[geocentrism] Re: Response to Geocentric 2-pager email

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:19:12 +1000

"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.

The whole article could be condensed to the above Bernie..  

This is a debate to waste peoples time also. If science wants to make truth 
conditional, then let them find or coin another word, and not the distort the 
meaning we all know the word truth means. 

Been over this with Paul here already, and with the typical arrogance of Gough 
Whitlam and followers who want to propagate their own errors such as making it 
"true" that a kilo-meter is a kil- ometer, he refuses to acknowledge the 
absoluteness of truth. 

Let them coin another word.   
Philip.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernie Brauer 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:24 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Response to Geocentric 2-pager email


  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. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1154 - Release Date: 27/11/2007 
11:40 AM

Other related posts: