Posted on 03/10/2012 3:53:42 AM PST by God-fear-republican
I don’t believe it is self-defeating. Why do you say so?
I think God exists inside of us, outside of us, and even if we didn’t exist.
Relativism (of the sort we are discussing) is inherently self-defeating because generally speaking no statement of relativism can stand on its own merit.
And God existed outside of us first, since (as you describe) we are the creation and He is the Creator.
Generally speaking, that wasn’t much of an answer. Why can’t it stand on it’s own merit?
What sort are we speaking of?
May DIVINE providence enter in.
Yes, only it isn't an answer so much as a mystery acknowledged.
Thanks. It’s not very hard to acknowledge a mystery.
The relative is always defined by the absolute.
What if there is no absolute? How does one actually prove that the absolute exists, to someone that believes differently?
We’ll examine the two possibilities:
1) Absolute truth exists;
2) Absolute truth does not exist, only relative truth exists.
Both statements assert absolute truth—that is, both are stating something absolutely. Therefore, statements of relativism are proof in themselves of the absolute.
Can you define the absolute truth that does exist?
How about other possibilities?...absolute truth is different for each of us?
...Or absolute and relative truths coexist?
Here’s an example of absolute truth:
“Sometimes the truth is relatively hard to find.”
(Are you starting to get it yet?)
Sorry, I disagree. Perhaps for you it is.
Thanks for the conversation.
The same conversation once occurred between me and a close relative. He eventually came up with an idea that seemed at first to demonstrate that he was right in his assertion that nothing is absolute.
His idea was mathematical. Just look at asymptotes, he told me. See? They are the proof of relativism—the asymptote approaches, but never touches, the line.
But then I realized that my relative had in fact proven that the relative is in fact defined by the absolute (the absolute is the line which describes the asymptote).
This mathematical proof reflects a very important reality—all that can be said to be relative is so only because of the existence of the absolute.
One last thing to consider, and this offers the chance to negate all the lies told in public schools and universities: Truth is not ours to define in our imaginations—it is external to us, to be discovered and observed.
The absolute truth I’m speaking of is not mathematical/logical in nature.
Except for the part about needing to be discovered, I agree that...’Truth is not ours to define in our imaginations—it is external to us, to be discovered and observed’...I just happen to believe that this truth is different for each of us, as God planned. To me this is reflected in our belief in self-evidential truths.
This truth I speak of, is absolute only to the individual. When applied to more than one individual, it becomes a reference. This reference, is what defines the relative.
For a truth to be self-evident means that it is true in itself, and needs no external verification by either things or individuals.
Can you give me an example or two of truths that are different for each of us, and what exactly you mean by “it becomes a reference?”
Yes, true to the person it is evident to.
That everyone worships the same God, and using this as the reference to base moral decisions on.
Our moral decisions are relative to our self-evident truths.
Now I understand your use of the word “reference.” And it is not a relative but an absolute in the way you use it.
Yes. The absolute applies only to the individual. When more than one person is involved, the absolute goes out the window...then we have relative or references.
I am not semantically inclined. I am talking about the absolute, universal truth that so many freepers talk of.
You have switched the meaning of “absolute” with that of “relative.”
Absolute means external, objective, never changing truth.
Relative means internal, subjective, transient assertion.
The only benefit to pretending relative truth exists in place of absolute truth is to set the stage for the purpose of lying. In an imaginary world where truth is only relative (subjective), there’s no such thing as lying.
As I pointed out to you earlier in our semantic exchange, assertions of relativism are themselves presumed to be absolute although the speaker very often doesn’t realize it.
As I mentioned before, I’m not sematically inclined. I really don’t care about definitions. I am merely stating that when it comes to more than one individual, I simply do not believe a moral/spiritual/metaphysical/whatever one chooses to call it, truth, exists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.