i never said all of mathematics is absolute truth.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
So, lets focus your answer a bit more, shall we.
You say, "yes in mathematics." So, allow me to ask another question, please:
Does absolute truth exist only in mathematics?
Well, in our world of mathematics, we call that a type or form of "singularity." However, even with singularities, if you change the assumptions or inputs, you can reach a soluble output. So, the logic won't hold on that premise.
On the second premise of "I don't think there is any absolute truth in the physical world," I'll wait for the other respondent to give his answer before I demonstrate why this is a serious problem for the Atheist, on more than one level.
Godel uses math to show how his incompleteness theorem is true.
Would you say his mathematical incompleteness theorem is absolutely true ?
Thing is, either way, the math is.
Math is absolutely true but as vehn points out , not all mathematics.
Also not withstanding the usual absurd creationists' definitions of the word, Nature in and of itself , it can be said , in the end, is an absolute truth.
But, does absolute truth exist ONLY in mathematics?
That's the current question on the table. Be careful how you answer. The answer you give will say a tremendous amount, no matter which direction you go!
Well, let's see. Math and Nature. Well, those are not answers to the question. I'd like to "get on with it" but at least knowing where someone stands on the matter might help the "getting" process just a bit.
Does absolute truth exist - was the question. Should I assume that by your reply that:
1) Nature covers all living things on earth.
and,
2) Math covers all else in the universe.
If this is the proper assumption to make, please just say so.
You see Stu, the Atheist who considers himself to be cleaver, won't answer this question directly, if he's had this debate before. Typically, the Atheist without a real understanding of what Atheism truly means, will often times run head first into the brick wall that is this question, without really thinking about what they are saying.
The answer is real tricky, and the shrewd Atheist typically refuses to answer the question with a yes, or no - favoring qualifiers such as: "In nature." Or, "in mathematics." Or, something equally as non-committal.
Can you at least commit to the existence of absolute truth in all things within our universe?
The answer is real tricky, and the shrewd Atheist typically refuses to answer the question with a yes, or no - favoring qualifiers such as: "In nature." Or, "in mathematics." Or, something equally as non-committal.
Can you at least commit to the existence of absolute truth in all things within our universe?
I guess this question will never get answered straight forwardly.
So, here's the point:
If you had said "no," absolute truth does not exist (as so many Atheists and Evolutionists do when asked), then that statement alone would have been enough to end the debate, as you would have clearly demonstrated a strong propensity towards circular logic. Using an "absolute" to rule out an "absolute" is by its very definition, circular and therefore eliminates one from having the intellectual capacity to argue on a broader scale about the source and origin of the Universe.
If you had said "yes," absolute true does exist (without the slick qualifiers of 'in mathematics' or 'in nature' etc.) absolutely, then you would have been correct in your assessment and bound to answer the follow-up question of:
Where does absolute truth obtain its source and origin?"
Following the well established universal constant that for every effect, there must be an associated causality within the known universe, one has to also conclude that there can be no cause without a preceding effectual outcome. This if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing. Forward, therefore, if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin.
That, resolved, would lead to the primary universal question:
What is the source and origin of the Universe itself?
Knowing and accepting that absolute truth is contained within cause and effect, and that cause and effect is therefore contained within the universe, it begs the next logical question about the causality for the Universe itself. And, that question would logically lead to the physical instantiation of the Universe, namely the layman's term: The Big Bang. Mathematically derived as the first causality point of singularity.
Of course, if one believes in standard cosmological principles (as I do) that the point of singularity was a real historical event within our universe, then one would therefore have to deal with the question of:
What was the source and origin of the first cause point of singularity - The Big Bang?
At this point, most Atheists start looking for the nearest Exit sign as they find their way out of the debate, claiming "victory" as they mumble something about "parallel universes," "multiverses" and/or "colliding membranes with infinite substrates," as their be-all, end-all explanation for the source and origin of the "Big Bang." None of it true, logical, rational or even reasonable at this stage, but it is typically what the erudite Atheist pulls out of the final bag of tricks.
Of course, my (typically final) retort is:
Ok, then what was the source and origin for the colliding membranes?
