Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many religions claim to have objective truths, yet those claims can rarely be substantiated. Stating them as facts, doesn't make them so. Please provide one like the headline asks, but more importantly, tell us why you feel it is the case. Remember, if it is stated in a "holy book" of your religion, that makes it the claim, not the fact.
many opening posts(such as this one) claim to state objective truths, yet those claims are not substantiated (including this opening post and thread topic). stating something anything in an open post does not make it a fact. the opening post above is an opinion and a claim and a view.
the title of this thread states "name one objective truth from your religion and DEFEND why it is objective and the truth." defend indicates attack. illuminating what the opening post is actually about. it is about making claims, and it is about attack.
You're dodging.
I stated that a "truth from my religion, is that God certainly exists"...as I embrace the Pantheist religion, and its concept of "God is ALL"...and, of course, ALL certainly exists.
Others then rebutted, "That's not God".
So...the issue became, if ALL comports definitively as God.
Now, as respects the definition...if I, "take care of that myself"...then, of course I'd be all set, since "Supreme Reality" or "Supreme Value" is long known to commonly define "G-O-D"....from even before the Religious Deities and those from Mythology. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...80%A6%E2%80%94
When looking for the meanings of words/terms do not just go by "what people think", as certain individuals and/or groups may be biased and might try to redact/excise or add some meanings.
So...I advise...go by the experts, and turn to the dictionaries that provide the meanings and definitions of words and terms.
I'm not going down some semantic rabbit hole with you. My definition of a "god" is the common everyday definition, which everyone but you seems to know.
If you have any substance to contribute, please do so. I'm all (rabbit) ears!
many opening posts(such as this one) claim to state objective truths, yet those claims are not substantiated (including this opening post and thread topic). stating something anything in an open post does not make it a fact. the opening post above is an opinion and a claim and a view.
the title of this thread states "name one objective truth from your religion and DEFEND why it is objective and the truth." defend indicates attack. illuminating what the opening post is actually about. it is about making claims, and it is about attack.
That's an irrelevance. If anyone doesn't want to have a claim (of an objective truth) questioned and be prepared to argue it, better not to make it in the first place.
Just a quick question, Salty. How did all these reasonless, purposeless, trial and error, but non-chaotic, unintelligent conglomerations of mere chemicals and elements EVER develop life, a survival drive, or conscious intelligence and a concern for things like reason and purpose?
Consult Charles Darwin for the answer to that. However, it is called EVOLUTION.
Question for you. How does a perfect creator create such flawed lifeforms as found on Earth?
Ans: "He" didn't. Life is a product of trial and error, i.e. EVOLUTION.
What we've got here...is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here in Post #618
Which is the way he wants it
Well...he gets it.
And I don't like it any more than you Mystic.
It is a failure to understand...
Perhaps as a result of the communication challenges that are posed in a forum like this one, and also perhaps my fault, but the effort to insult rather than try to better understand just adds to the problem. I mentioned Galileo as an example of religion persecuting people who more objectively relied on the scientific method; observation, testing and retesting, rather than continue the age-old default of trusting religious doctrine.
You two come out blasting after I signed off that's what was meant all along. Okay. We apparently agree about something then, but that today we don't see proof-of-God exhibits in science academies is because of some "deal" agreed upon by the scientific community? If you want to crow about something, other than provide what we should all know and understand about what happened to Galileo and why for example, (also to many others who dared question scripture and those who insisted it not be questioned), then do please demonstrate the reason there are not proof-of-God science exhibits is for any other reason than that no such exhibit is possible. There is no such evidence or proof like the evidence and proof that go with the other science exhibits. Simple as that!
We understood perfectly well I'm sure. Mystic refers to history of supposed persecution of science by the Church.
I don't even think that's true. The Church was fine with Aristotelian science and even disagreeing with that, so long as it did not threaten Church Dogma.
However, even if he was correct, that is merely wishing on present day scientific and rationalist thought, old labels that no more apply than Democritus' 'Atoms' apply to the present packets of quarks. The History is there but the modern concepts are Not to be misrepresented by pretending that the old concepts under those labels apply today.
n. b. in case anyone missed that the point of the argument is to refute an attempt to discredit science, or the logic that underlies it in order to undermine or misrepresent skepticism about the God -claim. The point is to debunk Mystic's attempt to knock down a strawman rational skepticism (including atheism, of course ) by using fiddled logic and semantic faddling.
I'm not sure whether Mystic's argument was on the topic of Objective truths, but since it stands, the refutation should also stand, and anyone trying to stomp on this perfectly justified response can expect to find themselves on report, no matter who it may be, right up as far as it takes.
So let's not do that, hey ?
Amazing to note how some people can understand at least the basics with some ease while others struggle mightily with even the basics, and then a kick to see how some always assume it's some sort of mental short-coming and/or "absolute ignorance" no less, that prevents others to understand them.
Ego, ego, ego...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
