You will be very proud of me. I've made this one very, very short, because, in a way, it brings us right back to presuppositions. So I've skirted around a lot of your questions and comments for now. If there is one you were busting for me to address, and I did not, put it back to me in bold.
I'm not exactly claiming to know AT as in what it is. I accept that there is an absolute truth, but that we cannot know it. Sure, I am kind of making that to be an absolute truth. However, I'd be hard pressed to prove it, either to myself or to someone else. It's probably a statement of pure logic more than anything else. It's hard to see how there cannot be an absolute truth, even if that truth is that there is no such truth, or that there is but that we cannot know it.*
Originally Posted by luvthelord
Your comment here brings me back to a question I think we discussed right back in the very beginning. Presuppositions.
What do you think that the fundamental presuppositions are, upon which you base this comment:-
- particularly in the context of your religious version of it, namely that God exists, that the Bible is his word, that your understanding of the Bible is absolute truth? (I hope I have this correct).
Originally Posted by LtL
Yes. I could be wrong about anything and everything. So why bother to debate? To continually test my ideas as to what I think truth is, as far as I can ascertain that truth. Consider a human body on the ground, its death unseen by anyone. There is an absolute truth as to the cause of death and opinions can be given concerning this. But some opinions will be better made than others. Those opinions will appeal to logic and to evidence. They will be based on what are considered by all parties to be a reasonable set of presuppositions. Those other opinions will be speculations, wild guesses, perhaps even made up stories.
Originally Posted by LtL
The cause of death may never be known with absolute certainty, even though there must be an absolute truth about that cause "out there".
That's why we debate and argue - to try and work it out, and failing that, to try and work out the most probable answer out of all possible answers.
And of course, it can be fun upsetting some people.
* There is a logic called "fuzzy logic". It attempts to deal with statements that have a degree of probability associated with them. Statements might be true or false. But in the real world they mostly have probabilities associated with them. I think you were debating at one stage, Strangelove re heliocentricism versus geocentricism. Now to me (and to you), it's a fact that the earth orbits the sun. But were you able to convince Strangelove? If not then clearly there is either something wrong with Strangelove, or there is something wrong about what we consider to be "fact". And if you consider heliocentricism to be an absolute fact now, given our use of cameras and satellites, then just how factual could it have been when the idea was first put forward on a reasonably empirical basis several hundred years ago? Then there were plenty of observations to show that the sun orbited the earth (and there still are). And furthermore, mathematically, it's quite hard to prove one theory as against the other. So even there, what you and I might consider hard, solid fact, does in fact have a degree of fuzziness, even to this day.
** I have no problem with the claim AT exists. I do have a problem with any claim along the lines of "X actually is AT", where X is not AT. If X equals AT, then the claim "AT is actually AT", while absolutely true, does not get anyone anywhere. It is, to use your words, "viciously circular".
Last edited by rjw; 02-11-13 at 12:15 AM.