" believer which I was not properly prepared to deal with. Thus, I fell into the "logic loop" but deep within me, something stirred that said, "This doesn't seem right." So I began my journey into learning. I admit that I have no background in Logic or Philosophy thus I'm having to learn as I go. But, after having discovered your articulate posts, my eyes have been opened and I feel that I'm on the right path in making an insightful choice on my own instead of believing what I'm spoon feed.

Anyway, my question to you is that as humans, wouldn't it be impossible for us to understand or grasp the concept of an "absolute" as we are imperfect beings and to say that one can, wouldn't that make us perfect? Because wouldn't only a perfect being understand perfection? My husband said that we can create a definition and thus it goes by our rules but how does one say it's a constant unless a human being has lived and been everywhere and at the same time? To me that seems illogical. Would you agree? Am I on the right path? :)

PS...please go gentle on me. I'm only one person in the cave of many being shown the light for the first time and the light is very bright and confusing! :D


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi marquees,

“I recently was in a debate with an "Absolute Truth" believer which I was not properly prepared to deal with.”

You are not alone. Nobody is able to deal with their tricks & sophistry....not because people are stupid....but because our educational system has FAILED us. Today, almost no one can tell you what an object is or what a concept is. Almost no one can tell you how language was formed.....whether human language or alien language (they have the same roots).

“I admit that I have no background in Logic or Philosophy”

You don’t need any to understand this basic stuff. You just need to understand the roots language and that every single word either resolves to an object or a concept. There is no other option. You don’t need to understand formal logic or any symbols/formulas. The issue of absolute truth is more basic/fundamental than that.

“I feel that I'm on the right path in making an insightful choice on my own instead of believing what I'm spoon feed.”

Good for you!! This is what I want to hear. And you shouldn’t take on faith anything I am about to tell you either. You need to understand it, critically reason it....and if you feel my work is nonsense, you need to give specific details and explain your case. This is how we learn from each other.

“wouldn't it be impossible for us to understand or grasp the concept of an "absolute"”

Ahhhh, my dear marquees....you first need to understand the fundamental flaw with that statement. No offence intended, but this statement was first uttered by Religionists who tried to convince their congregation that they are too stupid to understand reality and God. Ergo, they need to come to church, believe what they are told.....because ultimately....it is ONLY the Priest who understands everything.

Think about it, marquees. Is it ONLY those who PREACH absolute truth, the ones who understand it?

But here is how we critically reason this and show the fundamental flaw in the above statement......

First and foremost, you need to understand these key terms:

Object: that which has shape.

Concept: a relationship between 2 or more objects (or other nested concepts).

If you do not understand these key terms, then you cannot possibly have any hope of understanding how languages are formed. So please ask any questions at this point before you proceed forward.

1) When humans first came on board, they looked at all the OBJECTS in nature, pointed at them and uttered a word/name/label for them. Remember how God brought the animals before Adam, who pointed at each animal and gave it a name/label? Well, the Bible is right on the money here!!

Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.”

There is no way to objectively DEFINE an object. Any attempt will only lead to subjectivity. You can only point and name objects. Only then can the ET who landed here associate the word 'tree' with the object you pointed to.

2) After we named all the objects, we used the objects to conceive of and establish relations between them. These relations are called CONCEPTS. This is how we built languages and other systems of thought, like mathematics, logic, the legal system, governments, societies, etc. All words of any language are concepts i.e. RELATIONS between 2 or more objects. For example...husband & wife are concepts (relations between 2 humans, like Adam & Eve). Running is a concept (a relation between the legs of a living being and the ground).

This is how all languages were developed.....whether human, alien, Klingon, etc. If you do not understand what was said this far, then this would be a major show-stopper. You cannot even proceed to analyse absolute truth. Marquees....please ask any questions you have at this point so we can resolve your issues before you can even proceed to read my articles on absolute truth and understand them.

This stuff needs to be taught in school. But like I said....our educational system has failed us miserably...and this is an extreme understatement!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Marquees,

“as we are imperfect beings and to say that one can, wouldn't that make us perfect?”

Another Church-statement, marquees! Sorry, I don’t mean to pick on you, everybody says this contradictory statement. “Perfection” is an OPINION. What is perfect to you, may be imperfect to your neighbor. So how do we resolve this issue? Who is right and who is wrong? Do we ask a supposed “expert of perfection” to tell us his OPINION? Do we ask a Priest for his OPINION? Do we ask God for His OPINION?

My ex-wife was imperfect....so I divorced her right away! She now found a sucker who thinks that she is perfect! To each his own...

Perfection is a subjective concept which is dependent on the OPINION of a human observer who uses his subjective & limited sensory system to see if something meets his personal TASTES...before declaring perfect or imperfect.

These nonsensical statements which are predicated on subjectivity are the Hallmark of Religion.

I grant you, that some person may be ugly to the majority of people out there....but that doesn’t mean that he cannot think! That doesn’t mean that he cannot understand relations between objects (i.e. concepts).

The issues here have nothing to do with subjectivity or opinions. We don’t need to use our sensory system to decide on them. These are purely CONCEPTUAL issues. This means....we use our brain to critically think and reason our argument which has to make sense and not be contradictory.

Furthermore, your statement above commits the Fallacy of Begging the Question. It assumes that there is a higher perfect being (i.e. God) who knows everything. This is nonsense, right? All concepts are conceived and DEFINED by humans who establish relations between objects. There is NO other option. If you can argue otherwise, marquees, please let us know what your argument is. I don’t want to put you on the spot...and I don’t wanna put words in your mouth. But you should have a rational argument when you disagree with something. Disagreement is a normal part of any discussion.

“Because wouldn't only a perfect being understand perfection? “

Again...this often-parroted statement is nonsense! Whatever God understands....WE can understand! All of understanding comes from CONCEPTS. It is concepts which are established by us or by aliens ....or even by God. Once we, or aliens or God DEFINE these concepts, we can understand what they are trying to convey.

Remember: God only understands what concepts He established between the OBJECTS which are out there. Then he defines this relation between objects. So how hard can this be to understand? I mean pleeeez....who are these people trying to fool with such a religious statement?

BUT....and here the MAJOR BUT: if these concepts are contradictory....if they do not establish relations between objects...then they have NO meaning whatsoever! Meanings are attributed to words....to any word, whether “absolute”, “truth”, “run”, “happy”, “love”, etc....by establishing RELATIONS. Since the absolute is alleged to have no relations...therefore it is an IMPOSSIBLE CONCEPT. It is not even a concept....which is why this position is so stupid. It has no meaning. The people who parrot this word and have FAITH in it...even they CANNOT understand it. So why the heck do we need to entertain a word which was invented by people WHO DIDN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT??

“My husband said that we can create a definition and thus it goes by our rules but how does one say it's a constant unless a human being has lived and been everywhere and at the same time?”

Please tell your husband to come here and explain himself. He needs to understand the difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE definitions. A definition about REALITY does not go by our own subjective rules. All rules are invented by man. A definition about reality must NOT invoke an observer in the definition i.e. it must be observer-independent (objective!). If a definition invokes an observer....like TRUTH does...then yes, it is SUBJECTIVE i.e. OPINION!

For example, these definitions would be subjective: love, happiness, truth, karma, pain, etc. Why? Because they invoke an observer.

These definitions would be objective: object, exist, location, motion, length, distance, space, etc.

And THIS definition would be impossible (i.e. contradictory): absolute.

This is not an issue of being everywhere to see everything. This is an issue of language....and language alone!

“Am I on the right path? :) PS...please go gentle on me.”

Of course you are on the right path ;-)

I hope I was gentle. I can’t see any bruises on you. But seriously....once you understand the roots of language, all this stuff is a piece of cake.

Remember: there is NO magic or mysticism....only humans will put these fears and delusions into your soul. If you confuse the masses.....then you have the ultimate weapon to control them: “mind control”.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Great hub and great comments. But it seems that you have categorized the logic of absolute on par with universal. Which means the "to me" argument still precludes the absolute of there being no absolutes.

As a concept Absolutism exists in theory not for masses, and it may exist in me.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Eric,

“it seems that you have categorized the logic of absolute on par with universal.”

In philosophy, the concept of Universal Truth is distinguished from the absolute. The Catholic Church equates the two, but it isn't the case. A universal truth is of the form: Every X is Y.

For example: All humans have bones, is universal to all humans.

The concept of “absolute” means “without relation” to anything else. So these are completely separate concepts because universality necessarily invokes relations.

“As a concept Absolutism exists in theory”

What you mean to say is that absolutism is asserted by many out there.....even in Academia. Indeed it is. But assertions without justification are worthless. Besides, the “absolute” is a contradictory concept because there is no concept which can be conceived without a relation to something else. Just try to imagine anything or any idea which is standalone and not in reference to anything else. An impossible task.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects

Hence, absolutes are impossible. This is why philosophers can’t even find one after 3000 years. Godel even committed suicide after discovering that absolutes are impossible. That is quite a shocking discovery he must have made! Please see the video youtube series on Dangerous Knowledge which exposes how many mathematicians & philosophers went insane and committed suicide because they believed in the irrational "absolute".

Thanks for you comments.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I have to tell you that your response is very interesting and if I dare say, amusing. Your overall point is that absolutes are impossible --- I am sorry professor but that is an absolute statement, or a statement of an absolute.

You put it this way "Hence, absolutes are impossible". Hence you just stated an absolute.

When quoting someone (me) it is seldom helpful to use a term like "what you mean to say is....." Not an absolute, just a suggestion.

I absolutely love and believe in certain things. Prove that I don't.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Eric, didn't you read any of this?

"So the proponent of the question: “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”,... is an ignoramus! Such a foolish individual is merely parroting what he heard his Priest say during Sunday Service without even understanding the critical issues."


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

May I take a man at his word. You said it is impossible to have absolutes. That is an absolute statement yet you claim no absolutes. I just reread your hub and found "An intelligent human has NO faith; whether in absolutes or in any other human-invented concept. An intelligent human can explain and justify his argument with the luxury of detail. And to do so, he needs to be a critical thinker, not a parrot!" You would look well and act well to correct your inconsistencies.

"No Faith" is again an absolute. I would suggest You just cannot argue a case against absolutes and yet use them in your speech. Let me try one on you --- you and I are a absolutely different when in comes to our notions of faith and belief. Argue against that logic.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Eric,

“Your overall point is that absolutes are impossible --- I am sorry professor but that is an absolute statement, or a statement of an absolute.”

How so? What is ‘an’ absolute statement? Do you even know or are you just parroting your Priest?

Can you explain your claim despite the fact that concepts are relations between at least 2 objects, and an alleged absolute has no relations at all?

Please answer these questions which make or break your argument. Then you’ll know for SURE if there are absolute statements.

“"Hence, absolutes are impossible". Hence you just stated an absolute.”

Where? Where is this alleged absolute of yours? Please analyse the statement “absolutes are impossible" and justify your claim.

Just answer these questions which make or break your argument. Then you’ll know for SURE if there are absolutes.

“When quoting someone (me) it is seldom helpful to use a term like "what you mean to say is....."

