The Absolute Truth 25/04/2005 Well, I went and did it, didn't I? I told you I was sticking my neck out, doing a post on poetry, and, sure enough, a few people had a good whack at it (see A Rhyme in Time and accompanying comments). And this leaves me having to do a post on absolute truth. Challenge accepted.There are only two ways to regard the matter of absolute truth: you either believe that there is such a thing or you don't (if you can think of a third position beyond mere indecision, please let me know - I'd be fascinated to hear of it). And, whether we are aware of it or not, our position on the matter depends on choices that we have made previously. Our personal philosophies are based upon our answer to the most basic question of all: Is there a God? If we believe that there is a God and are honest in our thinking processes, we must believe in absolute truth for we have accepted the first and foremost truth that there is. If we believe that there is no God and, again, are honest in our reasoning, then we must also maintain that there is no absolute truth.Now, those are some mighty big statements and I wouldn't blame you a bit if you were now yelling at me that you don't have to accept my premises. That's fine; I ask only that you bear with me for a while and we'll see how I come to those conclusions.Let us consider this question of the existence of God. Believe it or not, there are many proofs of His existence but I like the one best demonstrated in C.S Lewis' book Miracles, mainly because I think it is the easiest one for a modern mind to follow. In true apologist's style, it begins by venturing forth upon the ground of the enemy.So we start by assuming that there is no God. This must lead us to other logical conclusions. Since there is no God, this universe must have begun as pure accident, a chance encounter of certain circumstances that led (in most modern opinions) to a Big Bang that created the universe. I will ignore the obvious question of "What created the circumstances then?" because we have to get on with our argument. And it doesn't matter which particular theory we have for the beginning of the universe; all must have no Creator behind them or we lose immediately and must join the camp of the Deists (with a bit of luck I might even get into this matter of the difference between a Deist and a Theist - stay tuned).In our theory of the beginning of all things, we now have an expanding universe in which things happen as a result of other things happening. So the Big Bang creates the universe, which is why there are galaxies of stars, some with planets circling them, and some of those planets having the necessary ingredients for the beginning of life. Cool. And those ingredients will combine sooner or later to give rise to what we might call the first organisms that, under the pressure of existence, sometimes combine in more complex ways to begin a development into the type of life form that we have on our planet today. Fine, I have no problem with that. Ultimately, this evolution brings about the species we know as homo sapiens or mankind, an animal that has used conscious thought as a winning evolutionary strategy. This strategy has the by-product of allowing the animal to consider its own origins, indeed, the origins of all things. A pretty amazing feat, I'm sure you'll agree.There is one minor problem, however. All this is arrived at by the process of thought, something that we call logic. And, by our first premise, that all things are created without purpose, by accident, indeed, we have no reason to believe that anything created by this process called logic might be a true reflection of what is really happening out there; it is an evolutionary strategy that happens to be useful at this moment in time and tomorrow the pressures of existence might insist that it disappear in favor of something else entirely.Here at last we meet this annoying creature called absolute truth. If we accept that the universe is created by chance and that no Being brought it into existence, we cannot trust our own thought processes. They are chance combinations of chemicals and electrons that may have some worth when related to evolution but they do not assist us in finding out what is really going on because they are rooted in chance and accident. Our whole theory begins to collapse because it disproves the validity of any thought process; we realize that we have destroyed the credibility of our only weapon - logic. Suddenly, if we are honest, we see that what we believe has no reason to be true; it is an evolutionary strategy and can have no meaning beyond our own drive to survive as a species. Even that is ascribing to evolution a conscious reasoning which, of course, it cannot have, being the result of accident.So we find ourselves in a meaningless universe where there is absolutely no point in saying anything at all; nothing is true and everything is accident. It is as valid to spout nonsense as it is to write a learned scientific thesis because all "truth" is relative. Now, you are welcome to live in such a universe if you wish; but do not come at me with arguments against what I believe - you have already discounted anything you might say by your own theory. Without absolute truth, there is no truth, only momentary convenience.You may say to me that I have not proved the existence of God and I would have to say that, for me, that is true (fortunately I can use the word "true" although the atheists and agnostics cannot) but, for you, that is a meaningless statement. What I have proved is that the position of atheism is one of pure nonsense, a babbling idiocy. Be honest and live with it, if you insist on maintaining it.I prefer to retain my sanity by believing that there is a God and that this is the first Absolute Truth. From there we come to the next choice point, which is to decide whether God created the universe and then wandered off, leaving it to its own devices (the Deist standpoint), or, having created the thing, God remains intimately concerned with His creation and does, indeed, uphold it (the Theist's view). There is also the matter of ascertaining whether God can be described as having a personality and, if so, what is the nature of that personality. But these are really beyond the scope of this little exercise. Suffice it to say that, having met the Fellow, my mind is made up.And there we have it, the Absolute Truth post. Terribly sorry but, if you wish to comment, you're going to have to admit that there is such a thing as absolute truth or I shall be forced to assume that you're not living up to what you say you believe. Hard, isn't it?
