Is there objective Truth?

[Arkilogue]

I take that and the archaic/mystic/oral tradition of the culture that gave rise to the OT.  Look up the Ain Soph Aur and the Tzumtzum. It describes the infinite light of a limitless God that "carves out a space"/"hides itself from the space of creation by 10 veils of contraction.

The root of the word "Amen", whom the rising Lord Jesus refers to himself as in Rev, means "to be hidden".  The exact same description can be found in Egypt as Amun.  The story of "Jesus" is far older than 2016 years and no one at that time refereed to the man in question by that name...if that matters to anyone.

Did you ever do one of those connect the dot pictures? It is supposed to turn out as the Mona Lisa but you make it look like Alfred E. Neuman? It cracks me up when that happens!

It's a mad Mad World!

So be colorful =)

play 2x speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwFpvS9jZtk

[Arkilogue]

"Most theologians agree that God is not able to do the logically impossible. Moreover, God's nature is such that he embodies truth; he can't violate his own nature. (by the definition of essence) So God is constrained by the laws of logic. Can God violate the PNC? If God is constrained by logic, then that is an objective truth that he did not create."

These are human paradox's. You cannot try to comprehend God when you yourself think in a 3D box. We can however deduce, for example laws that come forth from said first cause could not possibly be bound by them. Leading us to believe in a material-less, tim-less, space-less cause.

Your only response is that He's mysterious?  That's a pathetic copout.  The rest is just more asserted gibberish.

Wait a minute, that sounds familiar....


Act's 17:23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship--and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thank you for your reply, Soldat Du Christ.

I agree, it requires human rationality to make sense of anything. From my world view, Rationality, logic, immaterial laws, all come from the creator, as a result all of creation are under the same laws. From the opposing view (Order out if chaos) i can see how one could end up in the position of questioning there own ability to reason these things out with confidence. That is a major flaw, trying to justify the brain using the brain. Incabable of doing so, it only follows to retreat to uncertainty. This is NOT a sane, nor a reasonable way to live. But people will at the end of the day believe what they want to.

I think I can see your point.  For example, if we are all a product of this creator, then we would naturally possess its various attributes and be subject to its laws.  As a result, making use of reason, logic, and comprehending immaterial laws will help people on their quest for objective truth, because they are using the tools of their creator; this validates the means by which these people pursue truth.  However, I feel that this ultimately has validity to a specific population of people, namely those who subscribe to supernaturalism.
 
This website presents concrete evidence of secular and non-theistic people who are logical and rational and who understand immaterial laws; yet, the supernatural has no validity or personal relevance to them.  IMO, this suggests that these traits need not be associated with the supernatural; people can cultivate them just fine without it.  However, to be fair, theists and non-theists ultimately use rationality to make their arguments and understand reality, yet neither side has a definitive, conclusive answer.  Hence, since rationality, whether it be applied through a supernatural or natural lens, is presently incapable of unraveling and explaining the mysteries and secrets of reality, would you say that there are other ways to search for truth and understand reality that are outside of rationality and have not been discovered yet?  Perhaps neither side is going about their search in the right way?

Thank you for your time and attention, sir.

[Arkilogue]

If there is an objective truth...we are made of it, compose by it and flung through it as a holon. We are not limited to only interacting with it externally, the laws of the universe do not stop at the surface of our skins...or minds.

[pocaracas]

First up, some generic PHP forum insight.
Go to your User Control Panel's Options, or use this link: https://atheistforums.org/usercp.php?action=options
Near the bottom right, you'll find the option "Put the editor in source mode by default", activate that.
I know it's not active by default... whoever thought up this MyBB forum, decided to impose the "new and improved WYSIWYG" editor.... but this editor is crap when you want to break apart quotes from other people.

Now that you have the "source" editor, you will see the tags used to make these posts pretty.
The one you need to master is the quote tag.
For example, your post gets this tag:

Code:

[quote='Soldat Du Christ' pid='1418943' dateline='1476749980']

You can shorten it to just

Code:

[quote]

or

Code:

[quote='Soldat Du Christ']

The pid you find above refers to the Post ID - that was this forum's 1,418,943rd post.
The dateline refers to the date when the post was made. It's a long number that counts how many seconds have passed since January 1st 1970 - this is the standard Linux time representation. You can use this site to convert that into something you can understand, if you need it: http://www.epochconverter.com/


Now that you know a bit about the tag, how to use it properly?