You have to quote and correct an ignorant and uneducated person who claims that concepts exist: “As a concept Absolutism exists in theory”

Only real objects exist. Concepts are relations. Relations are conceived. Get an education and learn the basics before embarrassing yourself in public.

Object: that which has shape

Exist: physical presence (something somewhere) i.e. an object with location.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Eric,

"You would look well and act well to correct your inconsistencies."

Where is the inconsistency? Please explain with detail, ok?

“"No Faith" is again an absolute.”

Where? Where is this alleged absolute of yours? Please analyse the statement “no faith" in detail and explain to the audience why it is an absolute!

Just answer these questions which make or break your argument. Then you’ll know for SURE if there are absolutes.

Absolute: a concept with no relations

The phrase “no faith” has relations to at least 2 objects:

1) A human observer who will perform the act of negating faith.

2) The entities the human ascribes the word faith to for the purposes of negating them.

See, your assertions have relations. You need a basic education in concepts and objects.

“you and I are an absolutely different when in comes to our notions of faith and belief”

LOL...it is YOU who has faith and belief in the claims that you cannot justify. I have never made any statement of faith or belief, but you are welcome to justify otherwise.

“Argue against that logic.”

Logic?

Logic?????

Are you a brain-dead troll, Eric? Where are your:

1) Premises

2) Derivations

3) Conclusion

....for this System of Logic you are blindly asserting? Did your Priest tell you?

Do you even understand what Logic is about?

Here....educate yourself:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LO...

Eric....If you cannot justify your claims after repeated requests....then you are just trolling.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Eric Dierker,

Why didn’t you answer the questions posed to you? You dropped the microphone and ran off the stage in the middle of your presentation when a member of the audience stood up and asked you the following questions:

1) You claimed that “absolutes are impossible....is an absolute statement”. Why? Here you go: That “absolutes are impossible” is an absolute statement because ______________. Fill in your detailed explanation.

2) You claimed that "No Faith" is again an absolute.” Why? Here you go: The statement “no faith” is an absolute because ______________. Fill in your detailed explanation.

3) What is an “absolute statement”? Please fill in the blanks: an absolute statement is _____________.

You made the above claims by pretending to know what you were talking about. Clearly, you didn’t. For if your claims were legitimate, then it would mean that you are obviously smarter than Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann who all committed suicide after they realized there was no absolute truth. You think you are quite special, don’t you?

So Eric... please feel free to answer the above 3 questions by....

a) Consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The answers should be on the page on Absolute Truth.

b) Consulting your Bible (King James Version preferred). The answers should be on the first page before Genesis, where God conceives of absolute truth before creation.

c) Consulting your Pastor at your local Parish. Ask him to come here and justify the nonsense that he brainwashed you with, instead of using you as a clueless drone to sell his wares for him.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 3 years ago

Hey FatFist,

Long time reader, infrequent writer. Love the posts! I have long since held your concept of "truth" and how it operates in language. Came to your site months ago due to this specific post and have learned much!

Regarding the statement "There are no absolute truths", the typical response is the question, "Is that statement absolute truth, or not". The consequential outcome is either absolute truth is 'admitted', or the denial of the statement as absolute truth results in once again 'admitting' absolute truth 'exists'. Seems like this might be word play, and I would like you feed back on the following.

As defined by those who propose absolute truth, 'absolute' means without external conditions, to include people, places or times.

Getting these same adherents of absolute truth to define truth is altogether torture... as if I'm giving myself a root canal! But I digress...

Truth, however, IS conditional. No matter how they might define 'truth' (and most follow "correspondence theory of truth"), it MUST rely on 'how the world is' (whatever that means).

The question now becomes, what does the response "Is that an absolute truth, or not" refer to? There is no object the question resolves to, so the referent must the the initial statement "There are no absolute truths", which itself does not reference any object, but a concept, namely 'absolute truth'. So, any response to the religionist's objection is a reference to the statement itself, without any relationship to "how the world is".

This appears to be a tautology. Defined as a statement or proposition that is true no matter what the conditions are, a tautology relays NO INFORMATION about the world, and is meaningless as a result.

Another consideration is, how is it possible for the notion of an absolute combine with any other object or concept? This is contradictory to the very definition of an absolute, since it has no relations with any other object or concept? It becomes a nonsensical notion. In other words, if an adjective, like 'absolute', modifies a noun, like 'truth', doesn't this mean the adjective modifies as a condition of the noun's 'existence'?

Sorry if i'm wasting your time, but its difficult to wash away the past 30 years of indoctrination in a few months...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Confuscience,

“Regarding the statement "There are no absolute truths", the typical response is the question, "Is that statement absolute truth, or not". The consequential outcome is either absolute truth is 'admitted', or the denial of the statement as absolute truth results in once again 'admitting' absolute truth 'exists'.”

Don’t let the Religionist Sophists (i.e. Theists, Atheists and Mathematicians alike) attempt to confuse you.

"There are no absolute truths" is a statement akin to “There is no law”.

Naturally, these fools would ask: “Is it THE law that there is no law? I mean, you are saying there is no law while simultaneously making up your own law. Ergo, obviously there is law and it’s Absolute Law!”

Hilarious!! It’s funny how human apes love to twist statements to push their own Religion upon the impressionable half-witted gawking masses. And it’s shocking how people can fall for this nonsense.

Think about it: Before man conceived of the concept of the Legal System, there was no Law….obviously! And obviously, that there was no law, was not “THE” law. You see….you cannot use the concept of law to evaluate the concept law….this is circular, begging the question, and even commits a strawman.

In similar fashion…. Before man conceived of the concept of verifying Propositional Statements via Truth, there was no Truth….obviously! And obviously, that there was no Truth, was not “THE” Truth. You see….you cannot use the concept of Truth to evaluate and make decisions upon the concept Truth….this is circular, begging the question, and even commits a strawman.

