ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

There are NO Absolutes. There is NO Absolute Truth!

Updated on January 25, 2015
Asking a charismatic cult leader to define his terms is extremely bad for business! The zombies who blindly empty their pockets for him may be tempted to wake up when their leader is clueless. Please don't wake up....just give him more money!
Asking a charismatic cult leader to define his terms is extremely bad for business! The zombies who blindly empty their pockets for him may be tempted to wake up when their leader is clueless. Please don't wake up....just give him more money!
ASK YOURSELF THIS: Does your Cult Leader possess Absolute Truth? How can your personal con artist claim to have an absolute truth when no Philosopher in the past 5000 years has been able to conceive of one??
ASK YOURSELF THIS: Does your Cult Leader possess Absolute Truth? How can your personal con artist claim to have an absolute truth when no Philosopher in the past 5000 years has been able to conceive of one??

INTRODUCTION

Some people may be surprised to discover tons of self-professed Messiahs of Philosophy on the Internet, especially on YouTube. What is not surprising is that almost none of them have bothered to educate themselves on the 2500-year-old Philosophical concept called the “absolute”. These Priests of Philosophy have no qualms about claiming that there are “absolutes” or “absolute truth”. What kills their claims is that they cannot define the key words that make or break their argument: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’. They are merely parroting what they heard from the grapevine:


“ummm, duh,....are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? See, gotcha....there are absolutes. Also, that there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. Ha ha, gotcha again, I win!”


These Priests of Philosophy are quick to break out the bottle of champagne in celebration of the argument which they won in their own mind. But, they are quite embarrassed when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to define “absolute” and “truth”. What is funnier is that they cannot even give a single example of a statement which resolves to absolute truth.

And more embarrassing for them is that their silly childish questions are not even arguments....THEY ARE TRICKS! These trick questions have a very simple ANTIDOTE. Click on this link to see their tricks exposed:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/ABSOLUTE-TRUTH-Is-it-Absolute-True-there-are-NO-Absolute-Truths


This article exposes the Religion of The Absolute. You will understand why the "absolute" is the Hallmark of Religion and the Opium of Fanatics. We will explain why the word “absolute” ultimately resolves as a synonym of the word RELATIVE. Furthermore, you will understand why these Priests of Philosophy don’t want you to read this article and understand the critical analytical issues behind the words “absolute” and “truth”. Your ignorance is their blessing. After all, they have surreptitiously fooled you into having FAITH in absolutes; so they do deserve some credit.



WHAT IS TRUTH?

The word “truth” is a concept which 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 unwittingly 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 labelled 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 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 Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box.

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 because you don’t know? Be honest with yourself.



WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTE?

The term “absolute” is a Philosophical concept which has had a standard meaning since its first human conception. This article uses the standard Philosophical meaning of the “absolute”. Let’s have a quick look at the standard Philosophical definition and usage of this word in the past 2500 years by citing some references. Note that this is not an argument from authority, as this article does NOT use these references to justify any argument. These references are simply used to justify the CONTEXT of what this article is about; i.e. the standard Philosophical concept of the “absolute”.


Oxford Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: A value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.”


The Free Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.”


Collins Dictionary:

“Absolute in Philosophy: that which is totally unconditioned.”


New World Encyclopedia:

Absolute in Philosophy: The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense.”


Wikipedia:

Absolute in Philosophy: The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.


NOTE:

When the term ‘absolute’ qualifies another term (like truth) it decrees that term to be free from any relations, dependencies or restrictions. “Unconditional” and “without relations” means that the qualified term must necessarily be applicable to EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! An absolute has no constraints on time, places, people or any other concepts or objects.



From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

“In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.”

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner



From New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolute_(philosophy)

“Greek philosophers did not explicitly elaborate on the absolute, but, the idea of an ultimate principle drove their inquiries forward. In addition, while medieval philosophers did not use the term absolute, their thoughts on God were the first explicit elaborations on the absolute. Major philosophers who have dealt with the Absolute include the German Idealists such as Schelling, Kant, and Hegel, and British philosophers such as Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton, Bernard Bosanquet, Francis Bradley, and Thomas Hill Green, and American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce.”

“Plato identified the good, which he characterized as permanently existing by itself in the incorporeal world, as the ultimate principle. The good, for Plato, was the absolute. Its goodness was, he argued, established by itself without recourse to any other thing whatsoever.”

“Aristotle placed a study of god (theology) as the first philosophy for the reason that it deals with the “unmoved mover” of all phenomenal. For Aristotle, the ultimate principle [absolute] had to be that which is unconditional and independent, which has no prior condition whatsoever.”

“Absolute means by definition a negation of relativity.”

“When the term absolute is applied to existence, the absolute can be understood as a being whose essence is existence. If the existence of a being is dependent on others, it cannot be absolute. Hence, God was characterized as a unique being whose essence is existence. Anselm of Canterbury used this argument for his Ontological argument for the existence of God.”

So in this context, when the term ‘absolute’ is applied to existence it means ETERNAL. For one to say that “my car exists is absolutely true”....one would have to argue that their car existed eternally. This leads to contradictions. We will see later that “absolute truth” is the Hallmark of Religion because it is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH by definition.


“The term absolute denotes whatever is free from any condition or restriction, and independent from any other element or factor. As with other concepts such as infinite, perfection, eternity, and others, absolute can be articulated only by negating finite concepts.

“German philosophers after Kant such as Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, known as the German idealists, returned to speculative metaphysics and developed various theories based upon their understanding of the absolute. The concept of absoluteness was then adopted into a neo-Hegelian British idealism, where it received an almost mystical exposition at the hands of F.H. Bradley. Bradley (followed by others including Timothy L.S. Sprigge) conceived the absolute as a single all-encompassing experience, along the lines of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta. Likewise, Josiah Roycein the United States conceived the absolute as a unitary Knower whose experience constitutes what we know as the ‘external’ world.”

“As with Spinoza, Hegel attempted to explain the creation of the world without the notion of creation. Hegel developed a pantheistic concept of the absolute and its relationship with the phenomenal world.”

“As in German idealism, the question of absolute/relative is also intertwined with questions of transcendence and immanence.”

For example, Matt Slick of CARM.org blindly asserts that “Logical Absolutes” (a term invented by him) are concepts which transcend space and time.



PHILOSOPHERS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR ABSOLUTES FOR THE PAST 2500 YEARS!!!

Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible, so there can be no absolute truth to be known. He writes...

“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human

“I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’, like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself,’ contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16).


Even Ludwig Wittgenstein came to the realization later in his life that there are no absolute truths. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche destroyed the notion that humans can ever determine a proposition as being certain in reality or absolute.

In his agonized search to find an absolute, Bertrand Russell crossed paths with legendary Philosophers like Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. But Russell’s most ambitious goal (to establish absolute logical foundations of mathematics) eluded him for the rest of his life. Russell persisted in this fruitless mission (to show that math is absolute) until it threatened to claim both his career and his personal happiness. Russell was so ignorant as to what exactly this God-like term, the “absolute”, entailed....that his relentless pursuit for the absolute finally drove him to the brink of insanity. Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann had the same experience as Russell, but it drove them to commit suicide.


NOTE: The reader is encouraged to watch the “Dangerous Knowledge” video series on YouTube in order understand the intellectual failures that Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann experienced during their pursuit of the “absolute”. It drove them to insanity and suicide....and yet we have Priests on the Internet this very second who preach that they KNOW of "absolute truth". If the Priests of today have "absolute truth", then Russell, Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann must have been babbling idiots, right??



WHAT IS “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?

As we have seen, the “absolute” in Philosophy has been conceived by humans to refer that that which is independent, permanent and not subject to any kind of observer, restriction, condition, qualification or relation. It is the antonym of the Philosophical term, the “relative”, which necessitates observers, dependencies, restrictions, references and relations.

So when we put the qualifier of “absolute” in front of the word “truth”,....as in “absolute truth”.... we are actually qualifying the concept of “truth” by necessitating that it is valid in every possible circumstance. This follows directly from the definition of the “absolute”.


Q: So what does “absolute truth” mean?

A: This is an easy question to answer. Just combine these two words and grammatically apply the Philosophical qualification of the “absolute”.


An absolute truth, is a “truth” stemming from a proposition which is VALIDATED by an observer to be TRUE in every possible circumstance. i.e. this proposition is validated to be necessarily TRUE irrespective of any kind of dependency, restriction, qualification or relation which can be conceived by anyone. For...if anyone can conceive of any circumstance in which the proposition is not true, then just what the hell makes it absolute??


So these are the analytical definitions which make all the Absolute Truthers out there run away! It is these issues which make or break a Priest’s insatiable claim that “there are absolutes”. If those Priests, who erroneously call themselves “Philosophers”, had a basic introduction to Philosophy 101, they would understand the Philosophical and analytical ramifications behind the formidable words: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’.

Ignorance is never an excuse. To refuse to acknowledge the Philosophical History behind the “absolute”, and to refuse to concede that they did NOT do their homework on the issue.....well....that is just childish....this is intellectual dishonesty. This is called FRAUD! Nobody should ever mistake these Priests for Philosophers. A real Philosopher can DEFINE the key terms in their argument, and provide a non-contradictory explanation to JUSTIFY their argument.

Ask yourself this: Can YOU justify your argument without contradictions when it comes to asserting absolute truth?

If not, then you are nothing but a Priest. Only Priests make unfounded assertions and have no rational argument to justify them.




WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TRUTH” AND “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?

Contrary to what is claimed by the ignorant, all truth is not absolute. There are two different categories conceived by humans:


Truth: This is your regular plain-Jane vanilla “truth”. It is a STATIC truth which must be validated at a cross-section in time; at “this” instant (i.e. now). Suppose you showcase your "already-validated" truth proposition to an audience who doesn’t believe your alleged “truth”. Then your only option is to re-validate your proposition as "true" in front of a live audience and convince them right there and then!


Absolute Truth: An ETERNAL truth which is alleged to be “true forever and ever, Amen!” Absolute truth necessarily needs to be validated for every possible circumstance because it has no restrictions. If at this point you refuse to understand why absolute truth is the Hallmark of Religion, then you obviously have your own Religion to protect....sorry!





WHY ARE ABSOLUTES AND ABSOLUTE TRUTHS IMPOSSIBLE?

Because both the concepts of “absolute” and “truth” are self-refuting BY DEFINITION. They faithfully assert and promise what they cannot deliver. They are contradictory. A contradiction always shows what is impossible. The "absolute" self-refutes itself in 3 crucial categories as explained below:

1) Conception.

2) Definition.

3) Validation.


Since the “absolute” is a concept that is decreed to be free from restriction or condition, it follows that it must NOT have any relations. Otherwise it will be relative to something and not absolute. So any attempt at a definition refutes it!


Q: Why?

A: Because a concept is a RELATION.

Concept: A relation between two or more objects.


It takes a human observer to establish relations. Relations don’t get magically self-conceived from the void. God doesn’t wave his magic wand and establish conceptual relations in outer space.

You see, the proponent of the word “absolute” is saying to the audience that this word is supposed to conceptualize “that which has no relations”. That is, an “absolute” implies a stand-alone concept which is free from any relation/dependency or restriction. On the other hand, that which has relations is said to be “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, 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 “klamokaptica” as a stand-alone word; i.e. without relating it to something else for the purposes of giving it meaning and contextual resolution. It would be very foolish of God to claim that He understands what it means. Not even God can fool anyone with such claims.

All concepts are necessarily RELATIVE to at least 2 “somethings/nouns”, whether they are objects or other concepts. Without first establishing a relation (i.e. a restrictive point of reference), we cannot even conceive of a concept or even hope to impose a meaning to it.

As a concept, the word “absolute” is necessarily dependent on an observer-established RELATION between two or more objects. Only what is RELATIVE can be subject to RELATIONS. And anything “observer-established” is always “relative” (as opposed to absolute). What is declared as “absolute” should have NO dependencies to established relations. But the concept of “absolute” does have these imposed restrictions! Therefore the “absolute” is a self-refuting (contradictory) concept. It cannot even be conceptualized. It is only dogmatically decreed to be what it is CLAIMED to be. The “absolute” is an impossible concept because it necessarily has conditions/dependencies/relations, ....even though its proponents CLAIM that it doesn’t. This is clearly dishonest because it fools so many people who aren’t able to subject it to a rigorous analysis.

Obviously, the word “absolute” cannot be defined in no ambiguous terms, much less be used consistently in any context. It is impossible to objectively define any word which is free from relations to something else.


Q: What is the reason why any attempted definition of “absolute” is really NOT a definition?

A: For many reasons; some of which are:

1) As explained above, the concept of “absolute” and its context are necessarily dependent of relations.

2) In its attempted definition, the “absolute” is NEGATIVELY predicated. What is negative is always in RELATION to its opposite. So we already have established a relation to something whether we like it or not. Furthermore, it is impossible for negative predicated sentences to describe or define anything. As such, they are meaningless. Only definitions which are predicated in the positive sense can convey a specific meaning. For example: To say your car is not red, you aren’t describing what color your car is. Justice and the number 7 are not red either. Any word you can imagine can be said to be not red and the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. But it is not CONTEXTUALLY correct because it has not attributed anything specific to the subject; i.e. it has no meaning! Other attempted definitions for “absolute” contain negated synonyms. Synonyms, whether negated or not, are NOT definitions. Synonyms are labels which are repetitive; i.e. rhetorical. They convey no meaning.

3) The “absolute” is one of those peculiar contradictory concepts which imply eternity. Why? Because what is said to be absolute is not restricted to any particular time frame. So to claim that a proposition is absolute is to claim that said proposition can be validated to be the case for all of eternity....forever in the past and forever in the future. This is impossible.


So when a dictionary, like Oxford for example, claims that an absolute is a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things”....then it is contradicting itself. Sure, a person may “regard” or “believe” it to be without relation to other things, but belief doesn’t make it so. In fact, it is impossible because ALL concepts are relations!

Obviously, the proponents of the “absolute” have not given this God-like word any thought, much less any basic analysis. No wonder they parrot this word without even understanding its underlying contradictions.


Q: If it is impossible to conceive of the “absolute” or even define it, then how can anyone possibly validate and resolve something as being absolute? I mean, they don’t even know or understand what an “absolute” is.....so how can they possibly validate an absolute?

A: They can’t! Absolutes are impossible. Now you understand why Priests and Pop-Philosophers run and hide when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to DEFINE “absolute” in no ambiguous terms. Only a dishonest person will refuse to define and justify their argument, or even refuse to concede they were ignorant on the issue.


When we combine the words ABSOLUTE + TRUTH, it is clearly evident that:

a) We are combining two words which are both concepts, and hence, relations. So what we end up with is a concept which is necessarily NOT free from relation. Whenever we use “absolute truth” in a proposition, we are tacitly ascribing relativity to that proposition.

b) We are qualifying the relation TRUTH with the contradictory qualifier ABSOLUTE. We are attempting to impose an impossible attribute or qualifier to “truth”. But the word “truth” is necessarily relational because it invokes an observer who is required to VALIDATE a proposition before he can declare it as “true”. So, what does the qualifier “absolute” demand from an observer’s validation of “truth”? See (c).

c) It is impossible for anyone to validate a proposition in such a way as to show that it is universally valid and WITHOUT relations i.e. valid for EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! It is impossible for a person to validate a proposition to be free from restrictions related to time, to place or to any person (observer). Just how do you propose we can do this? Just how do you propose we can justify a proposition as being “absolute truth”? Do we just have FAITH that it is so? Do we believe a Pop-Philosopher on YouTube who unwittingly claims it to be so? Do we ask our Priest to bless it and make it so? Do we ask God to intervene and force it to be so? I didn’t see your answer to any of these questions!


These are the tough analytical issues that the proponent of “absolute truth” has to understand and explain to the audience. The audience demands objectivity! The audience demands a rational explanation of WHY an alleged statement of “absolute truth”, actually is “as-advertised”. If the proponent cannot demonstrate this to the audience.....if he cannot justify how he VALIDATED such an alleged “absolute” statement to be true in every possible circumstance....then the proponent of “absolute truth” is a snake-oil salesman....a liar, a con-artist. And he should be exposed accordingly!

The proponent of “absolute truth” cannot expect to fool everyone with his bankrupt concept of truth. He certainly cannot fool any intelligent person with his sleight-of-hand tricks. Oh, but he tries....he easily fools those intellectually lazy folks who never bother to critically analyse claims these days. Most people are very comfortable to be spoon-fed everything without questioning it. They have no problem swallowing any claim on faith, including claims of “absolute truth”....as long as it comes from an alleged authority. How sweet is that?


So, what do we objectively have before us after this critical analysis of “absolute truth”?

1. We have rationally demonstrated that the word ABSOLUTE actually resolves to none other than the word RELATIVE when subjected to critical analysis.

2. We have rationally demonstrated that the word TRUTH actually resolves to none other than the word OPINION when subjected to critical analysis.

ABSOLUTE TRUTH objectively resolves to none other than RELATIVE OPINION.




ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

'Absolute', 'truth', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, etc. are just words in language. We must define them objectively (without synonyms or negative predication) to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory. “Absolute” in Philosophy means independent, permanent, observer-less and not subject to qualification or relation. “Relative” means subject to RELATION(S), dependent on circumstances, context or an observer’s point-of-view. The “absolute” is FAITHFULLY DECREED by Religionists and Pop-Philosophers to be free from relations, circumstances or points of view. The “absolute” is a self-refuting concept because it is dependent on relations, even though it is unwittingly decreed to be relation-free by its proponents.

We already hear the Priests and Pop-Philosophers retorting: “YOU ARE IMPOSING AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD ON THE WORD ABSOLUTE! You are creating an impossible case to prop your argument.”

No! Such accusations are strawmen. These dishonest individuals do not wish to concede defeat. They can’t afford to because it’s embarrassing. The word “absolute” had this standard contradictory meaning imposed on it during its conception, over 2500 years ago. Again, the Priest who acts like a Philosopher needs to educate himself before using strawman arguments to obfuscate his ignorance from the audience. A Philosopher is expected to be an honest, educated, intelligent and rational individual who can grab the bull by the horns and justify his argument for the audience. So-called “Philosophers” who FAITHFULLY DECREE absolutes are not intellectuals. They either need to educate themselves on the definition of “absolute”, or stop lying to the audience....there is no other option!

Any critical thinker can reason and explain why the "absolute" is an irrational and impossible concept. It has enjoyed a faithful, ambiguous and contradictory “rhetorical definition” for the past 2500 years. And this is because most people have not been exposed to the rigorous analysis presented in this article. And even if they are, some will simply ignore it because it destroys their Religion! It's time to bury this faithful nonsensical term. Ignorance is not an excuse. Sophistry and lies will not be tolerated in academia.




ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS THE HALLMARK OF RELIGION

All you have to do is just Google “absolute truth” to begin to get an idea of the cesspool that you are dealing with here. It is not a pretty sight. There is tons of alleged ABSOLUTE TRUTH out there and everybody and their brother seems to have it.....from Religionists like Pat Robertson, Matt Slick.....to atheists like Matt Dillahunty.....to Mathematicians like Stephen Hawking, Godel, Cantor, Turing.....to Philosophers like Bertrand Russell, F.H. Bradley, Ayn Rand.....to self-proclaimed Philosophers like Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio,....etc. But all you have to do is ask any of these Priests to define “absolute truth” or even give a single example of one, and they will run away from the argument with their tails between their legs.

What do all these people and their contradictory doctrines have in common? They are all divorced from reality! Irrespective of whether they call themselves Philosopher, Free-Thinker, theist, atheist or agnostic....there is no difference. They have FAITH in contradictory absolutes, but have no argument to justify their incessant fetish in the “absolute”. What they do have though, is a Religion built around the “absolute”, just like Christianity does.

Ever since Religionists usurped the title of “Philosopher” at the dawn of Christian Apologetics, many people came on board and in-tune with this “Philosophy” (for lack of a better word). Today we have a situation where Atheistic and Theistic Philosophers alike only disagree on the concept of “God”, but are in complete agreement on most other issues....including “absolute truth” and creation. Absolute truth is an impossible concept which was initially conceived by Religionists. They refer to their Bibles and scriptures as the Absolute Truth which was handed to them by God. And rightfully so, because an “absolute truth” is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH (has no limitations and is not subject to time) which is true forever and ever, amen! God is alleged to be eternal, and so is His “truth”.

Atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE that they have access to an absolute truth, but without a God. Atheists will unwittingly claim that “2+2=4” is an Absolute Truth! Meanwhile, they are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that Bertrand Russell (Philosopher & Mathematician Extraordinaire) spent his whole life trying to prove that Mathematics is absolute. So did Godel, Cantor, Turing, Boltzmann and others to no avail. Most of them went insane, were institutionalized and committed suicide.

Both theists and atheists alike are oblivious to the fact that any alleged absolute is self-refuting and impossible. Even their High Priests, like Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, etc. haven’t been able to justify anything as absolute.



WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

The word “absolute” is conceptually no different than the word “marriedbachelor”. They are both contradictions.

We have rationally explained why: ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!

It is very clear that the Internet Personas who profess the doctrine of the “absolute” are ignorant on the Philosophical issue and its ramifications. They are not critical thinkers. They don’t understand the topic nor the arguments that have been revolving around this term for thousands of years. Since the Greeks conceived of it over 2500 years ago, Philosophers have been struggling to this day to demonstrate or "prove" a single absolute. This is profound.

If not a single Philosopher in the past 2500 years has been able to demonstrate or justify a SINGLE absolute, .....then what makes these clowns on the Internet today think that they are blessed with the gift of the “absolute”?

I don't mind to educate people on the basics of Philosophy 101, but at least they should have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are clueless on the issues of the “absolute”. Instead, they are stubborn and blindly march forward as if nothing so they don’t tarnish their reputation and Internet Persona. This is why they run away when a member of the audience stands up and asks the tough question: “Can you please define your God-like terms: absolute & truth?”

Any intelligent person, who claims there are absolutes, should have no problem justifying their claim with a non-contradictory definition of their term, followed by an example of an absolute.

Any takers??

Obviously not!

@12:04: "You cannot empirically validate a concept [like absolute truth]. It doesn't exist!" - Stefan Molyneux

A Messiah of Philosophy: STEFAN MOLYNEUX

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Time's up, Tim!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    @ Tim and other potato-heads like him, let me perfectly BLUNT...

    I am NOT interested in your opinions, emotions, subjectivities or other vacuous comments about the depressed, mentally ill, bipolar, OCD, delusional and virtual existence you inherited from your family, social predicament, your Pastor or from watching FOX News.

    This is a SCIENCE forum and your participation hinges on your Scientific refutation of this article which sets eternal flames to your hiney. You have 6 hours to post such a refutation.

    Please know that HOW & WHEN you respond to this rather critical issue will dictate your continued presence in this forum.

    I will look forward to either your rational & Scientific response to the above issue or your swift departure from here.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    My sweet & copper toxic RS Kneip,

    I am quite the predictor of the future. Even Nostradamus ain't got nuttin' on me! I gave TONS and TONS and TONS of opportunities to your to refute this article and wipe the floor with my face.....you failed miserably. I mean, I was begging you and you didn't even try for you are shooting blanks.

    So you concede that you can't cut & paste where YOU refuted this article's refutation of absolute truth....and then post how the FATMAN misrepresented your refutation. Trolls are fun to play with...but one thing people don't tolerate is LIARS. Your lying tirades are over.

    Have fun with your mental therapy sessions from yourself to yourself....just like all the other insane asylum patients did before you. You might want to read the essays of other mental patients and their experience here for pointers on how to talk to yourself. Bye!

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 2 years ago from US

    My dear Fatfits,

    Done throwing a fit? Good for you. :-)

    At some point in your life you will learn that insults and yelling and ripping on others doesn't help you at all. It is painfully obvious you feel you have to do so to give impetus to your arguments and intimidate others to think you know what you are talking about.

    Anyone with half a brain knows that only fools and insecure idiots act like you do when their theories are challenged.

    Adequate, confident people never resort to ad hominem argumentation because they don't need to. If someone challenges them they either contradict the challenge or stand corrected. You do neither.

    Here is an excerpt from your answer (and yes I promise I didn't edit it...like you assert is impossible)

    "...posting an honest, simple and DIRECT answer to my question on absolute truth: either contradict this article or post one…just ONE absolute truth for the audience to see."

    There, in your own words you ask for an absolute truth. This you will find on MY PAGE.

    So sorry Fatfits, but you won't be able to leave my responses out of comments. However, ALL of your comments I will post because I don't cheat to win.

    Hmmm....now I wonder if you will post this post...?

    Good luck my friend

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    My dear RS Kniep,

    I made several attempts at asking you the question again and again which you continuously evaded as you tried to derail and deflect the conversation in different directions using the time honored distraction of posting unrelated issues rather than posting an honest, simple and DIRECT answer to my question on absolute truth: either contradict this article or post one…just ONE absolute truth for the audience to see.

    Ha ha…you can’t! And that’s yummy precious, ain’t it? But not for a loser.

    And of course you didn't read my comment: It is impossible for anyone to change someone else’s posts on the internets. Furthermore, nobody misrepresented your posts....for if they did, you would showcase your allegations where YOU, refuted this article's refutation of absolute truth....and then post how the FATMAN misrepresented your refutation. LOL…..you can’t. Why?

    BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A TROLL!!

    You know it...everyone knows it. This is old news. A repetitive scenario by losers when they reached the end of the line….end game.

    And as part of your MENTAL THERAPY for not being a REAL MAN and unworthy as a human being for your inability to address the simplest of issues as “absolute truth”….you can go off and write all the essays you want in an unwitting attempt to prove to YOURSELF that you are perhaps more intelligent than a potato and less intelligent than a snail.

    My Scientific articles have made several copper toxic unworthy losers so mentally ill and depressed, with anxiety, panic attacks and doom/gloom….some even resorting to VEGANISM for mental therapy….that they had to go off and write essays to themselves as part of their fruitless rehabilitation. You are no different in that regard….join the loser club….nobody cares and nobody will read your mental therapy musings except you….you know that, precious ;-)

    If you had an argument you’d post it here….for the SECOND time I ask this in 24 hours. Suit yourself.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 2 years ago from US

    Apparently you did not read my comment...

    I said you copied and pasted my answer and then edited for your answer post. Which you did and then hoped? I wouldn't notice???

    So you will get your answer in a new Hub posted on my profile. The title will make it clear its an answer to your assault on truth and absolutes. It will be a post on my profile so that you cannot eliminate posts from me that are hard to deal with on your end (as you did before).

    You will be surprised I am sure. Just get to the end and read it carefully before you start screaming and pounding your keyboard.

    A sneak preview: your view of truth and absolutes is actually CORRECT but...with ONE MAJOR EXCEPTION.

    The exception is what it's all about and what I don't believe you will be able to contradict or refute.

    Looking forward to your answer...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Student,

    “You cannot rely on science. It's all just theories and postulates, fabricated by human beings”

    Only Atheists and Religionists rely on theories and postulates like Big Bang, black holes, warped space, dilated time, time travel, etc. to push forth their theories. You are correct, Creation via Big Bang or otherwise was FABRICATED by human apes to push forth their Religious agenda. I already explained why such fabrications are impossible in reality. Do you understand what ‘impossible’ means?

    .

    “theories… with limited understanding”

    Again….only Religionists and Atheists posit theories with ZERO understanding: Creation by God, Big Bang, etc.

    A Scientist posits a rational explanation with complete and total understanding without any contradictions. You can’t get more ‘understanding’ than that, understand?

    .

    “ Human logic at its highest extent fails”

    Exactly! Amen brother! Now you are starting to understand. This is what I’ve been saying for years….here, I even wrote an article on it:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-L...

    Logic is a system of inference which works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit DERIVATION!

    Logic is based on rules (axioms) and premises (assumptions) which form a data tree of assumptions. A conclusion is then DERIVED from this data tree by finding the nodes where the data reside for the syllogism. This is called DEDUCTION.

    Q: How did the data get into the tree?

    A: A petty human ape put it there ( i.e. axioms + premises)

    .

    So this is why the Atheist says: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist, but is without a cause.”

    And this is why the Theist says: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist, but that cause is God.”

    They are both “correct” because of their logical rules + premises which are assumed and pulled out of the logic tree in their own syllogisms. And this is why people like yourself are confused by this PATHETIC circus show….because you didn’t invest the time to learn and understand the underlying foundations of logic and why logic & observations have ZERO to do with reality.

    .

    “ no one is perfect.”

    Exactly! Perfection is no different than beauty….it’s in the eye of the beholder.

    Regardless…..reality couldn’t care less about such petty human opinions as beauty, perfection, logic, observations, authorities, Nobel Prizes or petty human dogmatic rules.

    Reality is simple, straight-forward and explained rationally without contradictions. This is how reality is understood by EVERYONE. All you gotta do is read and comprehend.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Student,

    “Are familiar with the term nihilism. I feel with out a divine being, there is no point to life.”

    Life is what you make it. You are in control of your life. You get to make your own decisions. Don’t let others enslave or limit you.

    .

    “ I hope you are wrong about God, because with out him, debating our origins becomes irrelevant.”

    God is a hypothesis in the Theory of Creation, as outlined by theologians. There are no rights or wrongs about God. God is a proposed entity that supposedly created space, matter, time, ….

    Space is nothing, and can’t be created. Matter is something, and can’t be created from nothing. God can perhaps ASSEMBLE stars and planets from eternal matter, but even He is humbled by the fact that it is impossible for Him to create space and matter. Space & matter preceded God!

    You can read my other articles addressing these issues in detail.

    .

    “ If God does not exist, you just wasted 4 years of your life on this site.”

    This site isn’t about wasting your life hating God. You have me confused with an Atheist. Your comment is for Atheists…. a fanatical sect spun from the backbone of Religion because they didn’t like God’s heavy-handed rigorous rules. Atheists chose to denounce their Religions for the purpose of sin (i.e. disobey God). They now have their own Group Therapy sessions every Sunday (i.e. Atheist Experience TV show) to pat each other on the back and take the stress away from the fact that they will burn eternally in Hell when Judgement Day comes!

    A Scientist is only concerned about explaining reality in a rational manner. The only rational explanation is that space and matter is eternal, not created.

    .

    “ God, …he is beyond our comprehension. “

    Oh no, quite the contrary! Now you are scaring me because you are beginning to sound like an Atheist. Only Atheists talk this way because after they’re done their life of sin, they will beg God for forgiveness so St. Peter will open the Gates of Heaven and let them in. I hope God doesn’t get hoodwinked by these scoundrels.

    Here….try to understand what Theologians have been saying for millennia: The term “God” refers to a hypothetical entity that created space, matter, time, etc.

    What don’t you comprehend about the term “God”?

    .

    “One common theme I saw in this site is scientific observation. “

    Actually, please be fair and tell it like it is. There are no observations on this site. Observations are the Hallmark of Religion. A petty human observes with his limited sensory organ, the eye, which relays the upside-down image with a central hole of missing sensory image data (where the retina is) to the brain. The brain then “massages” this sensory data and performs several Photoshop operations to fill-in missing data, smooth edges, adjust color and contrast ratios…..and add other objects in the image background depending on what MOOD the OBSERVER is in.

    Well, now you get the idea why observations have ZERO to do with Science and ALL to do with Religion, opinions, etc.

  • profile image

    Student 2 years ago

    I realize that I did not truly revise my previous comment. As I have implied, no one is perfect.

  • profile image

    Student 2 years ago

    I read the first few comments, then I skipped to the end. I just wanted to know, if you covered this subject.

    ~Are familiar with the term nihilism. I feel with out a divine being, there is no point to life. I hope you are wrong about God, because with out him, debating our origins becomes irrelevant. If God does not exist, you just wasted 4 years of your life on this site.

