Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is the first that I'm hearing about a desire for truth. Yes, it may be so that a desire for truth is what motivates rational thinking.
I was talking about an epistemological starting point. A desire for truth isn't that. It is just what sparks an epistemological process.
The term free thought implies a desire for truth. It has to do with not simply accepting what other people say is true, and instead using one's own reasoning processes to arrive at truth. It is about getting closer to what is true, not merely letting one's mind wander in a daydream.
As Bertrand Russell had said:
What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Well, I can say for myself that I, too, have honestly sought out the truth, have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God... and I have come to the conclusion that such a being does not exist. It wasn't simple me me either, no way... but I dare to say that if you chose to describe that process as "real spiritual warfare" and won by "playing your trust in Jesus", you have lost your objectivity quite early... and most likely your honesty as well.
In that case, the case of objectivity and honesty... I find it very interesting that in response to a post where I showed that your own claims towards honesty and objectivity are rather inconsistent, you chose to post something that isn't anything but a renewed claim of your own integrity and loyality to an assumption.
Could you not at least stand up to the mistakes you made?
No matter what men think? Not even a man like you?Not necessarily, if you discover the actual truth about life, your not likely to deviate from that truth because if you do you'd become a fool. There's many different truths that man can come up with, but only one truth that actually stands as true no matter what men think. If a man would find this truth, he would logically never deviate from it.
No matter what men think? Not even a man like you?
You do think you have found a truth, don't you?
And you think that it "stands as true, not matter what man think".
Then you should be able to show that it is true, no matter what man - neither you nor me - think.
I haven't seen you do that. I haven't seen any Christian or other theist do that.
But I have seen you contradict yourself... and not being able to admit it. Do you really think that as long as you "never deviate from it"... you never admit to being wrong, you have a claim to the truth?
Read post #118 again. Then read the second paragraph of post #120 again.Please point out where I have contradicted myself.
Yes, please do.I will then point out where you have cintradicted yourself.
We'll see where it all gets us.
Read post #118 again. Then read the second paragraph of post #120 again.
You quoted both posts, but obviously you didn't understand them.
Yes, please do.
Let's see where it gets us.
You contradict yourself again.I think my signature that has been there ever since I became a member on this site should answer this for you. I've always thought I should try to be as honestly objective as possible and never assume unless its actually safe to assume.
So first you want us to assume your prefered postions and question it instead of the position you reject.So why can't you assume God is perfect and then start questioning his perfection? Instead of assuming he's not perfect and then start questioning his perfection that you have already assumed is not perfect?
Deducing that one of your assumptions is correct, because another of your assumptions is correct... another bad way of logical reasoning.The reason I started this thread was because I thought it was safe to assume an atheist would bring God into the conversation first and my assumption was correct. Now I'm trying to determine what that means. Do you honestly see anything wrong with my approach to determining what is true?
For all the questions you asked about my position here on this thread, you still didn't understand my answers.
You contradict yourself again.
So first you want us to assume your prefered postions and question it instead of the position you reject.
When I pointed out that starting with the assumption that your conclusion is correct is a rather bad approach, and the way of reductio ad absurdum is a better way, you now wanted to not assume anything anymore.
And now, that I have pointed out this contradiction, you want to go to an assumption again... an assumption that "is actually safe to assume".
By which of course you mean your preferred assumtion... because you have already from the start decided that it is correct.
Deducing that one of your assumptions is correct, because another of your assumptions is correct... another bad way of logical reasoning.
So, yes, I see a lot of wrong with your approach of determining what is true.
For all the questions you asked about my position here on this thread, you still didn't understand my answers.
Our existence is perfect, because it is the one and only that exists. What does not exist is not perfect. We cannot be perfectly objective, because perfect objectivite does not exist. So we cannot have it. No contradiction at all.
Over time reading this board, I have met a lot of people for whom the truth, isn't true.Interesting quote, thanks. I'd just say that after we find the truth, our thoughts are no longer free to deviate from that truth because if we do deviate from the truth, we then become a fool.
The truth about life on Earth, is still unknown. We are sure about how it developed after the initial start. How it progressed from simple species in the sea, to fish like creatures walking onto the land, dinosaurs, megafauna, hominids and eventually humans. And how evolution is still progressing today. That's the truth.Not necessarily, if you discover the actual truth about life, your not likely to deviate from that truth because if you do you'd become a fool. There's many different truths that man can come up with, but only one truth that actually stands as true no matter what men think. If a man would find this truth, he would logically never deviate from it.
Over time reading this board, I have met a lot of people for whom the truth, isn't true.
My thoughts are allowed to deviate from the truth, should it grow, change or discover new evidence. Some here don't want such freedom.
You only assume that your observations are "honest objective". And you are wrong to assert that "assumptions that are not based on honest objective observation are false assumptions"... that is for your reasoning to show, not "honest objective (or not)" observations.I would consider assumptions that are not based on honest objective observation are false assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions I never want to make. After honest objective observation of atheists I felt safe to assume they would bring God into a conversation about perfection first and its unclear to me why they would do this since they don't believe in God. I never got a clear answer on this because the person falsely assumed I was lying.
Not by "making safe assumtions after honestly objectively observing". Obviously.So you're saying I shouldn't make safe assumptions after honestly objectively observing? How can I ever learn anything if I don't?
Is it? Then it is a bad assumption that you also made.You can't prove that perfect objectivity does not exist, so that's an example of a bad assumption.
And that would be one of these bad assumptions that are not based on honest objective observations, one of those that you never want to make?It takes an honest person to realize they can't be perfectly objective, they can only be honestly objective.
You assume that perfect existence can not include the cessation of existence. What honest objective observations do you base that one?Also, if existence is currently perfect and you exist in this perfect existence, this would make you perfect, thus no reason to go out of perfect existence(if there is a reason please explain it), yet you contradict this view by saying you will go out of existence when you die.
The truth about life on Earth, is still unknown. We are sure about how it developed after the initial start. How it progressed from simple species in the sea, to fish like creatures walking onto the land, dinosaurs, megafauna, hominids and eventually humans. And how evolution is still progressing today. That's the truth.Not necessarily, if you discover the actual truth about life, your not likely to deviate from that truth because if you do you'd become a fool. There's many different truths that man can come up with, but only one truth that actually stands as true no matter what men think. If a man would find this truth, he would logically never deviate from it.
That makes no sense.I don't think is reasonable to assume truth can change, which is why I believe truth will never change, it will always be true no matter what humans do.
This is the problem. Unless you're a scientist of many fields, you have to trust them. We can't make honest objective observations on subjects that are beyond our knowledge.I would consider assumptions that are not based on honest objective observation are false assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions I never want to make.
Is there a difference between truth and what is true? Because what is true certainly does change. For instance, it's true that the sky outside my window right now is blue, but soon it will no longer be true.I don't think is reasonable to assume truth can change, which is why I believe truth will never change, it will always be true no matter what humans do.
Turns out, the discussion of "perfect existence" was just a ruse to get atheists to acknowledge that God is perfect or something.TBH, I skipped from page 1 ,to page 7.
At what point did it go from the near perfect existence. To people trying to tell each other what's truth?
So why can't you assume God is perfect and then start questioning his perfection? Instead of assuming he's not perfect and then start questioning his perfection that you have already assumed is not perfect?
I don't assume that he's perfect because I've created an ontological proof for it. If we can logically show god isn't perfect, why would we assume he is?
Turns out, the discussion of "perfect existence" was just a ruse to get atheists to acknowledge that God is perfect or something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?