Simple reasoning!

“ 'absolute' means without external conditions, to include people, places or times”

Was there a time when there were no people or no concept of truth? Yeah! Ergo….if there was such a scenario where there was no concept of truth….then just what the hell makes truth absolute??

Again….ultra-basic reasoning!

“Getting these same adherents of absolute truth to define truth is altogether torture”

One should NEVER EVER define what is dear to their soul….what they want to protect at all costs….what they live, kill and die for…..for fear of exposing the "contradictions", "sophistry", "ambiguities" and “nothingness” they really have!

“its difficult to wash away the past 30 years of indoctrination in a few months”

Understandable.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I believe in God. Even so I agree with the vast majority of your critiques against believers fatfist. Christians, if they are true believers, should focus on imitating Jesus then they would find peace. Jesus didn't go walking around debating with anyone.

A big problem I see here and elsewhere is that Christian believers do not understand their own religion. God never said "I am absolute truth" Jesus said I am the Truth. This statement transcends reason. It cannot be proven using mere reason. It is contradictory. It can only be believed in and that is a gift given but also a choice to be chosen. Once it is believed in it can more or less be explained to varying degrees. End.

Another problem with Christian religionists as you call them (btw you genuinely make me laugh fatfist) as that they don't understand what the moral law is. The moral law is God. The moral law is not a set of written laws, although any requirement of the moral law can be written down. The moral law is not a set of decisions made by God about good and evil. The moral law is not a particular set of just laws, although all just laws are based on the moral law. The moral law is not the implementation of justice in particular cases. The moral law is God. All that is contrary to the moral law is contrary to God. All that is in agreement with the moral law is in agreement with God.

All injustice is contrary to the very Nature of God. All justice is in agreement with the very Nature of God. Nothing is immoral unless it is immoral before God. Nothing is moral unless it is moral before God.

And that is pretty much it. "Absolute" strictly speaking has no meaning as you say.

And I agree that the word God is a concept but most religionists simply use it anyway in ordinary speech because they believe it resolves to a Person. The name God gave to the Jews through Moses is not a concept since it doesn't relate two things: I AM WHO AM. God is One. No human ape in their right mind would ever say this or use this. Only God could 'point to Himself' and say it. But religionists, atheists, etc. think they are God and start applying it to everything A=A. Lol!

Peace! Bedtime.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I believe in God. Even so I agree with the vast majority of your critiques against believers fatfist.”

My articles are not just about believers or Christians, as you put it. Such folk base their worldview on faith and aren’t much bothered by my articles. It is Atheists who are venomously enraged about my articles….as is evidenced in the comments. It is the Atheist who “knows” all there is to “know”….it is he who has all the TRUTHS, especially the ABSOLUTE TRUTHS….it is he who asserts himself an authority on all matters of reality…..it is he who has the right to ridicule all others. Well….my articles put an END to that in an instant. My articles expose the Atheist as the dumbest of all apes in the Universe.

.

“Jesus didn't go walking around debating with anyone.”

Human apes love to argue….and Christian Apologetics is no exception. The fundamentalist Christian & the fundamentalist Atheist will never listen to reason. They prefer a gun battle to the death. My articles showcase their stupidity and lunacy.

.

“God never said "I am absolute truth"

It is Christian Apologetics that invented absolute truth and Big Bang Creation….and it is the bonehead Atheists who swallowed this nonsense as gospel and parrot it like a mantra. Atheism relies on just as much FAITH as Theism does. These disciplines both complement each other rather nicely.

.

“And I agree that the word God is a concept”

Oh no…..God is an OBJECT. God is necessarily SOMETHING instead of NOTHING. Remember, God is a being….He has shape/form. We have certainly hypothesized how God “may” look like, although accuracy is irrelevant for the purposes of Physics and reality. All we need to understand is that God is proposed to be the CREATOR of space & matter. This is what Physics is concerned with. Anything else falls in the realm of Theology & Atheism. The only weapons the Atheist has in his arsenal against God are EMOTIONAL ones.

The Bible proposes that God is an object.

Philippians 2:6 -- ”Who, being in the FORM of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees theFORM of the LORD.”

Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Right. You are doing a good service here. I am learning.

I would say that the word 'form' is not used in the same manner as your definition of object. In philipians this word is used in a manner to target God's substance. The Form of God is Three Persons. The Father is generating the Son; the Father and the Son is generating the Spirit. This is Pure Act (Actus Purus). Its not a choice it is simply God's Form. So to see God is to penetrate the the One Generation: The First Person generating the Second Person; the First Person and the Second Person generating the Third Person as if from one principle. This is not something the human apes sensory system can take in. The only way to take it in is a miracle. One cannot take it in in this life only if he is assumed to Heaven. In this life one can only sense images of God, e.g. the family is a sort of image of God.

So Job saw some miraculous image God used to represent Himself and interact with Job. Moses also had some mystical experience of God. These would be my understandings. I don't think they make sense from a physics standpoint or perhaps a grammatical one. Lol!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“In philipians this word [form] is used in a manner to target God's substance. “

Substance is a synonym for object. So the Bible is very consistent in this regard.

Object: that which has shape/form.

The term form/shape is so basic, that the Bible is 100% consistent in its reference to objecthood.

.

“So to see God is to penetrate the the One Generation: The First Person generating the Second Person; the First Person and the Second Person generating the Third Person as if from one principle. “

Only Atheists & Theists prove their Religion with observations. Reality recognizes no such opinions. In reality, the ontology of God is predicated on His objecthood. Without shape/form, God is not even an imaginary being. Without shape God cannot even be ascribed actions such as creation, love, good, evil, moral, omni-XXXX, etc. God cannot help but have shape. This is not an issue of opinion or dogma or scripture….this is an issue stemming from the root of God’s ontology. Without shape, God is nothing…..less than imaginary….He cannot even be a subject in a sentence!