    ~I feel that we deny God, simply because he is beyond our comprehension. One common theme I saw in this site is scientific observation. You cannot rely on science. It's all just theories and postulates, fabricated by human beings, with limited understanding. I also have noticed that in science, infinity appears everywhere, and I understand that it is detrimental to our scientific progression. We cannot truly calculate infinity, likewise we cannot understand truly understand an infinite being. Human logic at its highest extent fails, simply because it is imperfect, and it always will be.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    It would be nice if I could edit your posts, RS. Then I could make you my own personal puppet....much like your Priest has done. But unfortunately this is not possible on the Internets...duh!

    But you can answer my question that you are referring to above. Here, let me help you out once again...

    Hi, my name is RS Kniep. I'm here to DESTROY this article by showing where it fails. On your mark....get set....here I go! This article fails because of this contradiction I will outline....blah blah...

    Fill in the "blah blah" with the luxury of detail for the audience that is eagerly awaiting your response!

    Don't tell us what you had for lunch....don't tell us whom yo momma is dating and for what purpose....don't tell us that your Pastor doesn't believe in communion crackers....just stop trolling and answer the Q!

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 2 years ago from US

    Fatfist

    I have an answer to your fallacious argument.

    Let me know if you will post it, or as before, once I was seriously damaging your arguments, you copied and pasted my comments in your answer (but only after surreptitiously editing a couple of my words) and then later accused me of "trolling" and refused to post my comments. {Translation: "I can't answer that...you're a troll....goodbye.}

    Of course if you will cower out as you did last previously, I will not waste the time.

    But if you will be intellectually honest, let the world know that you will post my answer and... I will give you the answer you are so desperately seeking.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Calling out my shy princess, Matt Yester.....can you at least answer my simple question? Whaddya say, hun?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Lloyd: "Let me begin my philosophic argument with captions that utilize ad hominem, and general claims against specific individuals without stating so directly (implying so-and-so is a "cult leader," etc.)"

    Exactly, we are in agreement!

    Maybe in your next post you can stop parroting your cult leader and post a real argument in order to restore their honor. How about it, precious?

    Here, let me help you out like I help all the uneducated bimbos:

    Hi, my name is Lloyd. I'm here to DESTROY this article by showing where it fails. On your mark....get set....here I go! This article fails because of this contradiction I will outline....blah blah...

    Fill in the "blah blah" with the luxury of detail for the audience that is eagerly awaiting your response!

  • profile image

    Lloyd 2 years ago

    Worst page ever. Reads like this:

    Let me begin my philosophic argument with captions that utilize ad hominem, and general claims against specific individuals without stating so directly (implying so-and-so is a "cult leader," etc.)

    Seriously, this is the kind of retarded shit one would expect from a first year student, or a politician, not from a serious thinker.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "The car is not red."

    “By someone stating that the car is NOT red can we can then take away from the list of FINITE possibilities that the color could be”

    Objects don’t have negative attributes. What sense can that even make? All attributes are described in positive terms. This is what predication is all about. Sure, after declaring a car to be blue, you can then “conclude” the car is not red. That goes without saying. But “not red” isn’t an attribute.

    Attributes or predicates have nothing to do with removing options from a list of possibilities. They have to do with flat-out explicitly stating WHAT a particular attribute actually is.

    “Are we in a position where we must validate the truth of the statement”

    You can claim to validate a car being red. Somebody else comes along and validates the color to be fuchsia. The point is that everyone’s sensory system is different and resolves any claimed truth statement as none other than opinion. In reality, the surface of the car reflects light at a particular frequency irrespective of any opinion from a human.

    Reality is impossible to be subject to human observation and verification. Ergo....truth, especially the absolute kind, is outright impossible.

  • profile image

    Variable 3 years ago

    Just a quick question of this premise.

    "It is impossible for negative predicated sentences to describe or define anything. As such, they are meaningless. Only definitions which are predicated in the positive sense can convey a specific meaning. For example: To say your car is not red, you aren’t describing what color your car is. Justice and the number 7 are not red either. Any word you can imagine can be said to be not red and the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. But it is not CONTEXTUALLY correct because it has not attributed anything specific to the subject; i.e. it has no meaning!"

    I'm having a hard time grasping this concept. If someone says "The car is not red." For you to say it's a meaningless statement seems odd. When we refer to an object such as a car we know by definition that a particular attribute of a "car" is that the car has a color; more generally the color of the paint on the outside of the car. By someone stating that the car is NOT red can we can then take away from the list of FINITE possibilities that the color could be...we then can establish that there exists a car- such that it is not RED. Can I not then make that knowledge claim? Or a statement of fact? Are we in a position where we must validate the truth of the statement before we can make a meaningful judgement.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    RS.....I already warned you that trolling is not permitted here. I don't have the time to personally educate your level of stupid. I don't run a University for idiots. The stuff presented here is old hat. I have provided you with articles to educate yourself but you refuse to do so. Now, if you have a counter-argument to contradict this article, then please CUT & PASTE the parts you wish to contradict and showcase your contradictions. Otherwise, you are free to post your definitions of the words TRUTH and PROOF and kill this article in one fell swoop. Emotional gibberish is not an argument. Neither is Appeal to Authority (i.e. the dictionary). If the dictionary were a rational source for definitions, then you would have posted the SINGLE definition of TRUTH and PROOF from your “Authoritatively Fallacious” Dictionary and settled the 5000 year-old debate. Which of the hundreds of contradictory definitions of TRUTH will you post from the hundreds of dictionaries? LOL….you are pathetic lost cause. Your Priest really did a number on your derriere.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “Below is your statement, and deductively, it makes no sense AT ALL”

    Where did you see any deductive tautological induction in this article? Do you need glasses to read? Do you have a brain that can think and comprehend? My friend…this article does not lay a tautological axiomatic foundation of human invented rules, nor does it attempt to deductively/inductively INFER any conclusion from such a foundation. You need a tautological system of rules (i.e. a foundation) to do that. Such a system is subjective and rigged to conclude whatever it wants as dictated by its axiomatic rules. We learn this in Logic 101.

    “Most people who speak English agree”

    Nobody gives a rat’s ass who agrees what. This is not an issue we resolve at the polls….for if it was, then all I’d have to do is buy all the votes and win the argument….which is what YOU are trying to do by even suggesting this. You are knowingly or inadvertently committing the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Your argument refutes itself at this point.

    “true means "not false"

    No! You haven’t a clue!

    TRUE is a label of VALUATION we place on a proposition that is empirically verified in the positive. i.e. “The sky is blue” can be verified as “true” by an idiot who sticks his head out the window. Similarly, FALSE is a label of VALUATION we place on a proposition that is empirically verified in the negative. . i.e. “The sky is blue” can be verified as “false” by an idiot who sticks his head out the window.

    TRUTH (as opposed to the specific binary value of ‘true’) is a concept that embodies a binary valuation of verification. Second time I posted this to you since you have ZERO comprehension ability, much less any education in Logic or Philosophy.

    “rational means "based in reason or logic"

    Nonsense to the 128th power!

    Logic is based on tautological axiomatic rule-based systems of inference. We learn this on the first day of Logic 101 class. Rationality and logic are divorced from each other. Rationality has is not based on human-invented rules pertaining to specific tautological disciplines….of which there are hundreds. This is SUBJECTIVE….hence why there are so many different systems of logic. Google is your friend.

    Rationality has to do with OBJECTIVITY, not subjectivity like you are proposing. A rational explanation has nothing to do with logic, axiomatic rules or subjectivity. It has to do with a justification of the argument which CANNOT be contradicted; i.e. is OBJECTIVEly explained.

    “justification means "showing something to be right or reasonable"

    Right and reasonable to whom….your Priest? Is raping your young brother in the basement of the church ‘right’ and ‘reasonable’? Clearly, you have no clue!

    Right & wrong are concepts predicated on a tautological system of inference and its rule-based foundation. 2+2=4 is right in decimal arithmetic and wrong in base 3 arithmetic. Raping your young brother is RIGHT according to the Priest of your Church and his homies… but WRONG according to the legal system. Right & wrong have to do with subjectivity….not objectivity. Learn the basics before trying to argue on issues which you don’t understand.

    Subjectivity is divorced from rationality. To ‘justify’ your argument means to explain the WHY without any contradictions. This article justifies and rationally explains:

    a) WHY truth & proof resolve to OPINION.

    b) WHY absolute truth is self-contradictory and hence impossible!

    And this is what burns your ass because you cannot contradict it. In fact, you’ve realized that it is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict this article and you are just going around in circles in a lame attempt to push forward your precious agenda. You don’t fool anybody, my friend. You’re busted!

    “Refute ( a term you have repeatedly used) means to prove a statement to be wrong or false”

    You are such an idiot!!!! Listen buddy, you already AGREED with my definitions of TRUTH & PROOF….remember??? REMEMBER????

    Hence, you already understand that TRUTH = PROOF = OPINION! So how can you turn around and make such an asinine statement that the term ‘refute’ has to do with opinions? Pay attention!

    “Refute … to contradict.”

    Exactly! Now you’re learnin’. To refute an argument means to contradict it. Don’t ever forget this.

    “ If you are telling people they cannot refute your argument, THEN YOU ARE TELLING THEM IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.”

    No! This is your stupid stawman trolling BS! See my previous comment.

    The bottom line, for the second time: you CANNOT use the concept of TRUTH to evaluate, define or draw conclusions on the concept of TRUTH itself. This is circular, rhetorical and contradictory. It cannot be done. Nope….impossible. Get this through that thick head of yours! This article does not do this, as you are trying to suggest with various strawmen attempts. And this is why you cannot contradict it!!!!

    Do yourself a huge favor and learn the difference between a tautological system and a rational argument:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-Its...

    Only then will you stop chasing your tail in circles.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 4 years ago from US

    Fatfist

    I believe we are actually getting somewhere. However, there is one major hiccup - your reasoning process.

    Use logical reasoning, called DEDUCTIVE REASONING to arrive at your conclusion. Don't make statements and then say: "Wow! See what I just wrote? It's not true, it's not false, but it is rational justification, so you can't refute it!"

    You like to speak of definitions. I have a philosophical blog, and I recently wrote on Absolute Truths (before I read your article). My basis for the entire discussion was definitions. I state that the starting point for any discussion of any magnitude is and always will be "definition of terms". It is the only path to a reasonable solution. Otherwise, we are like two people from two different continents yelling "yes" and "no" and not even knowing which one is which. Meaningless and unfruitful.

    Below is your statement, and deductively, it makes no sense AT ALL:

    "This article has a rational explanation of why the concept of truth resolves to an OPINION. And it does NOT use the concept of truth or its bivalent values (true/false) to reason this conclusion. In fact, you cannot use the concept of truth to evaluate and draw any conclusions on the concept of truth….this is circular and impossible…obviously! You can only use a rational argument outside of truth (and its values of true/false) to evaluate the concept of truth."

    Definitions are vital to make any sense of these words. Most people who speak English agree that true means "not false" and rational means "based in reason or logic" and justification means "showing something to be right or reasonable". Refute ( a term you have repeatedly used) means to prove a statement to be wrong or false; to contradict.

    Now most people might not agree that truth and falsehood are merely" opinion", but even giving you that, your argument fails.

    Here goes: (look at your own comments for your own assertion of each of these points)

    1. Your statement does not use the concept of truth/falsehood to reason it's conclusion

    2. Your statement is a RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION of why truth is an opinion

    3. Rational is based in reason or logic

    4. Justification is showing that reason or logic

    5. Therefore, your statement (assertion, thesis, argument, article, etc) IS:

    Right? True? Accurate? Proper? Not false? Non-contradicted? Not false? Reasonable? Justified? Silly? Meaningless?

    What adjective will you pick today? Do you see the impossible circular argumentation tactic that you are trying to develop here to prove your point? Which, by the way, is WHAT?

    If your statement is not true, not false, not right, not wrong, but possibly "reasonable" you are playing with semantics and there is no way to arrive a logical conclusion. Your article must be something; even if it is what you call reasonable, then get out your dictionary and study the word. It comes from the Greek word Logos, which has multiple meanings but some of which are "speech" "ratio" and "word".

    These are the ideas of language, relation, and accounting, which have a standard - and this is my main point, so at least try to absorb this:

    You cannot say something is reasonable or rational and then say it is neither right, nor wrong, nor true, nor false. That is utter MEANINGLESSNESS.

    You are using words (English) that we all agree on, generally. There's your language standard. You are using (or attempting to) use logic, that have been established by mathematics - there's your standard. Now that you have used those standards, are you then going to say: "When it comes to evaluating my assertions, to hell with standards. You can't contradict my assertions even though I used those standards to arrive at them."?????

    One final point, and then I am done. The word "refute" is defined as: proving a statement to be wrong or false, to contradict. If you are telling people they cannot refute your argument, THEN YOU ARE TELLING THEM IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.

    If you can see this point, you and I have journeyed through conflict, and arrived at a better place. If you cannot see this, you are blinded by your own self-created reasoning process, which no one else will use, and therefore how could anyone refute?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “it is impossible for me or anyone to contradict your definitions.”

    ….and don’t you forget it!

    “this article has NO truths (meaning it's not opinion)”

    Now you’re learning!

    “False means not true”

    Exactly! Truth is a binary concept having two possible values during its resolution on a propositional statement: ‘true’ and ‘false’. To determine the resolution of the propositional statement: “the sky is blue”…., an idiot like you looks out his window and yells either “true” or “false”. An idiot and his opinions are always worthless.

    “If what you wrote is false, (not true)”

    Whoa! Who said what I wrote is “false” or amenable to the operator “not”; as in “not true”? It was neither me nor you. Look at both our comments:

    Fat: “this article has NO truths”

    Rs: “this article has NO truths (meaning it's not opinion)”

    Can you even read and comprehend? This article has NO truths. Did you bother reading it before commenting? Can you even read past the title of this article or are you just fit to be a drunken sailor?

    Nowhere in this article does it use the concept of truth to draw any conclusions…i.e. no truth-based binary conclusions….be it ‘true’ or ‘false’ valuations. I mean, truth is a concept, not an object like the sky… and hence not amenable to being empirically evaluated by a human with the values of “true” or “false”. But you are welcome to read the article, quote it and justify otherwise. And you can’t, that’s why you chase your tail in circles trolling like a fool.

    This article has a rational explanation of why the concept of truth resolves to an OPINION. And it does NOT use the concept of truth or its bivalent values (true/false) to reason this conclusion. In fact, you cannot use the concept of truth to evaluate and draw any conclusions on the concept of truth….this is circular and impossible…obviously! You can only use a rational argument outside of truth (and its values of true/false) to evaluate the concept of truth. Got it? This is kindergarten stuff…

    You seem earnest in your cause to push forward your agenda, but you are so trite in your reasoning.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 4 years ago from US

    Hey thank's for all the compliments. You must have gotten straight A's in charm school.

    I know you are not stupid; you're probably actually very smart. It is when people start speaking foolishly that they sound stupid. Which here, you do.

    But my friend, you've been outwitted. I walked you right into a pit of your own making. You see, you gave me EXACTLY what I was looking for. I had to prod, but alas, you delivered. Thank you!

    Do you see your error? While you are blasting away trying oh so desperately to cut your opponent down with stupid insults (which reveal a pitiful self hate, which is very sad), you admitted your own folly.

    Now lets walk you through it so you and I together can dig your philosophical grave; I will be the shovel, and you will be the digger, and the decedent. You get to fall in when we are done. Ready?

    1. You assert that your argument is rational and cannot be contradicted (see your comment).

    2. You also state that truth and proof are subjective and equated with opinion (just read your previous comments).

    3. You also state that it is impossible for me or anyone to contradict your definitions.

    4. Finally, you state that this article has NO truths (meaning it's not opinion).

    We've dug in, are almost deep enough to get the coffin in the ground. Ok, now let's use some deductive reasoning here: if truth is opinion, and opinion is not rational, but a rational justification is not able to be contradicted, and what you wrote is NOT truth.....(drum roll)... then what you wrote is F - A - L - S - E.