Here's the basic that gets automatically filled when you hit the Reply button:

Code:

[quote='Soldat Du Christ' pid='1418943' dateline='1476749980']
Your text.
[/quote]

My answer to your text.

But I can break apart your text into bits so I can address each of them and it looks decent:

Code:

[quote='Soldat Du Christ' pid='1418943' dateline='1476749980']
Your first point.
[/quote]

My answer to your first point.

[quote='Soldat Du Christ' pid='1418943' dateline='1476749980']
Your second point.
[/quote]

My answer to your second point.


and so on and so forth...

Some people are lazy and, instead of copy/pasting the quote tag into each of those points, they simply type out an empty quote tag... it's fine, as long as it follows from the previous identified quote tag.
If you're quoting another person in the same post, it's good netiquette to properly identify each quote.


Right, lesson over.... now, for some practice!

"Get with the times, huh?
Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO."

The Universe IS all. Lol
Considering space time is expanding into NO space and NO time, it's safe to say there is no existence outside our universe. If you want to be a rebel and refuse to follow the evidence where it leads that's fine, but don't try and call me unreasonable.

The Universe is not necessarily all. Lol
We cannot tell if the Space-time within the Universe is unique, or if our Universe is in some subset of an infinite space-time.
And we know from mathematics that you can have an infinite subset within another infinite subset, so I see no contradiction.
Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there.

It is known that space-time itself can randomly produce matter. It is not inconceivable that, within the frame of an infinite space-time, in a few locations (possibly an infinite number of locations), such production was massive enough to provide a singularity that kick-starts a Universe, leaving its inhabitants blind to any outside process.
This is where the evidence leads.
Certainly, it's not proven and will likely never be... because of that singularity detail that prevents us from probing beyond it...
Check the work by the 2004 Physics Nobel Laureates.

" Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe...."

Well we can have the upmost confidence this universe had a begining believing in an infinite regress of causality is more of a leap of faith than beleiving in an uncaused first cause. That everything just exists with no explanation is more of a stretch then magic

Well, the singularity has been arbitrarily posited as the starting point of this Universe, yes... the T=0. That says nothing about negative time in that scale.
Our calendars put t=0 at 2016 years ago.... allowing "negative time", so we should be careful.

So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?

We observe simple things being put together to form complex things. Think of stars, the great material building furnaces of the Universe.

" Don't act like a smug human, thinking you know things you can't possibly know.
If you want to be honest, all you can say is that you don't know if there is a beginning. Anything else, you'll be having to preface everything with a mighty big IF."

Notice that i'm using words like probability, evidence, and the like. I do believe the universe had an ultimate begining, can i prove it empericaly? Nope. But considering the improbability of the contrary, and the evidence leaning heavily towards a begining, you're litteraly butting heads against all reason.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." -Velankin

There's Vilenkin again...
Enjoy:

[Aractus]

Link to a random page of the internet are you serious?

Yes I am serious. Anyone can quote or study "facts" and then draw whatever crazy conclusions they choose to. Facts alone don't bring you closer to understanding the world around you. Case in point - why not consider one of the most famous assassinations in the history of the world: the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Most classicists think that Pilate snuffed him out for becoming unruly at the Jerusalem temple where he may have also become violent. That's deduced from an understanding of the ancient world that looks beyond what his followers passed on about the ordeal. So, facts only tell you so much.

Anyway, back to my point - Maths just like Money was invented. You might say our modern economies wouldn't run without money in the same way we would say that modern technology wouldn't run without maths. The universe however would run without maths, and that's why there appears to be a limit of human discovery when investigating the "absolute structure" of the universe.

[bennyboy]

Hmmmmm. . . this game sounds fun.  Lemme see. . .

I'd say its dominant quality is that it seems actually to exist.  There are things arranged in space, and they do stuff over time.  No, wait, that's too many qualities, when you clearly want a single one.

Let's go with it seeming actually to exist.

See that's why I love these simple questions and other people's perspective. I would have listed the dominant aspect of the universe as we find it as "empty" space. We've covered the space vs matter ratio of atoms, yes? The universe "exists" (to our subjective biological sensors) because the space for photon travel, an observer and something for the photon to bounce off of, also exist.