.

“So Job saw …..Moses also had some mystical experience……”

Irrelevant. God had shape before Job, Moses and Abraham were even born to give an opinion about God. God had shape before He was even ascribed the event of Creation. Human observation/opinion has NO relevance whatsoever to God’s unavoidable objecthood. Man cannot dictate the ontology of God for the purposes of pleasing his peers and not going against his Religion. If God is the CREATOR He necessarily has shape/form and is indeed an OBJECT whether any human in the Universe agrees with it or not. This is an objective issue….not an issue we are forced to accept with dogma, scripture, threats or violence. Humans can babble about God to their hearts content....irrelevant. God necessarily has shape/form whether any human likes it or not.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

"Only Atheists & Theists prove their Religion with observations. Reality recognizes no such opinions. In reality, the ontology of God is predicated on His objecthood. Without shape/form, God is not even an imaginary being. Without shape God cannot even be ascribed actions such as creation, love, good, evil, moral, omni-XXXX, etc. God cannot help but have shape. This is not an issue of opinion or dogma or scripture….this is an issue stemming from the root of God’s ontology. Without shape, God is nothing…..less than imaginary….He cannot even be a subject in a sentence!"

I'm just trying to make the point (if you bear with my rustiness) that strictly speaking God is not an object. Our language defaults to object since there is no possible syntax or context for God. This is granted in the entire Bible and all believers. There is no such thing as a nounverb.

God is Pure Act (Actus Purus). Sure the Bible uses language to communicate God but strictly speaking God cannot be contained using language.

God transcends language, physics, ontology and everything He created since He is Actus Purus. Actus Purus: being is doing; doing is being---subject is action; action is subject---noun is verb; verb is noun---object is action; action is object. Everything God is/does is One Pure Act. There is no distinction in God between being and doing. A human person is therefore he performs actions. God is what He does and does what He is. God does not have the faculty to perform an act. God is Pure Act.

God does not facilitate action or process. God cannot be acted upon since He already is all that He can possibly be and more. God is not a part of a process since He already is the fullness of potential to overflowing. All objects are acted upon whether they like it or not. They change, they get better or worse, recycled, completed, dissolved, etc. They facilitate actions. But not God since He is all that He does.

Language cannot contain God. Physics cannot contain God. All things cannot contain God. The best God could do to explain Himself to the Israelites is "I Am Who Am", but even this falls short. As far as I am aware the best philosophy can do is Actus Purus (Pure Act). You were right about Unmoved mover, uncaused cause and all that. Strictly speaking God is the only mystery. Even Actus Purus is impossible to comprehend or demonstrate or prove still it is a fitting concept which targets God.

They don't call Him the Holy One of Israel for nothing. No one can see him using the senses and no one can know Him uses the mere senses unless He decides to manifest Himself. Maybe that is the best definition of God: impossible. He exists regardless of what anything says or thinks about Him.

The 'form' of God is the Three Persons. The Three Persons are the Actus Purus. There is no distinction between the existence and form of God. God is One yet Three, Three yet One.

You should try to critique Actus Purus. This isn't a challenge, I would simply love to see your thoughts :)

And that is my babbling. ;)


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Actus Purus is a fancy way of saying God is One.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

I am what I yam and that's all that I yam." - Popeye


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Our language defaults to object since there is no possible syntax or context for God.”

In any language, whether Chinese or Aramaic or Klingong or Klamokaptica or God’s language….there are only OBJECTS & CONCEPTS….there is no other construct. Sure, concepts can be verbs, adjectives, etc. but this is irrelevant to the issue you are trying to address.

If you claim God is not an object, then God is automatically a concept and thus summarily excluded from existence. Only an object can possibly exist. Articles in language can only reference objects as subjects. If God is a concept, then this term cannot even be a subject in a sentence and cannot performs actions, like “create”. The foolhardy human who asserts God to be a concept has unwittingly excluded God from existence and summarily killed his own Religion.....and there are many who do this. We get it all here on the Planet of the Apes!

“This is granted in the entire Bible and all believers. ….God is Pure Act (Actus Purus).“

Again, irrelevant what each Religion or sect within it wants to make of the term “God”. Such opinions or tenets or dogma do not affect the reality of God in the least bit. God was an object with shape even before Adam & Eve were created on this planet to give an opinion about the Almighty…..and that’s all these petty humans have about the Almighty…OPINIONS! God grabs His beer and laughs at irrational human opinions….they really make His day! God only acknowledges what makes sense….rationality! All else is petty chest-beating ape OPINION.

“Opinions vary” – Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse 1989)

.

“Sure the Bible uses language to communicate God but strictly speaking God cannot be contained using language.”

Such a statement is irrational and is impossible to justify. Anything can be communicated with any language with crystal clarity and no ambiguity…..and God is no exception. It is the folly human who asserts such irrationalities he cannot defend in order to build a 2000 ft wall around his Religion so nobody can rain on his parade.

Even God’s language is comprised of objects & concepts. God relates objects in order conceive of concepts. Objects have shape regardless whether God had too many beers and agrees on the issue or not. God had shape before He waved His mighty arm to create Adam….for if He didn’t, He wouldn’t be able to perform the action “create”, much less exist!

Humans and other beings like us have the highest intelligence in the universe because we are able to conceive of concepts. Humans are just as intelligent as God is. God is no more intelligent than a human. I even wrote an article on this very issue and I justify it with the luxury of detail. The onus is on the naysayer to either justify his claim or otherwise contradict my article.