Clive
Mad Heh! I must post this in my room, there's fuel here for a good days (at least) raging, bitter debate... Date Added: 25/04/2005
Ned I think that has to be one of the simplest and yet most cogent arguments I have ever heard. How (I nearly said true and somehow now I am afraid to) reasonable to say, that if we are an accident, and all our attributes have developed by accident, then so must also what we consider our ability to think and reason, be an accident, and therefore unreliable. At least I think that is what you said. Truth by definition must be absolute or it is only opinion, and that is where the difference lies. There is no relative truth, only truth or opinion. But in our own great estimation of ourselves, we assign our opinions the label "truth" and can only maintain that by allowing all others to have their own individual "truths" which makes life much easier by never having to defend anything. Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away Ah Mad, you always loved a good debate, didn't you? ;) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away You say it so much better than I do, Ned. But then, I should expect that from a true poet, shouldn't I? :) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Erin There is only one possibility -- there is an absolute truth. If one were to argue that there isn't an absolute truth then that statement in itself would be a statement of absolute truth and would thus contradict itself. Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away Absolutely, Erin! (hey, I must be doing something right - the two best poets I know agree with me...) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Erin Here is an article that I found that will give more insight to to comment. Date Added: 25/04/2005
Voracious Reader The argument you constructed is as fine as I imagine an arguement between Plato and Aristotle would be. Bravo! You certainly are an authentic C.S. Lewis student, have you read the Beyond the Shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on Heaven and Hell? I've heard it's pretty good. Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away An excellent article, Erin, and one that goes into greater detail on the foundations of relativism than I have. Thank you for pointing it out. :) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Voracious. I have read both Beyond the Shadowlands and Heaven and Hell. In fact, I think I've read everything CS Lewis wrote, although they are publishing a lot of his works now that were not published while he was alive. What can I say? I am so much a fan of Mr Lewis' that I can only urge everyone to read his books - any of them! Date Added: 25/04/2005
Way "Noon" has to be a relative term, or the white rabbit somehow exchanged clocks with me... Well-said, Sir Gone. Now, where's all the expected fur and blood? Maybe I should send spies over the the Mad camp... Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Way. As to the fur and blood, I'm still waiting... ;) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Jodie Gee, I thought I'd commented. I think these painkillers are ravaging my brain cells. :D I hope the brain cells are at least enjoying it. I agree with what you've written. But there are those who would advance lesser truths (that is, things that are true sometimes but not always) as absolutes. Some of them very scary people. Date Added: 25/04/2005
Gone Away That's funny, I thought you had as well, Jodie. You sure those things aren't catching? But I know what you mean: beware those bearing the surefire, genuine, honest-to-goodness and-only-revealed-to-them truth. ;) Date Added: 25/04/2005
Matt I am amazed at the simplistic way you can put a complex problem. Bravo. I used to argue with people over absolute truth and could never quite get it right. You have shown me an easy way to put it. I am forever convinced. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away It helps that you believe there is such a thing as absolute truth to begin with, Matt. Those who think there is no such thing will be harder to convince, methinks. ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Voracious Reader Beyond the Shadowlands is actually a new literary criticism/explanation of Lewis's two books. I believe the author is Wayne Martindale. Sorry for being unclear. It's funny how many wont admit to there being an absolute truth, not because it isn't logical, but because it isn't convenient. Absolute truth = absolute standards against which one must measure one's self. A lot of people don't seem to like the words "right" and "wrong." Isn't Lewis cool? Also, a statement that there's no "absolute truth" or any other absolute negative statement presuposes absolute knowledge of the universe. Most wouldn't presume to know everything. At most, that person would have to say he BELIEVES, based on his limited knowledge, that there are no absolute truths. As you've already illucidated, that doesn't really get him anywhere. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away You caught me out, Voracious! I admit I assumed that Beyond the Shadowlands was by Lewis and that therefore I must have read it (my excuse - I'm old and have a memory so crammed with stuff that I can't find a thing in there!). And it seems that I have not read it after all for the author's name does not ring a bell. My apologies. Lewis is cool indeed and it is my only consolation in having to bear the name Clive that Mr Lewis also suffered from the imposition. But at least he avoided the issue by having his friends call him Jack. You are so right, Voracious, and you point out the most amusing thing about atheism: that it's much more a matter of faith than is theism. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Ned That is it in a nutshell. Unless one can claim ALL knowledge and ALL evidence of ALL things, one cannot absolutely state that there is no God. Atheists cannot claim this absolute knowledge which is necessary to rule out other possibilities. They will have to admit that the possibility exists that there is a God and that they only suppose or believe that He does not exist. In this way, there can be no true atheists, only doubters, and so I cannot prove that athiests exist. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away I was once an evangelical atheist. It was not until God pointed out the idiocy of my position that I gave in and accepted my loving Father. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Jodie Hey, your online friends call you Gone, so you too are avoiding it. :D Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Jodie, you don't know the half of it. Kathy calls me Cham because that's the name she first met me under. ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa I'll bite. But I'll have to bite tomorrow as it's a wee bit past my bedtime ;) Stay tuned. vanessa. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Ooh, a bite! :D Date Added: 26/04/2005
Harvey Young This is totally and absolutely true. There really is a theme going on here and not having read this until today I am convinced that perhaps there is a stain of virus going around. Of course, as a believer in absolute truth I can say with ease that perhaps someone (that would be God) is trying to get a message out. I apologize in advance to anyone that does not believe that God exists. This is an excellent post and one that I enjoyed with my very limited reading time. Thank you Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away And thank you, Harvey. But I do not apologize to those who do not believe in God. They are entitled to believe whatever they want and I, having borne enough insults from atheists over the years, have no hesitation in pointing out a few home truths to them. Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa ok, where to start.... I must admit I feel a might bit intimidates seeing as it appears I'm in a room full of theists/deist.... No matter, I've never been accused of *not* wanting to stir the shit before so why stop now... ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Stir away, Vanessa. I'll hold the others off! ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Firstly just let me say although I respect your opinions (and I do) I think for the most part, this particulary theory is a load of bunk. :) Oh and yes I do plan on backing that up in the near future... let's just continue on. It appears the apple doesn't fall far from the tree either LOL I've been accused of being a fence-sitter on more than one occasion by your charming son. He hasn't budged yet but I'm still working on him. I do make a compelling argument if I do say so myself:) Secondly, in circumstances such as this it's good to have clear definitions of what we are trying to define so I took the liberty of plucking these little gems: Absolute Truth - actual truth perceived without one's mental obscurations and fabrications Atheism - disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods agnostism - 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. Let me also say that I am a firm agnostic and I'm sure you have something to say about that too - I'll try to go through this systematically.... Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away I wait with bated breath. ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Firstly (and because it's easiest) let me debunk Ned's comment. While it is quite true that "atheists cannot claim this absolute knowledge which is necessary to rule out other possibilities" I don't see how that logically concluded that there IS a god. Atheism by definition is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Whether it can be proven or not is moot. Likewise one could say that since the concept of god has NOT been proven either, there exists the possibility that there ISN'T one. Kind of cyclical isn't it? Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa damn line breaks *sigh* Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Read Mad's advice just above this, Vanessa - that'll give you your line breaks. ;) But already you are assuming that there's no proof of God's existence. I maintain that you're wrong. Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa And finally, on to Absolute Truth. This is a sticky arena as it differs mildly depending on whom you are speaking to. To the philosopher absolute truth generally states what is essential rather than superficial. The scientist is usually doubtful as doubt has been cast on the notion of absolutes by theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. In pure mathematics, however, there is said to be a proof for the existence of absolute truth and this is where I believe you sit Mr. Way, am I correct? To elaborate, a common tactic in mathematical proofs is the use of "reductio ad absurdum", in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction, then the original statement is proved true. The logical proof of the statement, "There exists an absolute truth," is almost trivial in its simplicity. Suppose we assert the negation of the statement, that is, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. By making that assertion, we claim that the sentence "There exists no absolute truth" is absolutely true. The statement is self-contradictory, so its negation, "There exists an absolute truth," is true. However, (and this is a big one) this proof applies only to logic. It does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. It does not prove the existence (or non-existence) of God, the devil, heaven, hell, or little green people from another galaxy. Neither does it assert that we can always ascertain the truth or falsity of any arbitrary statement. Have I lost you yet? ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Oops, it's below now of course. And I forgot the darn line break myself... :> Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away So you must accept that, logically, there is such a thing as absolute truth. And this, as is the gist of my article, proves that there must be a God, since without God we have to believe that there is no absolute truth. You cannot have it both ways: either logic is believable because there is absolute truth, or it cannot be trusted and we might as well stop talking now, since logic is our only weapon. :) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa And praytell, what proof would that be? Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away There are several, the easiest to understand of which is the one I use in the article - reductio ad absurdam, as you said. Another is the moral argument but I find that atheists tend to lose concentration when I employ this one since it really goes against their grain to see that there are some moral values that cannot be the result of evolution. I have seen others but they are very complex and I've never bothered with them - just one does me fine. :) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Ah, but you CAN have it both ways. Let's assume that world is all chance and coincidence and miraculously we ended up here. To deny the thought of Absolute Truth does not automatically discount that. This seems to be where I am confused a bit about your argument - are you saying that because (according to this theory) we came about by pure chance that our logic is flawed? That's a mighty big stretch if so. If you are logical, you will say the odds of everything happening purely by chance AND aligning just so to leave us in this exact state of time and place are dismally low. I agree. But the possibility is there nonetheless. It's about the same degree of probability as say, god plucking a rib from adam and making eve, wouldn't you say? ;) I'm off for lunch... to be continued most assuredly:) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away And I still say that you cannot have it both ways. If we are the result of a chance creation of the universe, we cannot say that there is any possibility of our thought processes being true. They must follow the principle of cause and effect and so are the result of millions of years of evolution. And since they are an evolutionary strategy, it is meaningless to say that they can be true - they work for us, that's all. Logic may feel to us as if it must be true and we may not be able to imagine that it is not true, but, in your chance-created universe it must be so. What is truth if there is no such thing as purpose? And how can there be purpose in a chance-created universe? You propose that there is a chance that logic is true, no matter how small that chance may be. I suggest that there can be no truth in a chance-created universe since the very concept of truth is merely the result of chance combinations of energy in our brains. The thing flies up its own backside. We either accept that there is a Creator or we discount reason itself and have to sit in a corner humming to ourselves. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Harvey Young This discussion is interesting. I wish I had something to add but the argument looks well in hand. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Way If she calls you Mr. Way again I shall bite her. And that is the absolute truth. Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Oooh, is that a promise Way? ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away I think the confusion is caused by the fact that I am Mr Away... :D Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Yes, yes, my mistake. My apologies Mr. Way. Feel free to bite me anyway, if you must:) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Oi! I'll have no biting in my blog! Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Getting back to the topic at hand, once again I have to say that the "reductio ad absurdam" logic doesn't work.It applies to logic ONLY. The fact remains that it does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. Instead of harping on this point, let me bring another one into play. This happens to be the school of thought that I subscribe to. First let me say that I consider myself agnostic (I know you're rolling your eyes..) and take this definition: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable. I am not discounting the possibility of absolute truth. I do believe however that absolute truth is unattainable and any attempt to find it would be futile. Now you may ask how I arrived at this conclusion, and you might be surprised that I happened upon this view with cold, hard science. And not just any science, but the most clear-cut and well-defined science (or so they'd like to believe) of them all - Math. Now I take you for a old scientific nut yourself, Mr. Away, would that be a correct assumption? Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Wrong assumption, Vanessa. I'm an artist through and through and never did cotton to that Math thing at all. :D And I regard it with the suspicion that all artists do. Call me Gone, by the way. ;) As regards the reductio ad absurdam argument, allow me to point out that it was you who mentioned that the statement, "There is no absolute truth" disproves itself. I would agree that that merely proves that there is such a thing as absolute truth. But my argument is that, if there is no God, there can be no such thing as absolute truth (which, of course, is absurd). The absence of a God requires that the universe be a construction of pure chance without purpose or reason and within such a universe all things must necessarily be without purpose or reason and logic itself becomes unprovable. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Way Apology accepted, and with sincere relief, since I own only one tooth (and that Gone went and put up a fresh sign). Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa My apologies Gone. I took you for someone who is swayed by a logical argument as opposed to idealic fluff, after all that's what your arguement is based on, no?. ;) vanessa. Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away There is logic in what I say, Vanessa, even though I cannot frame it mathematically for you. But I can tell you why we artists don't trust that mathematics of yours one little bit. ;) And, if you wish to say that my argument is based on idealistic fluff, why then, my dear, you're going to have to prove that assertion. It seems to me that you came very close to admitting that the argument holds a considerable amount of weight when you admitted that there was only a tiny chance that logic might accidentally be right in an accidental universe. ;) But you take issue with the idea that even that small chance is disallowed. How much further must I go? Your argument hangs by a thin thread of chance at best, it seems. :D Date Added: 26/04/2005