Fair enough.  To be honest, I learn toward idealism, so in that context, space isn't really a thing, but rather a rule about how ideas about things are related to each other.

What a physical space is actually blows the mind if I think about it too much, especially when you start thinking about relativity, QM etc.

[Whateverist]

"Get with the times, huh?
Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO."

The Universe IS all. Lol
Considering space time is expanding into NO space and NO time, it's safe to say there is no existence outside our universe. If you want to be a rebel and refuse to follow the evidence where it leads that's fine, but don't try and call me unreasonable.

The Universe is not necessarily all. Lol
We cannot tell if the Space-time within the Universe is unique, or if our Universe is in some subset of an infinite space-time.
And we know from mathematics that you can have an infinite subset within another infinite subset, so I see no contradiction.
Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there.

It is known that space-time itself can randomly produce matter. It is not inconceivable that, within the frame of an infinite space-time, in a few locations (possibly an infinite number of locations), such production was massive enough to provide a singularity that kick-starts a Universe, leaving its inhabitants blind to any outside process.
This is where the evidence leads.
Certainly, it's not proven and will likely never be... because of that singularity detail that prevents us from probing beyond it...
Check the work by the 2004 Physics Nobel Laureates.

" Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe...."

Well we can have the upmost confidence this universe had a begining believing in an infinite regress of causality is more of a leap of faith than beleiving in an uncaused first cause. That everything just exists with no explanation is more of a stretch then magic

Well, the singularity has been arbitrarily posited as the starting point of this Universe, yes... the T=0. That says nothing about negative time in that scale.
Our calendars put t=0 at 2016 years ago.... allowing "negative time", so we should be careful.

So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?

We observe simple things being put together to form complex things. Think of stars, the great material building furnaces of the Universe.

" Don't act like a smug human, thinking you know things you can't possibly know.
If you want to be honest, all you can say is that you don't know if there is a beginning. Anything else, you'll be having to preface everything with a mighty big IF."

Notice that i'm using words like probability, evidence, and the like. I do believe the universe had an ultimate begining, can i prove it empericaly? Nope. But considering the improbability of the contrary, and the evidence leaning heavily towards a begining, you're litteraly butting heads against all reason.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." -Velankin

There's Vilenkin again...
Enjoy:

Your lesson which appears ahead of the part I did quote needs to be readily available to all noobs. It would definitely have simplified things for me. But the part I did quote is so reasonably reasoned that I'm happy to quote it all even without picking it apart into smaller chunks.

Love the way you don't over sell any point or misrepresent any of it as being beyond question. Everything can always be questioned except for those who would posit an anything-goes zone called the supernatural and insist it is beyond all doubt based on a few considerations regarding logic. More to the point, they like to present a conundrum they can't make sense of (nothing-from-nothing, infinite regress, pick your favorite) as the undeniable basis for an unearned certainty in a supernatural solution. Hog wash.

Even more than that I like that I agree with the speculative part of what you have to say. I feel that you are absolutely correct regarding the possible broader context of "everything" for which we can probably never have empirical confirmation, trapped as we are within the fallout of a single singularity. I find people who agree with me to be among the brightest people I meet. So congratulations.

[pocaracas]

Your lesson which appears ahead of the part I did quote needs to be readily available to all noobs.  It would definitely have simplified things for me.  But the part I did quote is so reasonably reasoned that I'm happy to quote it all even without picking it apart into smaller chunks.  

Love the way you don't over sell any point or misrepresent any of it as being beyond question.  Everything can always be questioned except for those who would posit an anything-goes zone called the supernatural and insist it is beyond all doubt based on a few considerations regarding logic.  More to the point, they like to present a conundrum they can't make sense of (nothing-from-nothing, infinite regress, pick your favorite) as the undeniable basis for an unearned certainty in a supernatural solution.  Hog wash.

Even more than that I like that I agree with the speculative part of what you have to say.  I feel that you are absolutely correct regarding the possible broader context of "everything" for which we can probably never have empirical confirmation, trapped as we are within the fallout of a single singularity.  I find people who agree with me to be among the brightest people I meet.  So congratulations.  

Much appreciated kind words, sir.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Anyway, back to my point - Maths just like Money was invented.

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.