    False means not true, by the way. Let's not argue that.

    If what you wrote is false, (not true), then your "rational justification" is false, because it is the essence of the article. Which means everything you wrote is wrong, and you are arguing and calling people names while you are defending falsehood.

    Bingo. You just dug your grave...and died.

    We understand all things and concepts and ideas by "what they are not". Take anything, anything at all, and you can understand it by comparing it to what it is not. That is how we find meaning in the world. You know hot, because you know cold. You know love, because you know hate. Ad infinitum. I call it The Theoria of Relativity.

    The same holds with truth, and falsehood, and logic, and every philosophical idea you can imagine. Here is where you fell short.

    Now, of course you hate me, and it sounds like you hate the God I love (previous comments), but at least let me tell you of the one truth everyone can be assured of. It's not an idea, it's not a logical argument, it's a person. Why is it a person? I'll tell you. Because all people lie: you and I and everyone who ever walked the earth has lied, to some degree. Except one. And His name is Jesus. He said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, but by Me."

    His life, His Words, His love, His everything...is the definition of Truth. In this world of deception and lies, He is the only standard. And, mind you, there has to be a standard. If there was no standard, rational justification or truth or whatever name you want to call it...would have no meaning. (another discussion).

    I don' t mind offending you. I'm sure I have. But I care that you are so hell bent on trying to prove you are logical, and in your logic, you condemn yourself. You are lost, but you don't have to be.

    I challenge you to read the Bible. Start with the book of John. I'll bet a person of your intellect could not get through an honest reading of that book without being arrested by the truth of it. Try it and see. Let's see if you can refute it.

    You won't be able to. You know why? Because it was written by the Author of Truth.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “I never said I had contradictions to your definitions”

    Exactly! It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to contradict my definitions. And don’t you ever forget it…ever!

    “your … claims.”

    A claim is a blind assertion that cannot be justified with a rational explanation. This article has rationally justified its conclusion with a rational explanation. Did you read the article? Furthermore, you have ZERO counter-arguments or contradictions to offer on anything here. Your assertion of “claims” is unfounded and just a lame excuse to pretend you have an argument and continue to troll here. I mean….you don’t even understand what a “claim” is.

    The bottom line is that you cannot contradict the explanation in this article which rationally justifies that the terms TRUTH & PROOF are subjective and hence resolve to none other than an OPINION!

    So a stupid moron like you comes here to ask me if what is written in this article is an opinion (i.e. true).

    Rs: “Is what you wrote (your initial assertion) TRUE (i.e. an OPINION)?”

    And this is by virtue of your admission of accepting the definition of truth in this article since you cannot contradict it. Funny!

    Can’t you see that you handed your own ass to yourself??? Really, are you that brain-dead? Was your momma prostituting when she conceived you? Drunken sailors are known to have defective sperm.

    Obviously this article has rationally justified why truth resolves to an opinion. And a rational justification is objective and impossible to contradict. Otherwise it would be an OPINION (i.e. it would be truth!) and your very first post here would have showcased any such contradiction, right? Riiiiight! Therefore, it goes without saying that this article has NO truths (i.e. opinions)…..duh, what a moron you are! That’s why absolute truth is subjective (opinion) and not objective. Remember: Truth is what your Priest rammed up your ass! Proof means that he raped YOU and you liked it.

    You just pwned yourself, buddy. But of course, you can’t have it both ways. I mean, you can’t on one hand bellyache & complain of “claims” and facetiously allude that I have no “solid perspective” of the definitions….and yet on the other hand you CANNOT for your life contradict them or provide any counter-definition to these terms. You are such a brain-dead troll. Don’t forget to thank your momma for it. She had lots of FUN making you.

    Your trolling is over.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 4 years ago from US

    Nice. ;-)

    I never said I had contradictions to your definitions. That came from you. You tell me I don't understand what truth and proof mean. Really? Did you not just educate me on it?

    If we are the students here and you are the great wise one, making your un-refutable claims, then why in heaven's name can you not explain yourself on the terms you are asserting?

    You refuse to answer my question because you cannot answer the question. So you write several lines of nonsense, toss some insults in, and tell yourself you won because no one refuted you.

    How to show a fool his folly? Ask him to defend his assertions by his own definitions and claims. Which is exactly what I offered, and which is what you refused to do. Your empty attempt at an answer was to tell me my comment was idiotic. You attempt to cover your self contradictions with ad hominem argumentation.

    You cannot defend your own assertions...you can only scream them from the housetops. Yes, I know that makes you "feel" like you are worth listening to, but I hate to break it to you, it makes you sound moronic. And foolish.

    Love to hear how you are going to try to explain yourself out of this one. And of course, in your response, you will not state by your own terms if your assertions are true, or can be proven. Because you can't.

    Your ranting has been silenced. And you know it :-)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “Let's use your definitions, since you seem to believe you have a solid perspective on it.”

    Belief plays no role here. Either a definition provided by me or you is objective or it is based on opinion. So which is it?

    Obviously if you have any contradictions to show with my definitions you would have shown them by now, rather than making that idiotic comment above and acting like a fool. Showcasing your weakness is not an argument. Either put up or stfu. Instead, you chose to troll.

    You obviously have NO contradictions to show with my definitions….nor do you have any definitions to offer as a counter-argument (because you can’t contradict mine…funny!) since you don’t understand what TRUTH & PROOF actually mean. Yet you just plow forward and attempt to use these terms in a sentence. Hilarious! You obviously came here to troll. Not cool.

    Regardless, your questions have already been answered several times within this article…just fyi. Use the search feature of your browser.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 4 years ago from US

    Exactly as you defined them, above. Let's use your definitions, since you seem to believe you have a solid perspective on it.

    Do you even understand your own renditions of truth and proof?

    So, answer my question: By your own definition, is what you say:

    1. True?

    2. Proven?

    Go for it.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    1) What do you mean by 'truth'?

    2) What do you mean by 'proof'?

    Do you even understand what you ask? Let's see if you do....

    TRUTH:_____

    PROOF:_____

    Fill in the blanks.

  • RS Kniep profile image

    RS Kniep 4 years ago from US

    Fatfist

    You think that a lot of words will serve to cloak your misguided confusion; be assured, it doesn't fool the wise who see right through it.

    I have a question for you, with two parts:

    1. Is what you wrote (your initial assertion) TRUE?

    2. If it is, can it be PROVEN?

    Can you answer this question succinctly, without rambling endlessly and without resorting to insults and mocking?

    RSK

  • Ricardius profile image

    Ricardius 4 years ago

    "Be gone, Devil…..be gone!!!!" Devils and atheists are after your soul Fatfist! HAHAHA!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    @Gab,

    Gab: "When you die(and you will), what would you say to Him if He were there?"

    Fat: “I should inform you that I saw sweet Jesus a few nights ago and He told me that "he who judgeth, will surely go to Hell..thou shall not judge others! ....after committing this dire sin, there is nothing you can do to save yourself from Hell. So sayeth the Lord.”

    Gab: “Sir, you didn't answer to anything I said”

    Ok,….and now, Gab….you are here to troll. A bonehead like you needs to either get some reading glasses, take a course in entry level reading skills….or ask the Wizard of Oz for a brain so he can comprehend what is obviously written before his very eyes….got it, idiot?

    .

    “Please feel sorry for me. I am in need of support”

    No amount of sorrow or support will save you for the fires of Hell you will endure for eternity. You have SINNED AGAINST GOD….and you have sinned BIG TIME, you feeble-minded goofball.

    .

    “you misquote Scripture. Jesus never said we are not to judge others”

    You are obviously a lying piece of garbage, Gab! You are Satan incarnate and in disguise, you fire-breathing devil you! There is no place in this universe for vile worthless Satan-Apes like you!!!

    Here, you lying con-artist garbage you….READ…and read exactly what Jesus said, you hypocrite:

    Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You HYPOCRITE, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

    James 4:11-12 “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. “

    Romans 2:1-3 “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?”

    2 Corinthians 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”

    Romans 14:4 “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.”

    .

    And remember what I said to Nicole about idiots and their OPINIONS….

    Fat:” Life is short. Doesn't make sense for the ignorant to waste it by unwittingly trying to judge others based on their half-witted OPINIONS....and end up sinning in the process (ouch!!). This is a double self-pwn! When God made apes on this planet...He made them very dumb, as is evidenced by some of the posters here. They need to obey...not to judge others. Christianity 101.”

    Well, the Bible has a VERSE JUST FOR IDIOTS LIKE YOU WHO ESPOUSE OPINIONS!!!

    Romans 14:1 “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.”

    .

    “Context is everything”

    Exactly, you worthless piece of trash! There is only ONE judge: God Almighty!!

    Learn it well and memorize it for the test!

    .

    “And you are correct.”

    Indeed I am!!! The scripture has supported my statements from the get go! But a Satanized Devil like yourself has NEVER EVER read the Bible. Lucifer came here to pray on the weak with his worldly LIES….YOU LIAR!!!!

    .

    “Nothing you can do will save yourself from Hell.”

    Of course NOT, you swine-slurping LIAR! You have committed 3 HOLY SINS here today:

    1) You pretended to be God and came here to judge me….thus violating God’s LAW.

    2) You LIED about the fact that only God Almighty can judge, and not man or the Devil (i.e. you!!).

    3) You ARE the damn Devil incarnate!

    .

    "Men hate God by default. They despise Him"

    Only YOU hate God and despise Him just so you can go around breaking His LAW and judging others. Who the f*** you think you are, Gab.....God Almighty? Sheeesh!!

    .

    “I am actually quite intelligent, if I do say so myself.”

    The Devil always thinks he is intelligent because he can fool the weak. But I EXPOSED you in the light of God, you dirty Devil….I HAVE EXPOSED YOU!!!!!!

    Be gone, Devil…..be gone!!!!

  • profile image

    Gabholli 4 years ago

    Context is everything in reading Scripture. To take one verse out of the entire Bible(in this case, "Judge not, lest ye be judged") is dishonest as worst, and woefully ignorant at best.

    When is the last time you read a favorite novel of yours, and focused on one line in the entire book in lieu of all the other sentences containing words in the rest of the work? I'd say never. So why apply that procedure to Scripture?

    Men hate God by default. They despise Him, and seek to abolish Him from their knowledge. Instead, they seek to replace Him with an image more pleasing to their sinful eyes.

    I apologize in advance for three straight posts.

  • profile image

    gabholli 4 years ago

    Indeed, there is nothing "half-witted" or inane about orthodox, historical Christianity. Nothing could be more rational than to believe in a First Cause. But God is so much more than a First Cause.

    I'll leave it up to you to read your Bible and find out. Though I sincerely doubt you will.

    I am actually quite intelligent, if I do say so myself. I have not been duped or misled into something that was unintentionally thrust upon me.

    Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. But is power or pursuit of, or excellence in, knowledge the chief end of man. I argue not, as Aquinas did centuries ago. Any honest philosopher would have to pay attention to men like him. Of course, I put the emphasis on HONEST.

    I believe the primary pursuit of a person should be to glorify the God who created him or her. Call me gullible, stupid, or dim-witted if you wish, but I find nothing more infathomable or worthy of praise than God Himself.

    Of course, Jesus did say that if you profess His name, you would be mocked. I see that here. That's rather unfortunate, but I expect no less for those who do not believe.

  • profile image

    Gabholli 4 years ago

    Sir, you didn't answer to a thing I said. You merely mocked me. But I expected as much.

    Jesus never said that judgement was uncalled for, or was a sin. In fact, just a mere three verses or so after he said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," he demonstrates that we are to practice righteous judgement. We should know others by their fruits.

    You misquote Scripture, but I deem you esteem more highly the works of philosophers than that of the Bible itself. You should read it. It won't kill you.

  • profile image

    Gabholli 4 years ago

    Indeed, there is nothing "half-witted" or inane about orthodox, historical Christianity. Nothing could be more rational than to believe in a First Cause. But God is so much more than a First Cause.

    I'll leave it up to you to read your Bible and find out. Though I sincerely doubt you will.

    I am actually quite intelligent, if I do say so myself. I have not been duped or misled into something that was unintentionally thrust upon me.

    Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. But is power or pursuit of, or excellence in, knowledge the chief end of man. I argue not, as Aquinas did centuries ago. Any honest philosopher would have to pay attention to men like him. Of course, I put the emphasis on HONEST.

    I believe the primary pursuit of a person should be to glorify the God who created him or her. Call me gullible, stupid, or dim-witted if you wish, but I find nothing more infathomable or worthy of praise than God Himself.

    Of course, Jesus did say that if you profess His name, you would be mocked. I see that here. That's rather unfortunate, but I expect no less for those who do not believe.

  • profile image

    Gabholli 4 years ago

    Sir, you didn't answer to anything I said. Please feel sorry for me. I am in need of support just as much as anybody else in this world.

    Nonetheless, you misquote Scripture. Jesus never said we are not to judge others. In fact, He promoted righteous judgement just a mere three or so verses after saying "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Context is everything.

    And you are correct. Nothing you can do will save yourself from Hell. Only a supernatural and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, wrought from God Himself will accomplish that, at His sovereign pleasure.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Amen, Nicole. Life is short. Doesn't make sense for the ignorant to waste it by unwittingly trying to judge others based on their half-witted opinions....and end up sinning in the process (ouch!!). This is a double self-pwn! When God made apes on this planet...He made them very dumb, as is evidenced by some of the posters here. They need to obey...not to judge others. Christianity 101.

  • Nicole Winter profile image

    Nicole A. Winter 4 years ago from Chicago, IL

    'Cuz it's a bittersweet symphony, this life... tryin' to make ends meet, trying to make some money... then you die. Interesting, but it's amazing that you've to spend all this ... effort ... in responding.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "When you die(and you will), what would you say to Him if He were there?"

    Well Gab, I should inform you that I saw sweet Jesus a few nights ago and He told me that "he who judgeth, will surely go to Hell..thou shall not judge others!"

    And the funny thing is....after committing this dire sin, there is nothing you can do to save yourself from Hell. So sayeth the Lord.

    "you will be made to be the fool"

    Indeed you will. You recognize this now, but it's too late. I feel sorry for you!

  • profile image

    Gabholli 4 years ago

    And then in the end, despite all your machinations and assertions to the contrary, God did exist after all! When you die(and you will), what would you say to Him if He were there?

    My point is this: on this earth, in this life, we can collect information into a collection of meaningless words all we want, but we all die. And if there is a Supreme Being at the end of all this, you will be made to be the fool, not Him.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “As usual, no one ever seems to try and understand…..”

    Ahhhh….welcome to the planet of the apes…..where words are decreed to have no meaning, but the apes insist on using words to convey their “meaning” that words have no meaning!

    “Ummm, please don’t ask me to define TRUTH & ABSOLUTE….my inability to objectively define these terms is very bad for business. You just want to argue semantics and hardcore literalism. Words can’t be defined. We just open our mouths and talk to each other. It’s been working fine ever since language was invented.” – Pastor Stefan Molyneux

    “why should we institutionalize these people?”

    Well, just look at Stefan Molyneux....the poor sap is still tormented by the brutal abuse he received from his parents as a child. That's why he wants everyone to hate their parents. If he doesn't need daily injections in the white padded room then I don't know who does.

    “Concepts such as life, reality, right and wrong don't exist. By what non existent concept(s) are we imposing non existent concept(s) on other objects?”

    LOL...to impose a concept, in the proper context (haha), means that two or more objects are participating in a physical interaction that was initiated by the imposing object(s). Simple :-)

    “So how are you? Hope all is well!”

    Fabulous, jo, thank you. I am looking forward to my vacation in Europe next month. Mentally, I’m already there!

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey fatfist... How are you?! Long time no see! As usual, no one ever seems to try and understand your amazing article before commenting!. :)

    Can I ask you though, why should we institutionalize these people? Are you just poking fun?! :)

    It seems counterintuitive that objects would force the concept of institutionalization on other objects... When the objects conceptually know that concepts don't really exist! Concepts such as life, reality, right and wrong don't exist. By what non existent concept(s) are we imposing non existent concept(s) on other objects?! haha

    In the end it's all just objects in conceptual motion I suppose.

