If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Exactly where did you get that supposed quote? I'm usually very careful NOT to say there is no absolute truth. Neither. I am saying that I don't know of any absolute truths and I am asking you to give examples of what you think is absolute truth - beyond trivialities like "A and not A can not both be true at the same time". So far, you haven't been able to do it. I'm telling you that I don't know how there could be any reality independent of thought and I'm asking you to provide examples. Again, you provide none. I'm asking you to substantiate your opinion that absolute truth exists by giving examples. Why don't you just do that?

Here Message 64

Well, you got me there. I will gladly retract the denial and also the statement itself. It should read, "If you know of any absolute truths, for @#$%'s sake roll them out."

removed as uncharitable. Take foot off of neck.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Kinda leaves the person you were debating in a tough spot, eh? He's been relying on what you said.

If he was relying on what I said, he could have quoted it a long time ago.

Dear Ringo,Thank you for your continued interest. I have given examples; and you have belittled them as being trivialities even though a ‘trivial’ ‘Absolute Truth’ is still an ‘Absolute Truth’.Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that TLoNC is the most trivial of all ‘Absolute Truths’ it is still an ‘Absolute Truth’ and, therefore, ‘Absolute Truth’ does indeed exist.So, since you have not rebutted of my evidence, as of yet, I can only assume you are unable to rebut it; and are just unwilling to accept the obvious.Speaking of obvious, if, as you suggest, there is no reality independent of thought then one of us must be arguing with ourselves because two entities having thought would represent a reality independent of the thought of the other entity.So, unless you’re going to say that we are all the same entity, the fact that I am having a conversation with you is evidence that there is a reality independent of thought; would it not???Again, great fun,
JRTjrP.s. Thanks, NoNukes, for the help there; I thought I had not misquoted Ringo.

I don't mind helping out, but I have to admit that ringo's accusatory take on the issue ("supposed quote") irked me just a bit. I suppose I'm old enough that I should let stuff like that go...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that extremely trivial absolute truths do exist. So what? What is the importance of absolute truth if it is only trivial? Their thoughts are (more or less) independent of each other - but their thoughts are not necessarily connected to any "reality".

The quote was unreferenced, which was why I called it a "supposed quote".

Personally, I believe in certain absolutes---absolutes such as love, humanity, character. I would argue that you are an absolute...you are certainly more than simply a relative! Being connected implies a sort of communion. Would you be prepared to argue that humanity lacks communion?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

All of those can be expressed in a wide variety of ways, sometimes conflicting ways - e.g. "tough love". How are they "absolute"? I guess you could say that science represents a kind of "communion with reality". Religion often does not.Edited by ringo, : Changed "usually" to "often".

Dear Ringo,I pray you are doing well. I can agree with that. My thoughts are not always ‘necessarily connected to any "reality"’ however, the fact that Their thoughts are (more or less) independent of each other lends credence to the fact that there is a reality independent of the thoughts of the other entity.In other words, it is not the ‘thoughts’ themselves that are ‘connected to reality’; but rather the fact that there is more than one entity having ‘thoughts’ that points to a reality beyond a single entity’s thoughts from a logical stand point. Would you not agree? My only point was that they do indeed exist; so whether or not they are trivial is irrelevant.Especially since ‘whether or not they are trivial’ is an ‘opinion’ not a ‘fact’; just like ‘I like chocolate Ice cream’ is an ‘opinion’ but ‘Hydrogen is a chemical element with chemical symbol H and atomic number 1. With an atomic weight of 1.00794 u, hydrogen is the lightest element on the periodic table.’ is a ‘Fact’. (Wikipedia.org / Hydrogen)On the question of its importance I’d like to, if I may, tell a short story to illustrate my point.High up in the Rocky Mountains many years ago there once lived a man in a small shack. He lived there all by himself and enjoyed the solitude and beauty of nature all around him.For many years he used a big rock to hold open his front door, and quite often it would come up in conversations on those rear occasions he had a visitor. Some people thought it was a hideous thing and that he should find something that looked better to better accent the fine log cabin he had built for himself, others thought it was a perfect touch to the ‘rugged, out in the wild’ look.Many years went by and that rock remained as the old man’s doorstop. Until, that is, one day a young graduate from a faraway collage went hiking with some friends. Through their wandering and meanderings they came across the old man and he invited them to come to his cabin for some worm coffee.It came to pass, as they were sitting on his porch, that the doorstop became the topic of conversation, as it usually did. The young graduate asked the old gentleman if he could pick it up and look more closely at it.‘Sure, it’s just an old rock I found many years ago, go ahead, but watch yourself, it is heavier than it looks.’ The old man told him.So the young man picked it up and placed it on the table between them; he examined it closely.He then said to the old man: ‘I have just graduated collage; my major was geology, and I am almost certain that this rock contains gold.'So, just because you may think something is ‘trivial’ (like that rock) does not make it useless.Having Great fun,
JRTjr

No. Many people have written about the Star Wars universe or the Star Trek universe or the Middle Earth universe. That doesn't make those universes any more real. So let's go back to square one. In Message 60, your first reply to me, you said:

quote:

---

I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth.

---

to which I replied in Message 64:

quote:

---

You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth".

---

That seems to be where this rabbit-hole started. So let's dispense with the idea of "absolute truth" and go back to your original statement. What do you mean by "objective truth"?

Dear Ringo,How are you? Again, I agree 100%; But I think you missed my point.Even if almost everything each ‘entity’ thought was unrelated to any reality; since we have established that there is more than one ‘entity’; that, in and of itself, suggests a reality outside of our own thoughts.It is not ‘what’ is being ‘thought’ here; but it is the ‘what’ that is doing the ‘thinking’. I explained what I meant by ‘Objective truth’ in my comments in Message #78. I go back to my examples in my last post. This is an ‘opinion’; a ‘Subjective Truth’ because its truthfulness is ‘subject’ to my opinion; my likes or dislikes. This is an ‘Objective truth’; that means it is true despite anyone’s opinion; anyone’s likes or dislikes.Thank you again for your continued interest,
JRTjr