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENCE...

.

“The 'form' of God is the Three Persons”

That is an aggregate. You still don’t understand the difference between objects & concepts, form/shape and aggregates. There is only one form in any language:

http://hubpages.com/education/Physics-What-is-SHAP...


nicholashesed 3 years ago

you are right I am taking shortcuts. I should learn the whole object-concept-shape definitions better.

So I will and then explain it better and create a new category just for God. Lol!!!

But not tonight.


Jeremy 2 years ago

I am no philosopher but I wonder, are you conflating absolute TRUTH with absolute CERTAINTY? The former being a metaphysical notion, the latter a epistemological notion. It seems to me that there are mathematical TRUTHS that we can also be CERTAIN about.

Without absolute truth in some instances, wouldn't it just be like Alice's Wonderland around here?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Jeremy,

“are you conflating absolute TRUTH with absolute CERTAINTY?”

There is nothing to conflate. Any claim of “absolute” is contradictory from the get go. The concept of the Absolute was invented by Religionists. Philosophers swallowed this nonsense and contrasted it with its opposite, the concept of Relativism.

But since ALL concepts are relations, they necessarily fall under the category of Relativism. There is no concept that can possibly fall under the category of the Absolute. Why? Because the concept of the absolute is an oxymoron; like a square-circle or an infinite object. All these notions are contradictory ideas invented by human apes to push their Religion unto the masses.

Concept: a relation between objects

Since the concept of the Absolute necessitates “no relations”, this concept is indeed contradictory. Every single concept has relations. That’s what it means “to conceptualize”: to relate!

Anyone who claims an “absolute” is nothing but a hardcore Religionist who always runs with his tail between his legs when confronted with this simple analysis. Stefan Molyneux ran with his tail between his legs when I challenged him on this issue and offered to give him $10,000 USD if he can give a single example of an absolute. My God did the bald-headed clown run…..and run and run and run he did!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Jeremy,

“It seems to me that there are mathematical TRUTHS that we can also be CERTAIN about.”

You need to do some reading here to really understand what Mathematics is all about. Check out my article on logic. Math is a Formal System of Logic. Here’s what one expert (that didn’t commit suicide) of Math had to say:

“Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” - Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell, the expert Mathematician of our modern era spent his whole life trying to prove that Mathematics is founded in truth, certainty and reality. He along with Cantor found contradictions in formal logic itself, including Math. Russell succumbed to depression and almost lost his mind when he failed to show that Mathematics is absolute. Suddenly the problem became serious and their world collapsed because now they have the situation where TRUTH & PROOF = OPINION and Absolute = nonsense!

You should watch the “Dangerous Knowledge” documentary on Math, truth and certainty….where all the famous mathematicians Gödel, Cantor, Turing, and Boltzmann went insane, institutionalized in the Looney Asylum…. and committed suicide trying to prove that Math has to do truth, absolutes and certainty. This is the best kept DIRTY LITTLE SECRET of Mathematics that nobody wants you to know…..not even a PhD of Math knows about this. Just go to any University and ask any Math Professor about this……they haven’t a clue!! That’s why they come here by the bushel to parrot the party line that math is absolute. Funny!


KaNdy 2 years ago

I got one for them:

Q: "Is it absolutely true that truth is absolute?"

A: "Well of course!"

Q: "So then it's ABSOLUTELY true you are beating your wife!?"

A: "What? No!"

Q: "But you said truth is absolute? Wouldn't that mean since it is true in one possible world that you are beating your, it's true in all possible worlds, all times, all places, every condition, and every qualification conceivable by anyone? Geez, why do you be your wife so much?"


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Isn't it funny KaNdy? When their linguistic/sophistic tricks are exposed they run with their tails between their legs. None of the parrots of absolute truth can ever justify their dead cause. But they continue to irrationally defend it.....much like trying to defend a square-circle.


Benny 2 years ago

This guy is an intellectual bozo.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

You can say that again, Benny. Imagine the kind of bozo that would believe in absolutes. Especially when belief has nothing to do with reality and the term 'absolute' is an oxymoron. I'm glad you noticed the double contradiction, Benny!


Judge Death 2 years ago

Absolute truths are those things that cannot NOT be true, like existence. You are making absolute statements about reality. How can you possibly claim square-circles CANNOT exist and then insult people who hold this as absolutely true?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Judge,

“Absolute truths are those things that cannot NOT be true, like existence”

Things are not true. Things are not amenable to truth. Truth is a concept of empirical verification using the extremely limited human sensory system. Truth requires a human to make a true/false decision based on his senses. His neighbor’s senses will give a different result. Hence truth is subjective.

A thing is objective all on its own without a human. The Earth was a thing before humans arrived to give their petty irrelevant opinions on the issue. A thing can only be DEFINED by a human….never ‘truthed’.

Thing: that which has shape; synonym: object, something, entity, particle, etc.

The Earth had shape before a petty human came along to give his true/false opinion on the issue.

.

It follows that existence isn’t amenable to truth either. The Earth existed before humans arrived to give their petty irrelevant opinions on the issue. Existence can only be DEFINED by a human….never ‘truthed’.

Exist: object with location

The Earth was an object with location before a petty human came along to give his true/false opinion on the issue. Hence the Earth passed the criteria for existence with flying colors all on its own....without any 'truthers' being present!

.

“You are making absolute statements about reality.”

Impossible! There are NO absolute statements! You should take a Philosophy 101 course and learn what the term ABSOLUTE means before making self-refuting statements and embarrassing yourself in public.