    So how are you? Hope all is well!

    -Jo

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Hitch: “There are no absolutes”

    Hitch: “You want a piece of absolute? 1 + 1 = 2 Go ahead, make my day, prove this is not an absolute.”

    Someone is really bored and decided to celebrate Troll Day today.

    “in mental darkness forever…..Very very sad”

    Don’t worry; your life will get better once you get institutionalized and have regular shock treatments….and extremely brutal hourly beatings. Medication no longer works for you. Happy Troll Day!

  • profile image

    Hitch 4 years ago

    There are no absolutes but this entire article is written under the assumption of absolutes.

    Otherwise why should anyone give a damn what anyone is saying here?

    It cannot be absolutely true thus can't be true at all.

    Atheists never figure this simple fact out because their minds are on hold.

    Why are all atheists such terrible thinkers?

    Everyone else but them seems to know this.

    Why do atheists insist on shooting themselves in the head over & over again with these inane little circus tricks of convoluted "logic" like displayed in this article?

    You want a piece of absolute?

    Well gee, is the following statement absolutely true or true once in a while?

    1 + 1 = 2

    Go ahead, make my day, prove this is not an absolute.

    If logic is not absolute it is useless.

    Atheism cannot even account for the existence of logic.

    Logic is ONLY conceptual, it is not a property of matter or energy.

    Thus it requires a mind as only minds can conceptualize.

    But then the source of logic is therefore necessarily also a mind.

    Atheism itself is a logical absurdity since by implication it MUST admit that all thoughts whatsoever are merely the flow of atoms through 3 lbs of meat.

    But, the flow of atoms through anything can never be called true or false in any sense.

    Thus the atheists thoughts, being nothing but electrochemical actions in meat are useless indicators of ANYTHING at all that can be called "true" or "false", and are just as meaningless as their entire worldview.

    Atheism is pathetic and its dupes are anything but "free thinkers", just ask Sam Harris.

    You don't even have free will according to the necessary logical conclusions of atheism! How can you be a free thinker?!

    This is kindergarten level obvious!

    Thus fatfist et al., according to the logical implications of his own statements, should never be taken seriously at all by anyone.

    He insists that nothing he says can be taken as "truly true", under his own foolish and deeply flawed reasoning system.

    Atheism sucks big eggs. It's an idea that doesn't even matter except that it has caused infinite and irreparable damage to the world.

    140+ million murders by atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

    Nice that.

    And they have the arrogance to constantly be pointing out the evils committed by misguided so-called "religious" persons!

    "If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."

    "The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'". -C.S. Lewis

    So obvious that it is astounding that one needs to explain it to atheists.

    The blind followers of the blind.

    Indeed, they are exactly like blind men claim loud and proud to those that can see, that there is no such thing as light or color since they can "see no evidence for it".

    No difference at all and just as glaringly foolish.

    Yet, they are ever scoffing, like those blind men, at those who can see the infinite beauties of light.

    They thus condemn themselves to remain, not only in physical darkness, but in mental darkness forever.

    Very very sad

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "I really wish people would at least read"

    Sorry to break the news to ya, Ricardius.....but the literacy rate in America (and Canada, since Canadians are parroting zombie puppets of the American government) is about 1%. The comprehension rate is even more morbid, coming in at around 0.00001%.

    No surprise there....these stats are supported by the comments posted in my articles.

    Hence the parroting idiocy of: "Is it absolutely true there are no absolutes?"

  • Ricardius profile image

    Ricardius 4 years ago

    I really wish people would at least read the articles before commenting.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Humble,

    “I think you misunderstand the meaning of "no absolutes in science".

    That’s not what the article is about. It explains why absolutes are impossible under any context. Did you read it?

    “If we really do live in a Matrix”

    Not “IF”…..there are tons of people who actually do live in “The Matrix”….just look around you or read some of the posts in my articles. But we use more politically correct terminology so as not to offend these folks: Insane Asylum!

    “There may very well be absolutes, and there probably is.”

    C’mon humble, you can’t make such assertions without justifying them with a rational argument. You know that. I can easily say: “an ant is bigger than the Earth, the Sun and even our galaxy….The fact that we don't, and probably never will have "absolute knowledge", in order to confirm, or deny this, does not change, or impact the "truth" in any way.”

    Anyone can say anything. Claims are a dime a dozen. In fact, the blackhead off the buttocks of that 97 yr old grandpa is worth a hell of a lot more than any unjustifiable claim posited by anyone. Claims are worthless. You are smart enough to understand that too well. So please….no more unjustifiable claims.

    “ "There are no absolutes".... that is an absolute statement, “

    Oh, what is “an absolute statement”, Humble? Can you define ‘absolute’ so the audience can see whether or not this is yet another one of your unjustifiable claims?

    Here you go….absolute:_______

    “there are no absolutes; does not mean, or automatically assume, "there are no absolutes, absolutely"

    Of course not, because you are chasing your tail with this line of fallacious circular reasoning. You cannot use the term ‘absolute’ to evaluate the term ‘absolute’. Just like you cannot use the “law” to evaluate the “law”. This is Begging the Question and circular reasoning…..contradictory. You should know better than this. You need to go outside the law, conceptually at a time when there was no law, in order to evaluate the law from a non-legal perspective. Same with any concept, like truth, proof, absolute, etc.

    If you want to evaluate a concept,….any concept….then you must evaluate it at the CONCEPTUAL LEVEL where its relation is established. That is, you must evaluate the DEFINITION or meaning of the concept in question. All concepts are defined. Language demands it, otherwise communication is impossible.

    “if you need to know everything, to know 1 thing, then you can't possibly know everything”

    The term ABSOLUTE has nothing to do with knowledge, belief, wisdom, faith, truth, proof, eye-witness testimony, experimentation, authority, popularity, opinion, sensory perception, statistics, probability, predictions, etc. It has to do with MEANING.

    Like any concept (and we are going to be fair and not going to specially-plead here), ….the term ‘absolute’ must first and foremost be DEFINED before it can be used in any sentence. Those who disagree should instantly be able to tell the audience what the term KLAMOKAPTICA means. If they can’t, or if they ask for a definition, then POOF goes their argument that words are not defined to have a meaning!

    If you read this article, Humble, you will see that ‘absolute’ is a concept that was defined roughly 5000 years ago to mean: without relations to anything.

    But, this is contradictory because all concepts are relations. It’s unavoidable. You cannot conceive of anything that is not related to something else. It is impossible to have anything in the Universe standalone without being related to something else…..just as it is impossible to have any term in language that has no relations to something else. Please give it a go and try to conceive of anything standalone in order to show an exception to my rational reasoning….you can’t.

    Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

    It goes without saying that “absolutes are impossible”. Not because I say so,… opinions and other subjectivities play no role here. This is an OBJECTIVE issue because the term ‘absolute’ contradicts the conceptual term itself (i.e. self-refuting).

    I suggest you come up to speed with Linguistics so you can understand the ontology of terms in language.

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    “Now I will share my BELIEFS”

    No, Humble, please,….I beg you…. you are in the wrong forum. The BELIEF forum is down the hall to the right, next to the Astrology and Mathematical Fizzics Convention. This forum is only about Rationality, Consistency and Non-contradiction. That’s what reality is about. Beliefs are divorced from reality…..so please keep them out of here. You need a rational non-contradictory argument in this forum. Sorry.

  • profile image

    Humble01 4 years ago

    Okay, I think you misunderstand the meaning of "no absolutes in science". Or rather, you're removing the context of "in science", distorting the intended meaning.

    This DOES NOT MEAN, "there are no absolutes"... that is taking those words out of context, by removing the proceeding text which makes it a factual statement; "in science.."

    There may very well be absolutes, and there probably is. The fact that we don't, and probably never will have "absolute knowledge", in order to confirm, or deny this, does not change, or impact the "truth" in any way.

    Another way to look at it, is to say, in order to "know" there is any "absolute truth", we must know everything. Which is a paradox, if you need to know everything, to know 1 thing, then you can't possibly know everything.

    Again, this is simply identifying, that we cannot possibly factor all possible variables. Or rather, that there is a possibility, that there is variables which we cannot identify, whether they do or do not exist is irrelevant, the point is, this "uncertainty factor" will remain.

    Example: God either exists, or does not exist. Regardless of what you or I believe, or can prove, one of these must be true.

    Another thing to note is "perception". Even if we have all possibly variables calculated and conclude 0% or 100% certainty, we must put in context, "from our perspective" in order to make that a factual statement. Which itself insinuates that it may not be "absolute".

    Even if this is true 100%, absolute truth, if we cannot verify our existence/perception/reality as "absolute", then we still cannot confirm any given "fact" as absolute.

    I.E. String Theory, M Theory, ect. Imagine we're just a computer program... What appears as truth or fact to us, may only be that based on our perception, of our reality, both of which, may not be, and likely are not, absolute. Much like the Movie "The Matrix".

    If we really do live in a Matrix, then our perception of reality could never be considered absolute. Until we can rule out all possibilities which leave possibilities such as this open, then we cannot conclude anything as an "absolute fact" or "truth".

    There is likely facts, or absolute truths, if correctly labeled into perspective, but what science concludes will never exceed 99.999....% or fall below 0.0000....1%, or in other words, you will never find a 100% or 0% probability scientifically.

    One last way to conceptualize it;

    You cannot run infinite trials, so you cannot confirm 100%. 100/100, is really 100/100(infinity). For all you know, trial 101 could fail, or maybe 1001, or 10001, ect. You cannot confirm infinite trials, you couldn't even come close to confirming a probability like 99.999....9% that we can confirm mathematically, with physical trials.

    Or, simply look at the total value without decimals. i.e., 100 trials, would be 100%, 1000 would be 100.0%, 10000 would be 100.00%, ext. In order to achieve a 100% conclusion, that is more accurate than say a 99.999...9% (with 30 9's), you would need to demonstrate 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trials.

    To understand how big that number really is, just think of thousand, million, billion, trillion, and then understand that you're only 12 0's, deep, and the scale from 1000 - 10000 is much bigger than 100-1000, likewise to each additional digit added. +18 digits after 1 trillion.

    And really, since there is no absolutes, you still end up with a 99.999...9% conclusion, but now you have 31 9's, instead of 30.

    However these very large, or very small (decimal) numbers, can be simplified, and most likely, are representing, 0%, and 100%, or "absolute truth/facts".

    -

    Summary Conclusion: You're connecting A and B to conclude C, when A and B are not connected, and C is a illogical conclusion drawn from assumption... it is a logical fallacy, erroneous logic.

    What is or isn't true, or absolute, or absolute truth, either is, or isn't, regardless of observation, opinion, or our ability to verify.

    So technically, the comment example you gave is correct. It is a contradiction, and illogical, to say "There are no absolutes".... that is an absolute statement, claiming there are no absolutes, just as you illustrated.

    Had you proceeded with "in science", then in context, your statement would become more true, however, even then, I find it ironic, to debate the topic, for the same reason.

    In order to prove yourself right, you must prove yourself wrong. You've slipped into a paradox state of mind, where you're are neither right or wrong, and both right and wrong, also only right, and only wrong.

    -

    So, from a "scientific perspective", there are no absolutes; does not mean, or automatically assume, "there are no absolutes, absolutely". And in fact, I believe that sentence disproves itself, logically.

    The only way to really "know absolute truth", is if God, truly is absolute truth, and to know God. However, from a scientific perspective, nothing changes.

    This would be viewed as a unsubstantiated opinion/belief from a scientific/real world/physical perspective of reality.

    -

    Now I will share my BELIEFS, which I make no claims of having or being able to provide scientific standard of proof for.

    -

    I believe, that all of this information, and much more, is pointing us in the direction that the physical world which we have perceived to be real, isn't as real as we believed. And that in this physical world, there truly are no absolutes, because it isn't absolute reality. It is subject to an absolute reality above/beyond it, and possible many more non-absolute realities below that 1 true absolute reality.

    -

    And that "absolute truth", is not physical, and cannot be found in the physical, or "real world" perspective. It can't be measured or observed with instruments. Real, absolute truth, IMO, is moral, it is metaphysical, not physical.

    I believe that absolute truth from our perception can only be understand in morals. I believe this is why the Bible is given in parable form, in stories, which convey layers of information/truth, beyond the surface itself.

    I believe that this "absolute truth" is apparent in every day life, in everything all around us, and I believe this all aligns with the concepts that God is in everything, and that all living and non living matter is connected through God.

    I believe that these absolute truths, are simply echoed, or reflected into our reality, from a greater, absolute reality "above" or "beyond" our reality.

    And that these moral absolute truths are undeniable, and evident in everything, to be found, and confirmed on a moral level, in every day life situations, which are layered, just like the stories told in the Bible.

    And I believe, possibly most importantly, that we do not even need to observe/confirm these in life, because the truth is already in us, because God is in us, and God is absolute truth.

    -

    When you talk about physical matter, whether it's a rock, or an atom. That object can exist, or it cannot, possibly both. However with morals, something is either right, or wrong.

    To prove this, I'll use a simple demonstration.

    If I make a statement, with any given number of facts, as long as they are all facts, my statement as a whole, remains a fact.

    However, if I add in 1 false statement, or lie, the entire statement as a whole is no longer true. Yes various parts are true, even possible a majority, or 99%+, but as a whole, the statement is false, if any false statements are included.

    Example: I live on Earth, and I am from Mars.

    Yes I live on Earth, but no I am not from mars, therefor this is a false statement.

    -

    Morally, this logic must apply, if anything, by an even more strict criteria. Because where as truths can be bent in the physical world, morally, you cannot have conflicting morals, or you have no morals, in relation to those which conflict.

    Example: Rape is wrong, murder is okay.

    This is an immoral statement, much like the false statement example.

    -

    Now you can argue semantics about how morality is just a man made concept, however I believe that on a personal level, every logical person will conclude that rape is wrong, absolutely.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

    Let me translate. Essentially, jyjay – not bothering to even read the article where you covered this IN DEPTH – just repeated, like an ignorant moron:

    "Is it absolutely OPINION that there's no absolute OPINION?"

    Idiot! I wonder what the diff is between absolute opinion and plain old vanilla opinion?

    So jyjay, just to be fair: DID YOU stop beating your wife?

    Well did you? Only a yes or no answer allowed! Sorry, it's a yes or no. Come on, spill it. Which is it, jajay, did you stop beating her or not?

    (See the problem with your moronic absolutism religion and trick questions lacking proper context and definitions?)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Nobody is surprised that our dear friend jyjay from Mt. Laurel New Jersey decided to BOLT....and never to be seen again after asked if he had the slightest clue in Jesus' good name what 'truth' and 'absolute' meant.

    Looks like I overestimated the 1% literacy rate in America by leaps and bounds.

    See, there's a monkey who is a good friend of mine and he doesn't believe that Americans can be this illiterate and uneducated,.... even worse than barefoot goat-herding cave-dwelling Muslims living in third world countries.

    So much for Momma, Elvis, Jesus, the flag....and apple pie!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    @jyjay,

    "The above statement is a claim of absolute truth"

    Oh, what do the terms 'truth' and 'absolute' mean, jay? Did your Pastor tell you? Here, let me help you out:

    Hey fatfist, my name is jyjay and I will school you today. Here are my definitions:

    Truth: _______

    Absolute:______

    Fill in the blanks!

    " Enough with the irrational ramblings"

    Amen!

  • profile image

    jyjay 4 years ago

    There are NO Absolutes. There is NO Absolute Truth!

    The above statement is a claim of absolute truth. Your entire thesis is self-refuting and ironically proves that Absolute Truth is inescapable. Enough with the irrational ramblings

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey one more quick thought my friend....

    I was rereading your reply....

    "The Hypothesis stage of the sci. method ASSUMES that an object exists FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNDERSTANDING THE THEORY"

    I was just thinking... When you say, "for the purposes of understanding the theory"... Doesn't one have to BELIEVE they exist and BELIEVE they are capable of "understanding" anything in order to entertain the idea of actually understanding?

