"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".
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".
