Something tells me that SDC is not questioned or does not hear that he/she is incorrect to often. We keep getting the "but you don't understand me" or "that's not what I meant" response.

If we don't understand, or that's not what he means, that's his own failure.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Let's say the principle of non-contradiction is an objective truth. Let's say that there is a real world which corresponds to some of my observations and is thus true in that sense. So what? What follows from that, because even if those statements are valid, it has no real theological implication. Where is this discussion headed?

(October 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  Let's say the principle of non-contradiction is an objective truth.  Let's say that there is a real world which corresponds to some of my observations and is thus true in that sense.  So what?  What follows from that, because even if those statements are valid, it has no real theological implication.  Where is this discussion headed?

Your guess is as good as time. I'll go with circles or wild tangents.

Air exists, objective immaterial truth.  Still wondering what it has to do with a god.

(October 15, 2016 at 2:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Air exists, objective immaterial truth.  Still wondering what it has to do with a god.

Air is not immaterial, it's invisible.



Magnetism is immaterial.

Neither are immaterial, you're making the same rookie mistake as the op, but thanks for keeping up.

(October 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Neither are immaterial, you're making the same rookie mistake as the op, but thanks for keeping up.

What is magnetism made of?

"What makes you think that the universe has been "programmed", when you say apparent what do you mean - specifically- ? If it has been "programmed", why by a god, and if by a god, why by -your- god?"

1 step at a time, laying out the groundwork atm.

"Something tells me that SDC is not questioned or does not hear that he/she is incorrect to often. We keep getting the "but you don't understand me" or "that's not what I meant" response."

That's called intilectual honesty, lol. Like i said i'm not above correction or education, that's why you whitness me ask for clarification and admit when i'm wrong. I don't see anybody else here admiting there wrong after i point out blatent and self defeating statements. If anything you guys should jump at the chance to prove me wrong because intilectual honesty dosn't come around often.

Also i would like to apologise to @Whateverist for text lauging at you. It's apperant i have been using the wrong word to describe what i've been trying to say.

HOWEVER! It doesn't defeat the point.

"Let's say the principle of non-contradiction is an objective truth"

Are you kidding?
" According to Aristotle, first philosophy, or metaphysics, deals with ontology and first principles, of which the principle (or law) of non-contradiction is the firmest. Aristotle says that without the principle of non-contradiction we could not know anything that we do know."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo...radiction/

"So what? What follows from that, because even if those statements are valid, it has no real theological implication. Where is this discussion headed?"

One topic at a time, you can't jump conclutions like that. This thread pertains to the question of "is there objective truth".

(October 15, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: One topic at a time, you can't jump conclutions like that. This thread pertains to the question of "is there objective truth".

Define objective truth. Please give an example of an objective truth.