    Can we really claim we have escaped belief as humans? I've recently taken up a book(by some neuro person) that simplified how our brains work into two categories... One being what we believe and the other being what we fear... These two thought processes being what releases which chemicals and what not... What do you think?

    Take care!

    -Jo

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Thanks for the fast reply! Sorry, I'm always so slow in getting back to you. I very much enjoy our conversations! :)

    "The Hypothesis stage of the sci. method ASSUMES"

    “--- Can a human explain anything without first beliefs..?”

    No belief is required..."

    --- You say no game... But the definition for assume is believe. So when you say "sci... assumes(believes)" then you say "No belief is required"... Well, can you understand how that is confusing to me?

    "Perhaps you are thinking too deeply and missing point.“humans are objects that conceptualize”"

    --- Thanks for saying that... I guess the problem I'm getting to is as such...

    "Concepts don't exist... Therefore, an object cannot conceptualize."

    Can you help me understand how my conclusion doesn't follow?

    "Do you see the fatal circularity of your question?"

    --- Oh yes, from the angle you're approaching from, I agree . Which is part of the reason I was excited to hear how you answer. The hypothetical point I was presenting was that God was of an entire different reality altogether... The object/concept explanation would be the closest way a human from this reality could come to understand.

    Well... Thanks again for your responses and time!

    Looking forward to more great answers! Hope all is well!

    Jo

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “ Now when I look up the definition for assume... It says "believe"... I'm not sure I understand your game here. Can you elaborate on that one?”

    No game! Most people just don’t understand the Scientific Method. They are confusing Science with Religion.

    The Hypothesis stage of the sci. method ASSUMES that an object exists FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNDERSTANDING THE THEORY. The Theory will use the object, say photon, to explain the phenomenon of light. If the explanation is rational, then photons MAY possibly exist out there in nature. If not, they don’t.

    "Are you concept or an object?"

    You can easily answer this yourself!

    Q: do you have shape?

    If so, then you are an object. It’s that easy. Perhaps you are thinking too deeply and missing point.

    “humans are objects that conceptualize”

    Yes, by using their brain to form RELATIONS between the objects in their environment (the bounty of the universe).

    “why then is God not an object that conceptualized the universe into existence”

    Because concepts are relations between objects. If God can conceptualize something…then it goes without saying that MATTER ALREADY EXISTS because he had to use those matter objects for the process of conceptualizing. Do you see the fatal circularity of your question?

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey! Long time no see... Hope you're doing well! I had such a nice reply nearly finished and then.... Yup, browser crashed.... So'z... I don't have much more time my friend... I'll just keep it simple.

    "“Doesn't every human hold some belief?”

    What they do behind closed doors is their problem and irrelevant to science"

    --- Hmm... Aren't we talking about concepts, not just the concept of science? After all.... Science is grounded in former concepts.

    "“to relate objects, don't we have to first believe that objects actually exist as objects?”

    No, existence is always assumed"

    --- Now when I look up the definition for assume... It says "believe"... I'm not sure I understand your game here. Can you elaborate on that one?

    "All your thought processes are conceptualizations (conceptions). To think is to conceptualize. And you do so by relating objects during your thinking processes for the purposes of conveying MEANING, and hence, understanding"

    --- So here we are again... We conceptualize to convey Meaning(concept), and hence, understanding(concept).... So the simplest way to explain why we conceptualize is like so..... "We conceptualize to convey concepts."

    Learning from you... and using "my critical thinking faculties", we have agreed on two IMPORTANT conclusions so far....

    1.) "Concepts don't exist, we arrive at this conclusion by way of concepts."

    2.) "We conceptualize to convey concepts."

    Now... Here is where I have a more fun and pressing question I would really appreciate you answering. I can't quite decide how you would or will answer this one.... Here goes.... "Are you concept or an object?"

    Previously, I asked, "what if God was the entity(mind) to conceptualize all of reality including void... and that we are within this reality that was conceptualized by God?"... However, you said that means God is a concept(therefore, does not exist.)... So... Humans are CONCEPTS because we conceptualize similar to the God concept? But, yet again... concepts don't exists so that would mean we don't really exist... Aside from the material that makes up our body.

    Perhaps, you would say humans are animated OBJECTS that conceptualize(Obviously, objects can't conceptualize. Concepts don't exist.)? But if humans are objects that conceptualize why then is God not an object that conceptualized the universe into existence.... as opposed to a CONCEPT like you previously stated?

    Anyways... Sorry for my rambling and constant questions... I have lots of questions all the time! I'm a skeptic by nature after all.. I look forward to your reply as always... Much thanks! Glad to hear you had a very Merry Christmas! And hopefully you've had a great new year so far!

    -Jo

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Yep, still here, my Lady. Inquisitive minds have inquisitive questions.

  • Lady Guinevere profile image

    Debra Allen 4 years ago from West By God

    Wow you still here!! I am surprised.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jo,

    “Objectively? At face value? I hear Christians say these kinds of statements all the time”

    Oh c’mon….a Christian will never tell you to read the Bible all by your lonesome. Too dangerous. You might use your brain and read it LITERALLY…at face value….and be able to showcase its contradictions. A Christian and a Mathematician will always read their Scriptures and **interpret** them FOR you. Your brain needs to be in the right mode (i.e. WOM = Write Only Memory) in order to receive their sermon. All scriptures….whether Holy Bibles, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Big Bang, Multiverse…. are subject to INTERPRETATION from their High Priests. If you are ever caught reading these scriptures alone, at face value,… you will receive 100 lashes by the High Priest and 5 days without bread and water.

    “Doesn't every human hold some belief?”

    What they do behind closed doors is their problem and irrelevant to science. In science we ask you to explain the intricate physical mechanisms that underlie natural phenomena. We ask you to offer YOUR proposal and explanation of why the Earth pulls a ball to the floor. When you come to the Physics Conference you had better be able to explain in front of the audience. Butterflies in your stomach is no excuse. Furthermore, if you utter any statement of belief (i.e. I believe that …..) they will throw eggs at you. We want your proposed explanations….not your petty and irrelevant beliefs.

    “Can a human explain anything without first beliefs or maybe some call them axioms?”

    No belief is required….and certainly not any axioms (i.e. tautological assumptions). Reality is not based on tautologies (i.e. derivational premised logic). Events in reality can only be explained by using your critical thinking faculties to propose mediating objects. If the explanation is rational….then the proposed objects are possible, otherwise impossible.

    “to relate objects, don't we have to first believe that objects actually exist as objects?”

    No, existence is always assumed (i.e. taken at FACE VALUE) in your Hypothesis (i.e. God exists) for the purposes of the audience understanding your Theory (i.e. of creation of space & matter). If the explanation is rational….then the proposed object is possible, otherwise impossible. What the audience believes behind closed doors after your presentation is over is their own personal business and doesn’t concern science.

    “So in order for my question to make sense I would have to say we conceptualize "TO" conceptualize... instead of "because we conceptualize"?”

    All your thought processes are conceptualizations (conceptions). To think is to conceptualize. And you do so by relating objects during your thinking processes for the purposes of conveying MEANING, and hence, understanding. Once you have attained that, say, for a specific set of ideas….then you can convey these concepts to others so they can understand your ideas as well. If you cannot convey them, then you really have some contradictory concepts which you haven’t understood yourself. A fine example of such a concept is the word “absolute”.

    “Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!”

    I certainly did, thank you! I hope you did as well.

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey... Sorry for the long delay. As usual, I'm very busy and I don't have much time... But thanks for your replies! Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

    Alright, let's get started. I have a lot of questions with so little time. :)

    "Perhaps you are trying to read between the lines. Read the statement again….objectively, and at face value this time."

    -Objectively? At face value? I hear Christians say these kinds of statements all the time... They say to interpret the bible within the context and concepts of the bible...Can we really take such statements seriously? Isn't objectivity just another human concept that doesn't exist? How many concepts aren't reliant on another concept or belief?

    "And there lies their problem: BELIEVE. What you ‘believe’ is your OPINION…. and not a rational argument that you can justify without contradiction"..." A human doesn’t BELIEVE….a human explains. "

    -- Doesn't every human hold some belief? Can a human explain anything without first beliefs or maybe some call them axioms? For instance, to relate objects, don't we have to first believe that objects actually exist as objects? Don't we have to believe that we can actually capably explain anything in order to explain anything?

    "We arrive at any conclusion by using language to convey understanding".. "Language IS a concept….all words ARE concepts"

    --- "Can we say, Concepts don't exist". We arrive at this conclusion by way of concepts.” This was my original question... I'm so excited that you finally confirm this!

    "Again, you don’t understand what concepts are. Anything you can conceptualize has meaning because you have UNDERSTOOD something about your thought process. It is impossible for you to conceptualize anything without meaning. Ergo….all concepts have meaning and thus are defined. Why? For the purposes of understanding and communicating our ideas and understanding to others. We conceptualize to understand!"

    ---- "concepts are actually relations or associations we establish between objects."

    ----" Are you saying understanding and purpose are not concepts?”

    "Yes they are concepts."

    ----- "We conceptualize to understand((((concept)))!" So in order for my question to make sense I would have to say we conceptualize "TO" conceptualize... instead of "because we conceptualize"?

    " If you were only in my shoes, you’d understand."

    --- As I have been... I'm sure I would be very entertained by your biography.

    Till next time... Much thanks.

    -JO

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Indeed, Jake....to assert that "there is no absolute truth" is actually a truth...is a classic strawman and nothing but! It also commits the fallacies of begging the question and circular reasoning.

    I can't understand how people can swallow this crap. I can understand how atheists can swallow it....but I can't understand how humans can.

  • profile image

    Jake Archer 4 years ago

    It's not fair..I just can't "like" that last comment here! That truth is assumed to be what you are plugging..must be one of the oldest straw-man tricks in the book..!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Let's see if he can sense these spiritual waves (Atheists believe in spirits and waves, LOL): Matt Dillahunty....hellooooo....are you out there?

    Matt Dillahunty, how about them LOGICAL ABSOLUTES?

  • Ricardius profile image

    Ricardius 4 years ago

    Yes, Matt has a huge following. He is at least a bishop in the church of atheism. I'd like to see more comments from him, if it is him.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Is this Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience? Maybe Mr. Dillahunty is too embarrassed to identify himself here. Regardless, Dillahunty is a rabid Religionist who doesn't understand his behind from a hole in the ground. That's why this fundamentalist believes in 'absolutes'.

    "Believe, my son!", the Priest said, as he gently placed the Altar Boy on his warm lap.

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    Matt, what makes a truth 'absolute' anyway?

    Define truth: _________

    Define this mysterious adjective 'absolute': _________

    Thank you!

    El Dude

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “But I still don't understand: if my view is just opinion, then why is your view not an opinion?”

    What view? There are no ‘views’, personal or impersonal here. This article critically analyzes the topic of ‘absolute truth’ rationally and explains WHY it is contradictory. There are no truths or opinions involved in this process…..just rational explanations that cannot be contradicted. This is the criterion for objectivity!

    “Then why should anyone believe what you say?”

    Only the Religious believe. A human being is able to critically reason and rationally justify his argument with a non-contradictory explanation. Such arguments objectively stand on their own merit without a third party having to believe in them.

    People like you (sorry, I don’t wanna be mean) have been programmed since birth to think in terms of truths, falsehoods and beliefs; i.e. all opinions! These opinions have nothing to do with rational explanations…..only objectivity does. And we begin by understanding what a CONCEPT is, as lexical terms like ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’ are concepts. Then we dissect these words and critically reason it from there. Isn’t that what I did? If so, then how can it be an opinion?

  • profile image

    Matt 4 years ago

    Dude, you don't have to be so mean. I was just trying to contribute to this topic.

    But I still don't understand: if my view is just opinion, then why is your view not an opinion? As you said, "I never claimed any statement I posted here to be true or false." Then why should anyone believe what you say?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Matt,

    “But if 'true' and 'false' are just opinion, then your statement is opinion too.”

    Says who?

    I never claimed any statement I posted here to be true or false. Can you cut & paste any truth I have posted here?

    Actually, I never peddle truths or falsehoods. Truth is the hallmark of religion. Only a brain-dead ape that still hasn’t fully evolved into a human will still believe in truths. Truth = OPINION. Please read the article that explains it in detail.

    “it can only be relatively true that it is relatively true for you”

    Why are you decreeing relative opinions (i.e. truths) on MY behalf? Are you a dictator or somethin’? Should I agree what you decree about MY opinions out of fear for you?

    “Of course, there are some benefits to relativism”

    Benefit is one’s OPINION and doesn’t concern reality. You might find prayer beneficial….but your neighbor finds it utterly useless!

    You might find a chair beneficial to sit on…..but a bar-goer finds it beneficial to smash over someone’s head during a fight.

    What is of benefit to you is your personal OPINION….so keep it to yourself. It doesn’t concern reality. Nobody cares about your opinions. We only care about what you can rationally explain and justify. Can you justify any of your statements??

    “the claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim”

    Impossible! There are no absolute claims or beliefs or truths or spirits or souls. Your Pastor has obviously messed up your brain with this contradictory garbage.

    Listen and listen well……Truth is a CONCEPT. All concepts are relations. No concept can be without relations. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to think of anything without being in relation to something else.

    Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

    The term ‘absolute’ means WITHOUT RELATIONS. Ergo….’absolute truth’ is an oxymoron….a contradiction in terms….i.e. IMPOSSIBLE! Do you understand this much?

    I mean, this stuff is so basic even a child can get it.

    “I haven't really told you anything”

    Exactly! And that’s because you haven’t the slightest clue of what you are talking about. You came here parroting your Pastor about ‘absolute truth’, without so much as having a clue that truth is a concept and hence, is always in relation!!!!!

    You don’t understand what a concept is. You don’t know that the terms ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’ are concepts,….and therefore ‘absolute truth’ is an oxymoron….a contradiction.

    The only question I have for you is: Did you read this article before posting?

    I already know what the answer is.....but I just want you to acknowledge it.

  • profile image

    Matt 4 years ago

    Okay here's my answer:

    But if 'true' and 'false' are just opinion, then your statement is opinion too. But then if truth can only be relative, then it must be relative for you as well. But wait - THAT (what I just said) can't be claimed in an absolute sense - it can only be relatively true that it is relatively true for you. Shall I keep going?

    Either the claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist's position, or it is an assertion that can't ever be made because every time you make it you have to add another "relatively". It is just the beginning of an infinite regress that doesn't answer the question.

    Of course, there are some benefits to relativism - it means I could never be wrong. Isn't that convenient? The problem is I could never learn anything either, because learning is moving from a false belief to a true one.

    Some ask, "Don't you have to have absolute evidence to believe in absolute truth?" The answer is no. The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. We might not even know a truth, but it is still absolute in itself. The truth doesn't change just because we learn something about it.

    Therefore, no system can stand without some absolute truth to support it. Truth must be based on a firm foundation of self-evident truths or first principles that correspond to reality. Without correspondence, there can be no true or false, right? And if true or false aren't to be used in evaluating the statement, then I haven't really told you anything, and neither have you told me anything.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Matt,....what can and cannot be false (i.e. opposite of true) is YOUR and nothing but YOUR opinion. What is not false to you....is not true to your neighbor. Who is right or wrong.....you or your neighbor? How do we decide? Do we ask your Pastor, Richard Dawkins, or a levitating Guru to decide for us?

    What is 'true' and 'false' is your personal opinion....so how can it be absolute...huh?

    Here, educate yourself:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

  • profile image

    Matt 4 years ago

    I'll give you an absolute statement:

    Everything cannot be false.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jo,

    Fat: “My only objective is to use my critical thinking skills to reason a rational argument."

    Jo: “Hah, sounds very defensive and protective. Don't you agree?”

    Perhaps you are trying to read between the lines. Read the statement again….objectively, and at face value this time.

    “they all really believe they are giving objective rational arguments.”

