Jan 6

Moar trash from one of the WOAT “news” sources.

ALL news sources are trash. The degree is based on each individual’s bias.

1 Like

That’s an outrageous lie

Because you don’t believe in media, doesn’t mean it is all bad.

That would mean there is no objective truth. Seems like you’re trolling but in a remarkably weak way, or simply dumb. Probably both

Do you actually believe in objective truth? Judging from our religious conversations I’d doubt it.

I do, but you believe all truth and all morality come from a magic man in the clouds, through your church’s dogma. I think your church is the most corrupt organization in history and by no means arbiters of truth or morality in any way. I believe man’s ladder to salvation is not in the church, but in his home.

All that being said, if you hold up 1 finger, the objective truth is just that…you held up one finger. If my perceptions or biases for some reason make me think you held up 2, it doesn’t change the facts that you held up 1. Jesus plays no role in this, nor Allah, nor Tom Cruise.

I tend to shun supernaturalism, superstition and dogma in my decision making, or attempt to.

I love thought experiments.

If Jesus is indeed the creator of all things (suppositionally for sake of argument) then it follows that He designed the finger, the eye that perceived it, the brain that processes it, and the mind that consciously knows it.

So if He is the designer/creator it would absolutely follow that He creates the truth in every shape form and fashion.

Furthermore, on your naturalist or materialist view, I can easily argue that there is no good reason for you or me to believe that our cognitive faculties are rational or should be relied upon.

If evolution is true, and matter randomly self organized into life, then there really is no way to know truth (epistemologically). Your brain was created out of the necessity to survive. It’s not concerned with “a = truth” unless “a = truth” simultaneously means “a = survival.”

So your brain may have, in the course of evolution, developed all sorts of mistruths that helped you to survive and while you live, you delude yourself.

This is why truth is dependent upon/contingent upon someone outside of our reality that is objective and reveals the truth to us.

Unless those evolved genetically out of his his groundwork.

Why do you start with huge assumptions and then pretend to use logic to form conclusions?

The entire thing is an assumption.

You don’t need to say, “If I make up A, then B would naturally follow, which means C.” You might as well just say, “Let’s assume C” because that’s your unfounded belief. We can go from there if you like thought experiments.

Whether we know it or not doesn’t mean there isn’t objective truth. True, if you hold up one finger behind your back, I have no way of objectively knowing what the truth was, but you know the truth was 1 finger.

Sure, like a video camera placed behind your back with a clear view of your fingers.

Did you miss where I wrote “suppositionally for the sake of argument?”

The argument is “does God reveal truth or do we rationally perceive/sense it”

So I would think there must be a side that supposed God and then creates a framework from that supposition. No?

Many times I have offered that God in the parlance of educationists would be classified as a “severe underachiever.”

I didn’t miss that. We both know you STARTED with an assumption.

What I’m criticizing is that you go through the farce of layering logical steps on top of that assumption, when all that is unnecessary. Just start with the assumption you want instead of the poor attempt to add a veneer of rational thinking. You’ll arrive in the same place.

I do too. Rather than spending time with someone who’s so obviously dishonest in his every day life and doesn’t enter into discussions in good faith…no point in spending too much time going back and forth over Plato, Descartes or Newton…

Let’s play your fanciful game of philosophy in its most simple form:

If objective truth didn’t exist, that in itself would be an objective truth and thus contradict the point.

See ya tomorrow

And then pretends he is a man of faith to boot

I mean- I agree with your syllogism but I don’t think that I was arguing against objective truth, nor were we debating whether objective truth exists…. We were debating what it’s grounded in. I’m saying it’s God. You don’t believe in a God. I’m seeking to understand where this objective truth finds it’s ontological root in your worldview.