Absolute in Philosophy: A concept regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else; that which is totally unconditioned or without relations. Philosophy contrasts the Absolute with the ‘Relative’ which necessarily has relations or dependencies to other things.

A ‘statement’ is a CONCEPT. All concepts embody relations to a minimum of TWO other things. Concepts embody dependencies and hence are necessarily RELATIVE!

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

Since all statements are concepts, they are necessarily RELATIONS and hence IMPOSSIBLE to be absolute! Got it?

Your “absolute statements” CLAIM resolves to “an absolute relative”, which is an oxymoron or a contradiction. That’s why your CLAIM is self-refuting!

.

“insult people who hold this as absolutely true”

Indeed, I do….and I will do it more often. Thank you for making the suggestion! I truly value feedback from my commentators and I try to implement it where possible.

From now on, I will follow your suggestion and I will make sure to insult those brain-dead impotent clowns that come here to PRETEND to have an education in introductory Philosophy 101, but haven’t ever heard of or studied the antagonistic concepts of “Absolute & Relative”.

Again, thank you kindly for your suggestion!


Judge Death 2 years ago

"Things" was just shorthand. I honestly did not expect that level of pedantry. That definition of "absolute" in philosophy may be useful in certain contexts but not here. A statement like "I exist" is absolutely true.

You exist. That's absolutely true.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“That definition of "absolute" in philosophy may be useful in certain contexts”

Special Pleading Fallacy + Fallacy of Equivocation!

There is only ONE definition of the term Absolute in Philosophy. In Philosophy, the term absolute means “without relations”. This is a discussion about Philosophy, since YOU specifically invoke truth.

There are NO absolute truths as any such claim of absolutes is self-refuting….contradictory! This is an OBJECTIVE issue that has been justified. The fact that it pains you and you’d like to invoke all the Fallacies in the book in order to dodge it, is subjective and irrelevant.

Go take an intro course in Philosophy 101.

.

“level of pedantry”

All terms have precise objective meanings that can’t be contradicted. This is how humans communicate. They don’t change definitions on the fly like Religionists do whenever it suits their argument. How convenient for a Religionist like you! If you can’t DEFINE a term objectively, you have NO business using it in a sentence…..much less in a mission critical academic discussion.

.

“You exist. That's absolutely true.”

Nope! You can’t prove that!

The fat person you were talking to previously and directed this statement towards was just shot by me and his body was melted in acid. I’ve just stolen his laptop. So it’s not true that he exists, much less absolutely true.

That dead fat dude was right….there are no absolute truths since you are incapable of proving one for the audience that is getting entertained by your ignorance.

Remember what the fat dude said: existence has nothing to do with truth. An object exists if it passes the criteria of shape and location with flying colors….irrespective of any OBSERVER using their limited 5 senses to declare truths.

God I love these discussions that fat sucker was engaged in!


Judge Death 2 years ago

Okay so all terms have a single precise objective meanings that can never be contradicted? That's silly. A word like "thing" can be a very broad term .

I proved "you exist". You had to exist then or now.

I know you can wiggle out of with time-wasting sophistry and equivocate with the various senses of "you exist" but it doesn't matter because YOU know. It is absolutely true you exist (whomever you are).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“Okay so all terms have a single precise objective meanings that can never be contradicted? That's silly.”

Agree 100%!!!

It is indeed silly to say that just because somebody defined a term it can “NEVER” be contradicted. If the term defined embodies any contradictions…..well….that can be EASILY shown and identified by someone like YOU who supposedly has a BRAIN that can THINK and REASON, right??

A definition is OBJECTIVE if it cannot be contradicted, is rational, it can be used consistently and doesn’t equivocate. Take a basic course in Linguistics & Grammar 101.

“I proved "you exist". You had to exist then or now.”

No you didn’t. You can’t even read what is posted to you, much less prove. That’s why you are here trolling. This is getting boring and I will not keep repeating myself much more…..so PAY ATTENTION:

The fat dude, existED….I killed him and melted his body in acid. He doesn’t exist anymore. Now you are talking to the theif who stole his laptop and taking over his account with these fascinating articles. You cannot not prove that he exists because he doesn’t. Got it, Bimbo Judge?

You haven’t proven jack friggin’ squat!!

.

“It is absolutely true you exist (whomever you are)”

Hey Judge…..that thief you were just talking to no longer exists. I’m one of his buddies from the hood who just loves his new laptop and I had to have it. So I killed him and melted his body in acid. So yeah…..you are dead wrong…..he doesn’t exist, whomever he was to you!

You are much dumber than you look, Judge. I am going to have some fun taking over this account.

"I know you can wiggle out of with time-wasting sophistry"

Actually, you can't wiggle out of anything. Anything you say is contradicted and CANNOT be proven by you.


Judge Death 2 years ago

A term like "thing" can have a very broad meaning. You stated it must have a single precise meaning and a "thing" can never be truth apt. This is just pedantry as a thing can refer to something that is truth apt.

All your claims of being a new person and how that fat dude "ExistED" (if he existed then the statement was absolutely true) are further examples of your excruciating pedantry. You exploit ambiguities in language and subtly tweak the meanings of statements. I can't stop to add a million caveats but it doesn't matter.

You know it's absolutely true you exist. That's all that's necessary.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“A term like "thing" can have a very broad meaning.”

Only in Religion! What you are attempting to do with words in order to CATER them to YOUR argument and WIN every argument under the Sun unethically just for the sake of winning…..is called: Fallacy of Equivocation.

Wiki: “Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense”

You are a COWARD with NO arguments who is here to MISLEAD the audience for the sake of making an unethical presentation by equivocating to win a contradictory argument…..just so you can win for win’s sake.

Words only have single precise meanings in the topic of discussion, which happens to be Philosophy here. And if the meaning of the term can be contradicted, then it is automatically thrown out. Fair!

.

“All your claims of being a new person….”

….are POSSIBILITIES which YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DISPROVE!!!!

This has finally sunk into your thick skull and that’s why you are so desperate and sick to your stomach. Never before in your life have you witnessed such an exchange where you cannot prove anything because your bullshit is exposed with arguments and scenarios that contradict your statements.

.

LISTEN UP: The fat dude with the big mouth is dead….and so is the guy who stole his laptop. What we have here are 2 idiots that are missing in action and they don’t exist because both their bodies were melted in ACID and poured down the drain. This is why you can’t prove their existence.

I am now in charge of the fat dude’s laptop and I am stealing the show and making bimbo’s like you look like idiots. And I’m luving it!


Judge Death 2 years ago

What, I'm unethical now? Don't talk shit.

"Thing" having a broad meaning is true. It's a fact. People commonly use "thing" to refer to everything from concepts to physical objects to emotions. If you have common sense you can see that I was not using "thing" is the sense you claimed I was (objects).

It doesn't matter if i can prove our disprove your claims of being a new person. You exist. You know this to be absolutely true.

Even if you're replaced every instance with an exact copy the statement you exist still holds because there was a you that existed and my statement "you exist" includes all such possibilities.

Your position is preposterous. It is absolutely true you exist.

I would recommend you examine the roots of your fear of absolutes. In my experience they's always come from our childhood. Parents can force so many contradictions on us that our brain's adapt to it and start rejecting absolutes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Repeating claims which have been contradicted multiple times is not an argument. Go read up on Philosophy 101 to understand what truth, proof and Absolute vs Relative is. Your trolling is over!


Judge Death 2 years ago

You are a relativist crack-pot.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“You are a relativist crack-pot”

I belong to neither the Religion of Absolutism nor the Religion of Relativism. The former is contradictory and the latter is subjective …..LOL, as all Religions are….Ha!

The crack-pot is the pusher of Truth. He is no different than the Drug pusher in the school yard…and has all the same emotional subjective arguments to boot. But the clowns who come here unread, uneducated and unprepared...are too busy treading water to stay alive instead of understanding the Academic issues underlying these articles.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...


Judge Death 2 years ago

Compared to you I probably am under-educated, unread and unprepared but you're still full of shit.

You exist. That's absolutely true.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

You haven't provided any proof that "I" exist....whomever "I" is you don't say (the fat dude, the thief, the homeboy, etc) because you have no proof, just assertions. I mean, you have no sensory data (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch) to prove that anybody exists, much less yourself. You don't even know what it means to exist. So what are you going to prove? Ha ha! That's why you've been running around with your head cut off trying to grasp at straws and stay afloat. Typical of Religionists. When they come here they have the shock of their lives.

But like I said, your trolling is over. Goodbye!


Judge Death 2 years ago

Bye loon.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

Ha hA! Then he sticks his head up his ass and disappears:

http://www.bhwservers.com/monkemind/headupass.jpg


Ces 2 years ago

Fatfist, help me to wrap my head around this please.

When someone says "that which exists has attributes and a nature" , could you explain how this is not absolutely true?

Or if I were to say " something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time". Is that not absolutely true?

And lastly " something cannot bring itself into existence". Since in order for something to bring itself into existence it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes it already has existence.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to you response


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“When someone says "that which exists has attributes and a nature" , could you explain how this is not absolutely true?”

Irrelevant TRICK QUESTION meant to impress upon the gullible idiotic pushovers in the audience. Too many idiots and not enough thinkers on this planet. Before you ask me or anyone any question about truth, you need to stop for a sec and ask yourself: WHAT IS TRUTH?

I mean, this is the KEY TERM for which all your questions depend upon. This is what makes or breaks your line of questioning irrespective of any other question you ask about existence, attributes, etc. Those questions are irrelevant and totally meaningless unless you define TRUTH for the audience.

I mean, when you come to the Philosophy Conference and stand up on the podium and handed the microphone….you had better define objectively and consistently what your elusive term TRUTH means. If you can’t….then the audience will BOOOOO you….throw eggs at you….storm onto the stage, attack you, wrestle you to the ground, remove your clothes, hog tie you, hang you upside down from the ceiling and everyone will take turns whipping your pasty white anemic buttocks with their belts. This is what honest humans do to Snake Oil Salesmen whose main objective is to deceive humanity. Understand?

So…..what is TRUTH?

The word “truth” is a concept that has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.

But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labeled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.

Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?

A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and dark energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the authority you worship managed to convince you to believe his statements.

For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself.

Remember: TRUTH = OPINION.

Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience:

1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide?

2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!!

Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or is it because you don’t know? Just be honest with yourself.

The word truth always resolves to an OPINION. So why would you ask me about MY personal opinion to those questions you asked? Nobody really cares about people’s opinions. We only care about what is rational….not what is opined.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 2 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist is and idiot and so is his follower monkeyminds. Science has proved that we live in a 2d hologram.

If the universe is infinity that means it does not have dimension according to fatfist. If we can give the universe dimensions does it mean it does not exist Mr Fatfist.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 2 years ago

Fatfist is the only one I see making any sense. lol


Rohit 23 months ago

We all need these words every now and then! I often say the serenity preayr to myself:God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. Change the things I can. And the wisdom to know the difference.Hope you're having a wonderful week!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 23 months ago Author

You have a great week too, Rohit.


Maxence 23 months ago

It's taken me a lot longer than it sholud have, but I know these words are true. There is only so much you can control. Work hard, live righteously and then be happy with everything that comes.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working