To that simple question, most Atheists then break full speed into the personal insults about how I sheepishly follow the "Bible" - even though I NEVER once used the "Bible" to disprove their illogical claim that you can get something from nothing in our known universe. Typically, the Atheist then declares victory and then moves on.
Oh, well - at least here we did not have to go through all that, because no Atheist could muster enough wherewithal to handle the question outright.
The only thing that can possibly explain the known universe and its potential for and exhibition of, intelligence through mankind, is the absolute existence of a Creator with extensibility both within and without our physical frame of reference. There can be no other answer.
Why? Because if intelligence exists, then so to must it have its own point of instantiation as mathematically [0+0] = 0. Thus, if intelligence by definition exists, then its value must be > 0. And, if its value is > 0, then it would be mathematically impossible for [0+N] = 0 (where N must equal a positive value in order for intelligence to exist).
So, you see, using some very basic math an some common sense and intellectual honesty, one can show the logical proofs for the existence of God. And, if God exists, then who or what among His creation is capable of proving otherwise?
The logic is unbreakable, but I don't mind a healthy (on the merits) debate with anyone who thinks they can.
So, here's the point:
If you had said "no," absolute truth does not exist (as so many Atheists and Evolutionists do when asked), then that statement alone would have been enough to end the debate, as you would have clearly demonstrated a strong propensity towards circular logic. Using an "absolute" to rule out an "absolute" is by its very definition, circular and therefore eliminates one from having the intellectual capacity to argue on a broader scale about the source and origin of the Universe.
If you had said "yes," absolute true does exist (without the slick qualifiers of 'in mathematics' or 'in nature' etc.) absolutely, then you would have been correct in your assessment and bound to answer the follow-up question of:
Where does absolute truth obtain its source and origin?"
Following the well established universal constant that for every effect, there must be an associated causality within the known universe, one has to also conclude that there can be no cause without a preceding effectual outcome. This if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing. Forward, therefore, if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin.
That, resolved, would lead to the primary universal question:
What is the source and origin of the Universe itself?
Knowing and accepting that absolute truth is contained within cause and effect, and that cause and effect is therefore contained within the universe, it begs the next logical question about the causality for the Universe itself. And, that question would logically lead to the physical instantiation of the Universe, namely the layman's term: The Big Bang. Mathematically derived as the first causality point of singularity.
Of course, if one believes in standard cosmological principles (as I do) that the point of singularity was a real historical event within our universe, then one would therefore have to deal with the question of:
What was the source and origin of the first cause point of singularity - The Big Bang?
At this point, most Atheists start looking for the nearest Exit sign as they find their way out of the debate, claiming "victory" as they mumble something about "parallel universes," "multiverses" and/or "colliding membranes with infinite substrates," as their be-all, end-all explanation for the source and origin of the "Big Bang." None of it true, logical, rational or even reasonable at this stage, but it is typically what the erudite Atheist pulls out of the final bag of tricks.
Of course, my (typically final) retort is:
Ok, then what was the source and origin for the colliding membranes?
To that simple question, most Atheists then break full speed into the personal insults about how I sheepishly follow the "Bible" - even though I NEVER once used the "Bible" to disprove their illogical claim that you can get something from nothing in our known universe. Typically, the Atheist then declares victory and then moves on.
Oh, well - at least here we did not have to go through all that, because no Atheist could muster enough wherewithal to handle the question outright.
The only thing that can possibly explain the known universe and its potential for and exhibition of, intelligence through mankind, is the absolute existence of a Creator with extensibility both within and without our physical frame of reference. There can be no other answer.
Why? Because if intelligence exists, then so to must it have its own point of instantiation as mathematically [0+0] = 0. Thus, if intelligence by definition exists, then its value must be > 0. And, if its value is > 0, then it would be mathematically impossible for [0+N] = 0 (where N must equal a positive value in order for intelligence to exist).
So, you see, using some very basic math an some common sense and intellectual honesty, one can show the logical proofs for the existence of God. And, if God exists, then who or what among His creation is capable of proving otherwise?
The logic is unbreakable, but I don't mind a healthy (on the merits) debate with anyone who thinks they can.