(October 14, 2016 at 6:55 am)Mathilda Wrote:(October 13, 2016 at 9:16 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: If somebody says no, then yes it would be an objective answer, a self defeating one. See where i'm going with this?
You're not trying to do a Sye Ten Bruggencate on us are you? We've heard all these arguments before. They ultimately depend upon binary religious thinking and equivocation.
Binary religious thinking because it relies on there being either a conclusion of True or False and does not take into account something inbetween.
Equivocation because it relies on being vague with definitions, picking either laymen definitions and scientific definitions depending on which is most useful at the time. For example your definition of Truth. Truth is a concept. There is no True or False, these are part of the language of Logic. And fuzzy logic gets rid of it altogether. No theists ever mentions fuzzy logic when referring to the 'Laws of Logic'. This is because of binary religious thinking mentioned above.
Oooo thank you for sharing that, i'll have to dig into that some more. This isn't neccecarily a mental process tied to religion however. It is in fact a more sane way to live life. I'm convinced that the universe is designed from the ground up from a sort of binary code.
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cultu...puter.html
This explains the objectivity we observe in nature, objective morality, immaterial laws. While any attempt at a departure from this idea reduces your world view to madness.
I believe Sam Harris (Truly a shame he is an athiest) is one step closer than the rest of these nut jobs, he recognises objective morality. But just can't justify it in a godless universe, 1 step forward two steps back!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk
P.S. social constructs are subjective and not justification