[geocentrism] Re: Response to Geocentric 2-pager email
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:24:55 -0800 (PST)
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/absolute-truth.htm
Absolute Truth - Inflexible Reality
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable,
unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact
that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round
squares.
Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious
orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence
of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.
Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto
1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no
needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded,
then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed,
natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels
is right.
Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue
against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against
absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider
a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue
against the existence of absolute truth?
"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are
absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is
logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an
absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.
"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is
absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was
true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be
relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is
relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there
are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the
logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.
"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares
that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who
are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.
"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement
is true.
There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick
volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they
think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who
teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is
no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone
else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade
the papers!
Absolute Truth - Morality
Morality is a facet of absolute truth. Thus, relativists often declare, "It's
wrong for you to impose your morals on me." By declaring something is wrong,
the relativist is contradicting himself by imposing his morals upon you.
You might hear, "There is no right, there is no wrong!" You must ask, is that
statement right or wrong?
If you catch a relativist in the act of doing something they know is absolutely
wrong, and you try to point it out to them, they may respond in anger, "Truth
is relative! There's no right and there's no wrong! We should be able to do
whatever we want!" If that is a true statement and there is no right and there
is no wrong, and everyone should be able to do whatever they want, then why
have they become angry? What basis do they have for their anger? You can't be
appalled by an injustice, or anything else for that matter, unless an absolute
has somehow been violated.
Relativists often argue, "Everybody can believe whatever they want!" It makes
us wonder, why are they arguing? We find it amusing that relativists are the
ones who want to argue about relativism.
If you attempt to tell a relativist the difference between right and wrong, you
will no doubt hear, "None of that is true! We make our own reality!" If that's
true, and we all create our own reality, then our statement of moral
accountability is merely a figment of the relativist's imagination. If a
relativist has a problem with a statement of absolute morality, the relativist
should take the issue up with himself.
Absolute Truth - The Conclusion
We all know there is absolute truth. It seems the more we argue against it, the
more we prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being
cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically,
relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth.
A relativist maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever
he wants. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person
comes home to find his house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or
someone cuts in front of him in line. No relativist will come home to find his
house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill
his view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right
and wrong on this wonderful burglar?" Quite the contrary, the relativist will
feel violated just like anyone else. And then, of course, it's OK for him to be
a relativist, as long as the "system" acts in an absolutist way by protecting
his "unalienable rights."
---------------------------------------
Statement/Question:
"The issue of whether the sun orbits the Earth, or whether the Earth
orbits the sun,
or whether they both orbit each other depends on how you want to look at it.
This is an issue that doesn't affect anybody. It's like arguing whether maps
are upside down. Why is "north" pointing to the top of the map? Why not turn
the map upside down so that Australia and Antarctica are at the top?
This is an issue that doesn't mean anything to anybody. It's wasting time to
discuss it."
Answer:
1. "In terms of theology one position calls God a liar the other does not.
In terms of science one is "the reality" the other is a "fairy tale". In both
cases the effects are direct and real for both theology ( how Scripture is
applied or denied ) as well as how the universe really works so as to obtain
the greatest possible benefits by exercising the real possibilities that exist
for future technologies and its benefits to mankind based on a real knowledge
rather than just being content with a status quo of willful apathy and
ignorance." Allen Daves 2. "The truth doesn't depend on "how you look at it".
The Earth is either moving or it isn't. One is the truth and one is a lie. The
Bible and all known science say it the sun and not the Earth that moves. Maybe
you don't care, but you don't want to include everybody in the world in that
category, do you? If it's the Bible that you don't like because it's
religious, then you won't like the other view either because it
too comes from a "holy book" (Kabbala) of a certain religion (Phariseeism).
You may change your mind if you check out the facts and how we've all been
deceived on this matter." Marshall Hall
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bernie,
This is a fine response.
What truth really is, God only knows. And I am beginning to think that this
whole geocentric/heliocentric/acentric problem is a masterful piece of
deception to keep people like us occupied and away from the important issues
all around us. Models constructed by someone who actually knows how the
universe operates and has turned our perception of it inside out, if you like.
I find myself warming to the concave earth possibility that Steven is
promoting!!
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Fred ( engineering specialist at satellite manufacturer ) wrote:
Bernie,
All theories, doctrines, laws, and "facts" are simply the product of man's
imagination. What else can they be? It doesn't really matter if the earth is
moving or stationary. You can construct a model to fit any observation. But
all models have the habit of becoming ever more complicated as time goes by,
which then provides an opportunity for man to abandon old models in favour of
more simple ones.
I have not yet been convinced of the Maxwell/Einstein model, which states
that the speed of light is constant for any observer, no matter how fast he is
moving. I have the feeling that Maxwell "rigged the constants" of free space
to suit his own ideas about electromagnetic radiation. Then Einstein accepted
Maxwell's conjectures and built on them to come to the conclusion that even
space and time are variable - leaving only the speed of light constant. This
is man's imagination at its best.
So, what is truth? I say there is no such thing. It's all in the mind of
man.
regards
Fred
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Free Online Photosharing - Share your photos online with your friends and
family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Other related posts:
