Thursday, May 04, 2006
Isn't this obviously true?
Either God exists, or God does not exist. If God exists, than the people who believe that God exists are right, and the belief that God does not exist are wrong. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then the people who believe that God does not exist are right, and the people who believe that God does exist are wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Does this mean that the people that don't know whether God exists or not are right either way?
Maybe the benefit of being an agnostic is that you can't be wrong.
It could also be said that agnostics are wrong either way, and that they cannot be right. ;)
The point of my statement, of course, was that the existence of God that cannot be relatively true; true for the people who really believe and false for the people who don't believe. That reduces God to Tinkerbell. Today we have the insane idea that it is something like bringing back the Inquisition to suggest that someone else's beliefs are wrong.
The trouble with agnosticism can be brought out by this bumper sticker: "Sleep in on Sunday and Save Ten Percent." Now it seems you either do that or you don't, so while agnosticism is posisble in theory it is impossible in practice. But I do like Ed Babinski's chapter title in the book he edited: "If It Weren't for Agnosticism I Wouldn't Know What to Believe."
{chuckle} And _I_ thought you were setting up an interesting illustration of the importance of truth-claims in regard to eliminative materialism... {g}
If I didn't know something, I couldn't be either right or wrong about it. I don't know whether there is such a thing as the Fae, for instance (speaking of Tinkerbell. {g}) Though I suppose I'm more of a positive agnostic on that topic (if I'm going to be agnostic on a topic I prefer to be a positive agnostic.) I can somewhat dimly see how dryads _could_ be true, and I don't know for a fact that they aren't (or have never been true, or never will be true, much less never could be true--in case there aren't any dryads at the moment.) So I'm not really in a position to believe they exist, nor that they don't exist.
Though maybe superstrings would be better as an illustration, because I have no particular preference one way or another about them--whereas I _would_ rather _like_ for dryads to exist. {romantic g!}
Jason
I've actually used this dichotomy as a proof for the existence of objective truth: One or the other must be true, consequently, objective truth must exist. Of course, you could always deny the law of non-contradiction, but then couldn't you say that either logic is real OR it is not? But if you affirm logic, you must be an objectivist. And if you deny logic, then objectivists get to be right too!
On the basis of reason and faith with regard to what is: truth is a transient subject for belief. Not that I necessarily have all the evidence mind you, yet there is much at stake in the mind of man and mankind. It is this, that all may have a connection it is that sense of contention that strikes at the soul of men. When opposition hits and it is gnawing away this is truth, is it not? Therefore it is the contention factor that is most evident as an apparent truth, not is there a belief that is bearing the burden on the believer on either side. I see the difference as being transitory. Most want a comfort zone of accepting or being accepted as having hold on something that is the essence of some key or foundation for truth. Remove or replace that foundation and how soon it is that one is uncomfortable. The tested truth is always easiest for the skeptic and hardest on the so called truth believer. Let it stand on this, truth of an existence is where the evidence lay. Otherwise what can one speak of regarding truth?
Ron Said: Most want a comfort zone of accepting or being accepted as having hold on something that is the essence of some key or foundation for truth. Remove or replace that foundation and how soon it is that one is uncomfortable. The tested truth is always easiest for the skeptic and hardest on the so called truth believer.
Based on these comments, where would you stand in the realm of origins and the theory of evolution? I realize this is kind of off topic, but we are discussing claims of truth and such claims are made about th theory of evolution.
If the foundation of said truth (evolution) is materialism/naturalism and this is removed on what ground will the evolutionist stand?
And what of those skeptical of evolutionary theory? The truth would be, as you say, easiest for those skeptical of it and harder for the believer right?
Also, what about the change in POV? One is skeptical of young earth creationism, another of materialistic non-theistic evolution. Is the tested truth easiest for both? How can that be?
I think the key is the difference in perceived truth and absolute truth and, of course, whether or not one believes in absolute truth because perceived truth is transient the other is not.
Post a Comment