    And there lies their problem: BELIEVE. What you ‘believe’ is your OPINION…. and not a rational argument that you can justify without contradiction. People believe in contradictions….for if they weren’t contradictions, they would NOT believe in them. They would instead be able to JUSTIFY them with an explanation. Elementary, my dear Watson!

    A human doesn’t BELIEVE….a human explains. It is only those human apes that haven’t fully evolved out of their “primitive primate” blood line who BELIEVE in irrationalities & contradictions. They are so proud of their ignorance, that they label themselves with “-ist” titles, like: atheist, theist, Mathematical Fizzicist, etc.

    "Concepts don't exist". We arrive at this conclusion by way of concepts”

    We arrive at any conclusion by using language to convey understanding….not just to others….but to OURSELVES! And this is the most important part. Most folks out there are trying to convince others of their contradictory arguments when they can’t even understand the words they spew out of their own mouths. Language IS a concept….all words ARE concepts. There is no other way about it. All concepts are defined and understood. All objects are pointed at or illustrated. Our environment consists of objects. This is what we experienced when we evolved here. And it is these object that we related in order to establish CONCEPTS, and hence, establish languages so we can communicate and understand what we convey to each other.

    “So can we just say? We conceptualize because we conceptualize?”

    Again, you don’t understand what concepts are. Anything you can conceptualize has meaning because you have UNDERSTOOD something about your thought process. It is impossible for you to conceptualize anything without meaning. Ergo….all concepts have meaning and thus are defined. Why? For the purposes of understanding and communicating our ideas and understanding to others. We conceptualize to understand!

    “Can we then safely say that conceptually, the universe is eternal... is absolute?”

    I already explained why it is impossible to validate any statement as ‘absolute’. Perhaps you skimmed over that part in my previous posts to you.

    No matter how hard to you try….it is impossible to validate any statement as absolute. Many philosophers have committed suicide after spending most of their lives in such a futile task: Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann….just to name a few. Bertrand Russell became mentally ill and depressed when he couldn’t prove Mathematics as absolute. He was at the edge of suicide.

    What makes you think you have an absolute truth to offer humanity….especially when all concepts are relations (i.e. relative)??

    Not even God Almighty can give you any statement that is absolute…..and this speaks volumes!

    “ I do hope you still have much more conceptual learning to do as well”

    I am learning every day, Jo. If you were only in my shoes, you’d understand.

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey You... As usual, thanks for your replies... I don't have much time, as usual... :) Glad to be able to get back to you though... I did skim over your other articles as you asked me too. Interesting as always. I do enjoy your materialized, chemical and electrical interaction(at least that is how I'm interpreting my chemical and electrical interaction errr... or w/e!). I have some more of your quotes and a just a few questions. You know me... I like to be very succinct and to the point.

    First...

    "Jo, I hope you can appreciate that I am not here to spew my opinions. Sure, almost all forums have folks who are out to “prove” their opinions as truths or facts. You will not find that here, Jo. Sorry if I disappoint in this regard. My only objective is to use my critical thinking skills to reason a rational argument."

    === These kind of statements really make my ears and mind perk up. Hah, sounds very defensive and protective. Don't you agree? Even though many actually are giving their opinion just as you say... they all really believe they are giving objective rational arguments.

    Second...

    "So, no….concepts do not exist because concepts are actually relations or associations we establish between objects."

    "Our intelligence is directly based on relating objects to facilitate understanding."

    === Can we just say it openly? That our conclusion is "Concepts don't exist". We arrive at this conclusion by way of concepts.?

    Third....

    "Q: Why conceptualize?

    A: For understanding and for utility of intended purpose!“

    Are you saying understanding and purpose are not concepts?”

    Yes they are concepts."

    ==== So can we just say? We conceptualize because we conceptualize?

    Fourth....

    "the universe is eternal is an issue we critically reason conceptually.

    "What is true for all people, all places, and for ALL OF TIME."(absolute)

    Can we then safely say that conceptually, the universe is eternal... is absolute?

    Again... Much thanks for your replies and hard work. I have already learned a lot from you, especially about concepts. I enjoy learning. I do hope you still have much more conceptual learning to do as well. :)

    Jo

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "To be fair to Barry and most posters here, there are no science 101 courses!"

    Yes, that statement was meant to be a wake-up call; to get people to think and question whether science is predicated on subjectivity or objectivity. Once you understand that science is objective, you have just completed your Science 101 course. Otherwise, its best for the individual to just stick to Religion with all its tautologies, authorities and truths....especially the absolute ones.

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    "Science is about rationally explaining natural phenomena via Hypotheses & Theories. Please take a Science 101 course."

    To be fair to Barry and most posters here, there are no science 101 courses! At least there don't seem to be any that don't teach Newton, Descartes, Hume, Kuhn or Popper. The opinions of the 'philosophers of science'.

    Popper is largely to blame IMO. At least Newton used the word 'hypothesis' correctly and even admitted he had no friggin' clue what object to hypothesize to mediate the force of gravitational attraction.

  • profile image

    Barry 4 years ago

    I'll keep in touch Fatfist!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "usually how somebody responds when they're intimidated"

    If I'm intimidated by you, Barry, I apologize. I'll try not to tremble and sweat from now on. I've just never had anybody drill me with such difficult questions before. Can't help it if I'm nervous. Thanks for understanding!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “the logic of a theory.. that's a simple one”

    A Theory is a rational explanation of a phenomenon. A Theory will use the actors (i.e. objects) of the Hypothesis to explain the physical mechanism of how an event is mediated in nature.

    For example, suppose your Hypothesis of a mediator for gravity is an angel. The Theory of Gravity will explain that an angel comes in contact with the ball and pulls it to the floor when you let go of it. This is how gravity works under said theory. The object of the Hypothesis = the angel. The angel is the mediator of gravity.

    Systems of Logic, otoh, like classical, quantum, intuitionist, fuzzy, etc. play no role here. Logic is only used to restate the premises in the conclusion. We call this: deriving the conclusion directly from the premises.

    Logic is tautological and derivational.

    A Theory explains the physical/mechanical mechanism of a natural phenomenon. A Theory is rational, not tautological or derivational. You are confusing ‘logic’ with ‘Theory’…..never the twain shall meet!

    “ how do you determine the assumptions you make”

    With your God-given brain!!!

    My God, doesn’t anybody use their brain anymore? Are we all reduced to merely memorizing and parroting our Priests, irrespective of their contradictions? No wonder stupidity is in an all-time high in America!

    In Science, your Hypothesis contain your assumptions that will be taken at face value for the purposes of understanding the mechanics of your Theory (see angel eg.) You need to use your critical thinking skills to reason what object can possibly come in contact with the ball and pulls it to the ground. And once this object is used in your Theory, it must fully explain the phenomenon of gravity without contradictions. If your explanation is rational, then it is POSSIBLE for gravity to work under the mechanism you proposed. Otherwise it is IMPOSSIBLE. There is no right or wrong in this context…..only possible or impossible, got it?

    As you can see….our brain processing power is necessary to conceive of Hypotheses and Theories.

    “furthermore how can science even exist without subjectivity”

    Because we don’t send stupid idiot apes in outer space to measure space and see if it warps/bends…..or to eye-witness the Big Bang with the 0D singularity giving birth to space & matter. Only Religionists do such rituals….just like eye-witnessing Jesus walk on water, raise the dead and ascend into Heaven.

    We don’t inject the subjective human sensory system and the biased opinions of an individual in the Sci Method. The human observer is NOT an actor in the Theory. The actors are the propsed objects of nature which will mediate natural events, like gravity, light, magnetism… We use utmost objectivity via critical thinking, unambiguous definitions, and rational explanations. Opinions play no role here because the observer is NOT center-stage within the Theory, like he is in Religions like Christianity, Islam, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang, String Theory, M-Theory.

    i.e. “I saw Jesus raise the dead, therefore Jesus is God”……or “I saw the Moon move across the sky, therefore space is warped and the Moon rolls on space like a bowling ball rolls on a mattress”. This is idiocy to the 98 th degree!

    “you seem a little ..emotional”

    Like I said, Psychiatry is a Religion. Quit playing a Psychiatrist because it’s not working out for you. Perhaps you should ask for a refund on that Psychiatry course. Maybe then you can pay attention to the critical issues presented here instead of getting distracted with your petty opinions.

  • profile image

    Barry 4 years ago

    Fatfist don't react like you've been offended either, (usually how somebody responds when they're intimidated) no offence here just pure science matey

  • profile image

    Barry 4 years ago

    It actually sounds like i'm getting somewhere with you my friend. Furthermore, 'What ‘logic’ and what ‘theory’ you talking about, Barry' ummm the logic of a theory.. that's a simple one. Furthermore, how do you determine the assumptions you make compared to equally plausible assumptions..furthermore how can science even exist without subjectivity..you have to determine the problem? You thinking everything through properly today?..you seem a little ..emotional.. in nearly every post you make...not very scientific of you :(

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “do you think there is truth”

    Oh, what is this God-like word, ‘truth’, you keep using in your sentences, Barry? What does this word even mean? Can you define it objectively so it doesn’t resolve to an opinion? Let’s both agree that if you cannot define it objectively (i.e. without opinion) by your next post, then you haven’t the slightest clue of what you are talking about….ok?

    “Or is your logic just plausible; a theory based upon a theory.”

    What ‘logic’ and what ‘theory’ you talking about, Barry? Do you even understand what you are asking here….or are you just throwing out words you heard in atheist youtube videos just to look intelligent?

    Logic is only applicable to tautological systems of derivational inference. It has nothing to do with ‘truth’. Here, educate yourself on ‘logic’ before you continue to embarrass yourself in public:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-L...

    And just where does ‘theory’ fall into play in all of this, Barry? A Theory is a rational explanation of a phenomenon (consummated event). Do you even understand what you are asking…. or have you been snorting some Carbon Monoxide?

    “theorise will always return a subjective result based on what it is you thought was acceptable or 'right' to observe”

    There are no right or wrong observations, Barry. Theories rationally explain observations that are taken at face value. Right or wrong is inapplicable in this context. Perhaps you can ask your parents to enroll you into a Science 101 course so you can stop speaking in tongues, ok?

    “I'm not a Psychiatrist”

    Based on the statements of your past two posts, it is practically impossible for you to argue against being a Psychiatrist, Politician and Religionist….all at the same time may I add. Religion is part of your soul, Barry. Just go read the irrationalities you posted! Ex-theists like you will probably never stop injecting Religious reasoning in every discipline…especially in Science.

    Case in point: “we search scientifically, the patterns and signs point to an infinity”

    Just what kind of crack cocaine are you on, Barry? Did you buy it from an unreliable source?

    Humans search SUBJECTIVELY (not Scientifically) with their extremely limited sensory systems…..do you understand this much, Barry??? You cannot reduce Science to a subjective discipline, no matter how hard you try. Science is always objective. Science is NOT about searching for ghosts, Gods and goblins.....Science is about rationally explaining natural phenomena via Hypotheses & Theories. Please take a Science 101 course.

    And ‘infinity’ is NOT a thing (noun of reality). Infinite is an adjective; the opposite of ‘finite’. There are NO infinities. You should educate yourself on these ultra-basics. Here, read what an expert High Priest has to say about your ‘infinity’:

    “Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

    I mean, this comes from the horse’s mouth!

    You should stick to your Religion, Barry…..I hear your Pastor loves to handle simple-minded gullible pushovers like you.

    “in which we cannot define accurately or comprehend”

    Well, then Jesus ferkin’ Christ, Barry! I mean, if a Religionist like you cannot DEFINE the key terms (i.e. truth, infinity, object, concept, exist) of his dissertation, then of course you cannot COMPREHEND what the hell you are talking about! Even a 3-year-old can illuminate you with such simple reasoning, Barry!

    Barry….before you can post arguments here or elsewhere on the net, the prerequisite is that you must understand your key terms. Otherwise your dissertation is utterly meaningless….not just to you, but to everyone.

    “big bang, string,parallel theories). So, is it worth focusing so much energy to reach a conclusion upon which none is right nor wrong?”

    What is right or wrong is your own personal OPINION, Barry. Your neighbor will always conclude the opposite of your “proven” right or wrong conclusion. Opinions are a penny a dozen. Opinions have nothing to do with Science. The Scientific Method is the study of reality, which is objective; i.e. observer-independent.

    Big Bang, String Theory and Parallel Universes do not fall into the context of right or wrong or any other opinionated terms you can imagine. How can anyone possibly evaluate them as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ without injecting his personal opinion or bias into the conclusion? It cannot be done. Why are you so hell-bent in doing Religion instead of Science, Barry? What am I gonna do with ya, Barry?

    Listen, Barry, and listen very well…..These “alleged” theories are IMPOSSIBLE because they have irrational Hypotheses and Theories which are contradictory. They are NOT even Theories to begin with!! i.e. Big Bang Theory is an oxymoron.

    A contradiction always tells you what is impossible. Such issues are solved CONCEPTUALLY, Barry…..and not EMPIRICALLY, by putting a stupid human ape in outer space and having this brain-dead idiot use his limited sensory system to:

    a) Observe a 0D singularity explode into space & matter, thus self-creating the Universe.

    b) Observe a 1D string vibrating in space.

    c) Observe the physical EDGE of our Universe and conclude that another Universe must ‘exist’ beyond that physical wall. Perhaps we can send a crew to drill through that wall with their 36V DeWalt cordless hammerdrills, right?

    Is any of this sinking in, Barry??

  • profile image

    Barry 4 years ago

    (Only the brainwashed seek for truth…..and only the brainwashers peddle it)

    That's interesting, do you think there is truth to the assumptions, rationale, analogies and metaphors you apply? Or is your logic just plausible; a theory based upon a theory. Fortunately for you, accepting (why?) assumptions or filling in the gap in the literature to problem solve and theorise will always return a subjective result based on what it is you thought was acceptable or 'right' to observe. You are peddling your own truth based on your assumptions.

    (Psychiatrists (such as yourself))

    I'm not a Psychiatrist nor believer of the ideas and events of religion. However, the deeper we search scientifically, the patterns and signs point to an infinity, in which we cannot define accurately or comprehend, but attempt to with theories again founded on assumptions (big bang, string,parallel theories). So, is it worth focusing so much energy to reach a conclusion upon which none is right nor wrong?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “There is a seeker in all of us that demands truth”

    Speak for yourself, Barry…..’truth’ is the hallmark of Religion. Only the brainwashed seek for truth…..and only the brainwashers peddle it.

    “a common disorder that stems from your own 'personal experiences'”

    Psychiatry is yet another Religion, Barry.

    Priests can’t explain a single phenomenon in nature. They can’t even tell you how light, gravity or magnetism works. But they sure as hell KNOW that space & matter was created in a single frame of the Universal movie. They call it “Big Bang”,… and these fools claim there was motion within a still photograph at t=0.

    In similar fashion, Psychiatrists (such as yourself) can’t explain a single mental phenomenon in the human race. They can’t even tell us how love, elation, addiction, ocd or mental illness works. But they sure as hell KNOW that neurotransmitters create these phenomena…..even though these fools don’t even know what a neurotransmitter is or what it does.

    Perhaps you should try a Religion that is more suitable to your argument-style, Barry….like Politics. Acting like Stefan Molyneux will get you nowhere here.....unlike Stefan, you can't fool anyone!

  • profile image

    barry 4 years ago

    There is a seeker in all of us that demands truth and answers. The enlightened have learnt not to be deceived by the ego's tendency to seek. It's subjective and projected. You on the other hand prove vulnerable and addicted to the seeking tendency; a common disorder that stems from your own 'personal experiences'.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "This blog's claims that absolute truth is incorrect"

    Oooooo....cheap shot, WreeWree. Please copy/paste the statement in this article which says: "absolute truth is incorrect".

    What's the matter....WeeWee....can't deliver? Looks like your weewee is nipped....or possibly even snipped!

  • profile image

    WreeWree 4 years ago

    1) Absolute truth is a relative opinion.

    2) Nothing is correct or incorrect in relative opinion.

    3) This blog's claims that absolute truth is incorrect.

    4) Did I mention there is no correct or incorrect in relative opinion?

    5) Absolute truth isn't incorrect.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Lol, I thought it was Jo responding. Sorry for the mix-up, qwerty. Humans are the only species on the planet who have the power to deceive and brainwash with their truths. With intelligence comes deception.....and we've mastered it.

  • profile image

    Qwerty 4 years ago

    "Rational humans have no petty truths"

    I'm not Jo.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    "And how can the masses really nod and smile in awe and wonder?"

    Well, if you can get a population of brain-dead idiots distracted with the Love Story fable of the Titanic and with Celine Dion's sappy voice....they wouldn't notice what really happened. We have evolved the gene of "stupidity" after worshiping Authority for millennia. No wonder we've been brainwashed to believe that 19 barefoot camel-riding students from the Arab world took control of the most powerful country on the planet and rammed planes into key targets. And all this....because they are JEALOUS of our supposed "rights & freedoms". What a f'ing joke!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfPtDvm3a_s&lis...

  • profile image

    El Dude 4 years ago

    "The Adventure of Physics Vol II"

    HahahaHA! Sounds and undoubtedly reads just like a shit Star Trek novel. How the hell can these Quantum Qlowns seriously peddle this utter crap to the masses?!

    And how can the masses really nod and smile in awe and wonder?!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jo,

    “would the statement "the absence of matter is nothing" be absolute truth?”

    How do we validate (i.e. prove) such a proposition as: “the absence of matter is nothing”?

    Let’s say we remove all the marbles from a glass jar….and use a vacuum pump to remove all the air atoms so only a vacuum is left.

    Q: Is there NOTHING in the jar?

    How do we prove it either way?

    Well….some people will come along and say they can’t see anything in the jar; so the space in the jar is actually nothing.

    But….the Mathematical Fizzicysts (Einstein, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, et all) out there will claim that there is NO nothing; and that space is actually made up of dark matter or quantum fluctuations or virtual particles or even mini black holes (depending on their interpretation). These bimbos claim that nothing is actually SOMETHING. They claim that space is not empty ….that space is actually a solid brick of infinite matter. Not only that….but they claim that space/nothing is billions of times stronger than steel:

    "The most important thing to keep in mind about Einstein's Universe is the fantastic stiffness of space -- of the rubber sheet, if you like. Let's put it into perspective: let's say the magnitude of the stiffness of a rubber sheet is about 1 x... Using this criterion, the stiffness of solid steel is about 100 000 000 000, or 10¹¹. Space has a magnitude of about 10 ^43, a one with 43 zeroes after it! Space is a billion billion billion times stiffer than steel! ... In other words, the enormous but not infinite stiffness of Einstein's space-time tells us that, while space is not infinitely rigid, it is very, very, very rigid. In fact, odd as it sounds, space is the most rigid stuff in the Universe." -- D. Blair, G. McNamara, Ripples on a cosmic sea, Perseus (1999) p. 20.

    “It will turn out that empty space can be bent, although it is much stiffer than steel. Despite these strange consequences, the theory and all its predictions have been confirmed by all experiments.” -- Motion Mountain, The Adventure of Physics Vol II, Chapter 3, Pg. 121 -- Christoph Schiller

    These Mathematical Clowns claim to have “proven” these facts using complex equations which only they can understand? They insult our intelligence by telling us that we mortals have no hope of ever understanding this stuff unless we spend 10+ years in university studying Mathematics and becoming “members” of their Special Elite Society of Mathematics. Can you believe this BS, Jo?

    Who is telling THE “absolute truth”? Whom shall we believe? Should we cast a vote on the issue? Should we ask a highly decorated Ph.D Nobel Prize winner for his opinion? Should we run a scientific experiment to figure out THE “absolute truth”?

    Q: How do we get to the bottom of this and figure out which is the “absolute truth”?

    A: We can’t! It’s impossible to use the human sensory system or any sort of empirical means to VALIDATE any sort of truth,….be it “relative”, “universal” or “absolute”. The physical limitations of empiricism only leads to subjectivity; i.e. OPINIONS.

    All truths are nothing more than over-glorified and quite often, authoritative or popular OPINIONS! Truth is the hallmark of Religion, specifically, in Traditional Religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc…..and in Contemporary Religions like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, M-Theory, Big Bang, etc.

    Q: Then how do we understand what “nothing” is?

    A: We resolve this issue CONCEPTUALLY (i.e. via critical reasoning) without contradictions….not EMPIRICALLY (i.e. via proof).

    If space/nothing was comprised of matter, then the universe would be one infinite solid block of matter. There would be no individual objects or life arising in such a universe because there would be no spatial separation and no possibility of motion.

    The Universe is a binary system….a concept that embodies matter (something) and space (nothing). We define our key terms unambiguously as follows:

    Something: that which has shape (i.e. object, entity)

    Nothing: that which lacks shape

    In order for objects to arise in the universe, they must have spatial separation (i.e. be separated by nothing). An object is necessarily surrounded by nothing. An environment of nothingness is what necessitates motion. There is no other option besides “something” and “nothing”….and no middleground either.

    So yes….the absence of matter is nothing (i.e. no thing, lack of shape). And this can only be critically reasoned in such a way that it cannot be contradicted.

    It is Religions, like the Religion of Mathematical Fizzics that have truth, especially the super-duper “absolute” kind. The leaders of these Religions wish to isolate their members from reason & rationality. That’s why they tolerate no dissidence and censor their opponents. He who deals in TRUTHS is divorced from reality (i.e. atheists, theists, agnostics, mathematicians).

    Rational humans have no petty truths (i.e. OPINIONS) to offer. They use their brains and critical thinking skills to offer rational explanations that justify their arguments.

  • profile image

    qwerty 4 years ago

    Hi, would the statement "the absence of matter is nothing" be absolute truth?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jo,

    “Are you not a person with the concept that you hold the one true concept for interpreting or defining reality?”

    Jo, I hope you can appreciate that I am not here to spew my opinions. Sure, almost all forums have folks who are out to “prove” their opinions as truths or facts. You will not find that here, Jo. Sorry if I disappoint in this regard. My only objective is to use my critical thinking skills to reason a rational argument.....one which defines its key terms unambiguously, and which can be justified without contradictions. And this is the level where every intellectual discussion about reality should be at, right?

    I mean, what are we achieving if we both give our opinions, beliefs or “alleged truths” to each other? What will we learn from that?

    Before we can even begin to discuss reality, we must understand what a CONCEPT is and what an OBJECT is. All languages are predicated on these two formidable terms for the purposes of communicating and understanding each other with no ambiguities. I hope you can appreciate that.

    All words in language are first and foremost, lexical concepts (i.e. terms used in sentences). When we parse a sentence and understand its context and meaning, we find that all its terms will either resolve to an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. These are the only 2 categories that all words fall into. There is no other possible category…..not just for us….but for every intelligent being out there in the Universe…including God!

    Object: that which has shape

    Concept: a relation (association) formed between two or more objects

    Reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists. Once we define ‘exists’, we are able to talk rationally about existence.

    Exists: something somewhere (an object with a location).

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

    Only objects can possibly exist if they have a location in the Universe.

    For example, a 2018 Corvette is an object with no location. Hence, this object does not exist.

    The Moon is an object with location; it exists…..and it exists irrespective of our knowledge of it.

    Since the definitions of ‘object’ and ‘exist’ are objective (i.e. they do NOT invoke an observer to SEE/TOUCH or sense in the definition itself), they are unambiguous and can be used consistently in our arguments.

    You see, Jo….this is an OBJECTIVE issue. I am not giving you MY interpretation (i.e. opinion) of language and reality. I can rationally justify my case without any contradictions. This is what counts in one’s dissertation….not one’s interpretations or opinions.

    “and concepts don't exist?”

    Please read the article on concepts I linked in my previous post.

    “Are you saying understanding and purpose are not concepts?”

    Yes they are concepts. These words don’t refer to something with shape….otherwise we could illustrate ‘it’, right?

    Understanding can only be achieved from coherent sentences, with unambiguous definitions, and rational explanations.

    Purpose is another animal altogether. It has to do with one’s need or utility. What has PURPOSE to you, may not have to your neighbor….or it may have a completely different purpose. Purpose necessarily invokes an observer to give you his subjective opinion on the matter. Purpose has nothing to do with reality or with Science. Reality is objective and independent of humans.

    You’re welcome, Jo.

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    Hey I found a minute... First of all thanks for your reply... I really feel like I am beginning to understand the way your brain works. I'll have to check out the links some other time. Before I go...

    Two quick thoughts...

    1.) Are you not a person with the concept that you hold the one true concept for interpreting or defining reality? Oh, and concepts don't exist?

    2.) Are you saying understanding and purpose are not concepts? I conceptualize because I conceptualize?

    Again, Much thanks

    - Jo

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    JO,

    “even the atom is conceived. All reality that pertains to this universe(objects included) is conceived.”

    Exactly what the Scientific Method (i.e. Hypothesis + Theory) is about. First we conceive all the objects in the Hypothesis, then use them to explain phenomena in the Theory. For example, we must Hypothesize an object that will be an actor that mediates gravitational attraction between objects in our Theory of Gravitation. For argument’s sake, say we hypothesize an ANGEL. In our Theory of Gravity we explain how the angel grabs all objects and pulls them together. This is how gravity works for the purposes of our Theory.

    Nobody has ever observed an atom, nor will we ever. The atom is a hypothesized entity that we illustrate for the audience in the Physics Conference. Then we use this entity to explain ionization, electricity, magnetism, light, gravity, etc. This is how Physics works.

    “If intelligent, conscious agents conceive, surely a greater agent conceived all of the data and energy interaction that is Reality.”

    There is NO greater intelligent being in the Universe than a human. We humans and all the intelligent aliens out there, have the greatest intelligence in the Universe. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any other being to be more intelligent than us. Not even God is more intelligent than us. It’s impossible.

    Why is it impossible?

    The explanation is in here, Jo. We first need to understand what “intelligence” is. When you get a chance, spend some time to read and understand it:

    https://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENC...

    “Why conceptualize when "concepts don't exist?”

    This is easy to understand, Jo.

    But first you will need to understand what a CONCEPT is. The bounty of the Universe is comprised of objects (i.e. atoms, stars, planets, comets, rocks, living entities, etc.) An intelligent being is one who can establish RELATIONS between objects for the purposes of developing languages, grammars, logic, technology, etc. It is concepts that allow us to UNDERSTAND how objects behave and interact with each other. And this utilization of ever growing concepts we call “abstractions” allow us to develop languages for communication, societies, governments, employment, currency exchanges, technology, medicine, etc. All these disciplines are invented by us because we have utilized these abstract concepts to organize and run our lives according to their prescription (i.e. agreed-upon rules of engagement).

    So, no….concepts do not exist because concepts are actually relations or associations we establish between objects. For example, justice doesn’t exist; it’s an “abstract” concept that relates objects, like the courthouse, judge, jury members, attorneys, litigants, ….and even concepts like laws, restitution, etc.

    Q: Why conceptualize?

    A: For understanding and for utility of intended purpose!

    In similar fashion, if we wish to understand natural phenomena (light, gravity, etc.) in reality, then we must conceptualize objects, existence, motion, distance, etc.

    Here is a good article that explains all this stuff in detail:

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

  • profile image

    Jo 4 years ago

    First off thanks for the reply... Don't have much time to address everything.

    2 quick things.

    "Every single atom is separated by the void."

    --- I think you misunderstood my question. What I meant was... even the atom is conceived. All reality that pertains to this universe(objects included) is conceived. If intelligent, conscious agents conceive, surely a greater agent conceived all of the data and energy interaction that is Reality.

    "He is living a contradiction."

    --- Why conceptualize when "concepts don't exist"? Why does any or your materialized chemical and electrical interaction concern any other chemical and electrical interaction that is divorced or not divorced from reality? Surely it is not wrong or right, good or evil... It just is?

    Again, Much thanks... Like I said I have to go workout amongst other things b/c outside of fantastical semantics and logic I have a real life(?!?!?) as I'm sure you do(?!?!?).

    Adios for now.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “You say the universe is eternal. Does this mean it is absolute based on your definitions?”

    What is ‘absolute’ has nothing to do with MY definitions. The meaning of ‘absolute’ has been a standard for the past 2500 years.

    “The term absolute denotes whatever is free from any condition or restriction, and independent from any other element or factor. If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language.” -- New World Encyclopedia

    Oxford dictionary on absolute: a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

    That the universe is eternal is an issue we critically reason conceptually. It is not an issue of truth or proof, and hence not an issue of absolute truth. All truth stems from propositional statements that are validated (i.e. proven) to be true. How can you possibly prove the universe is eternal? How can you possibly prove no square circle can be drawn? How can you possibly prove a ball cannot be at two locations at the same time? These are not issues of empiricism (i.e. proof). These are conceptual issues.

    “Is "There are No sentences." not a sentence statement?”

    Of course it’s a statement. What does that have to do with absolute truth? Are you implying that at the level of Linguistic Syntax, since “There are no sentences” is a sentence, that this somehow equates to “There are no absolutes” being an absolute??

    Is the issue of absolute truth resolved at the level of SYNTAX (as claimed by its proponents), or is it resolved at the level of CONTEXT (i.e. meaning)? Syntax has no meaning….meaning is only resolved after parsing a sentence and resolving its context.

    “ Void is conceived, It resides within God.”

    Every single atom is separated by the void.

    The point is: How can God be an object (i.e. something) without space? What gives shape/form to God?

    Without space, God is nothing. He has no shape. Either God is something (i.e. has shape) or God is nothing (no shape)…..there is NO other option….ever!

    “God is mind”

    Then YOUR God is a concept. This summarily excludes God from existence. Only objects can possibly exist. You said God is a nothing, instead of a something.

    Object: that which has shape

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

    “Of course there is no true purpose, meaning or value to life.”

    Of course. Purpose is subjective to an individual. What has purpose of X to you….has purpose of Y to your neighbor. Who is right and who is wrong? You or your neighbor? How do we decide? Do we flip a coin? Do we get William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins to fight to the death and whoever stands shall decide for us all???

    Subjectivity is not an issue of democracy for the masses, as that would make it Dictatorship, and….an oxymoron.

    “Is the apologetic atheist living a lie?”

    He is living a contradiction. Atheists and theists are divorced from reality. Reality is not predicated on belief. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained.

  • profile image

    JO 4 years ago

    I got some questions... Haven't finished reading the comments. But I'll most likely forget my questions by the time I finish.

    Let me say... I am not here for any apologetic agenda... Christian, atheism or other. More so inquiry and diversity. I will quote you much.

    "If existence wasn't eternal then the only alternative is non-existence. You are calling for a non-existent mediator for a cause. This is irrational."

    ---- You say the universe is eternal. Does this mean it is absolute based on your definitions? :

    "a) What is true for all people, all places, and for ALL OF TIME.

    b) What is true for every possible circumstance."

    "There are NO absolutes" is not an absolute statement for the same reasons that "There are NO leprechauns", is not a "leprechauns" statement!"

    --- Is "There are No sentences." not a sentence statement?

    "So let us assume that GOD created the universe. Now we must use our Theory to EXPLAIN all the how’s and why’s, specifically, what is a void (if not space), how can God reside in it, and how did God convert the void into space and into matter?"

    -- Void is conceived, It resides within God. God is mind. Is this explanation plausible?

    I have one more question... Is the apologetic atheist living a lie? He lives as if he has true purpose, meaning and value by wanting to change the others as if it truly matters. Of course there is no true purpose, meaning or value to life. They are only concepts right?

    Please only succinct answers so it doesn't get too lengthy. I still have much reading to do.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Alex came here to preach the Bible and parrot his Pastor, not to educate the audience on the fine details of the concepts of 'truth' and 'absolute'.

    Alex can preach during Sunday Service....not here.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

    Alexk: "I do not need to define my terms."

    Amazing.