Ned Just felt like popping in as I was debunked a bit earlier. However as I was also misquoted, I just thought I would add my two cents. I would add more but I am just a poor working stiff..nevermind, that goes on the poverty blog. I did not assert that assuming the possibility that God exists either proves that He does or does not exist. Simply that atheists must accept the possibility that they are wrong and He does exist. As I am regularly told by atheists that I am delusional and that they KNOW for a fact that there is no God or that they can prove it logically, the fact that there is no way for them to rule out the possibility that I am right is of some importance to the argument. Although, I will admit, that since they eschew logic generally, they do not usually see this. Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Since you are bound to steer this discussion towards logic, let me offer you this - Are you familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Ultimately he proved that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth by using of all things, a computer. It may sound a little fishy but I assure you it makes perfect LOGICAL sense. I'm interested to see what you use to rebuke that theorem... if you aren't familiar with his work might I suggest a little bit of reading... http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/godel.html Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Ned, you are hanging out with some crazy, misinformed atheists methinks ;) Deeply sorry if I misquoted you. Gone, you don't have to frame it mathematically, but how can you say "there is logic in what you say" when your argument hinges on logic itself? Whether you consider yourself an artist or not has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I consider myself an artist too (don't we all?) but I yearn for provability (as you do) or we wouldn't be carrying on this conversation... Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away It's a mathematical theorem, Vanessa, and, as such, a product of human reasoning (whether or not a computer was used in its formulation). And, since there is no reason why we should believe human logic to be truthful in an accidental universe, I can see no reason why we should take account of it. Unless, of course, you now accept that there is reason to this universe? Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away That is just my point, Vanessa; I maintain that things are provable but only in a God-created universe. And I use logic even when discussing logic because we have nothing else. Would you listen to me if I were to say that my intuition tells me something? I doubt even I would. ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa Oh dear. I luv ya Gone but this seems to be getting us nowhere. Let's just say we agree to disagree and share a beer:) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa I'm afraid I still view your logic as being faulty Gone so I can't concede. I'm still on for that beer though:) Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away 'Tis always the way, Vanessa. There's a point that neither will concede and that puts an end to discussion. But fancy trying to draw me into mathematical stuff when we had yet to agree on whether we can trust logic or not. Tsk, tsk. Hmmm, I have no beer in the house. Will wine do? Date Added: 26/04/2005
Way Now they're drinking together, but do they have guns? Hiya, Ned...got roused from yer bunk, you say? Date Added: 26/04/2005
Gone Away Thirsty work, Way... ;) Date Added: 26/04/2005
vanessa pfft! I'm up in canader Way, I don't even think I've ever *seen* a real gun... Date Added: 26/04/2005
Way This gets better by the moment...an unarmed Canadian -- do pour 'er another, Gone :D Date Added: 27/04/2005
Gone Away Ah shink itsh orl gorn, Way... Date Added: 27/04/2005
Way LOL...a pity Date Added: 27/04/2005
Jodie Darn! I'm too late for the good stuff! :D Date Added: 27/04/2005
Gone Away We'll save some for you next time, Jodie. ;) Date Added: 27/04/2005
Mad I'm glad I was off doing other things... Looks like there's been bar room brawl in here Date Added: 27/04/2005
Jay So glad I stopped by today; a fascinating post. Date Added: 27/04/2005
Ned Hiya Way, yes, it appears I was de-bunked. Notice Way, that they are the ones who are all drinking and yet I am the one who falls out of bed. Gotta get me some siderails. Oh and note the new URL there for da blog. It's a purty little thing. Date Added: 27/04/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Jay (he said, nursing his black eye and a hangover). Mad: How many more pugilist friends are you sending from your room? Ned: Shameless self promotion is the only way. ;) Way: How long have you had this thing about unarmed Canadians...? Date Added: 27/04/2005
Mad I don't know how many of 'em drop in here Dad, so for all I know there could be a good fight here every day :> Date Added: 27/04/2005
Way For the longest time, Gone. I have fancied going up there and bringing back a couple of personal slaves, but since I also vowed not to stray far from the security of my warm cave, it's presented me with a few logistical problems as a tentative and most-kindly master, so it's now become necessary to seek volunteers. I realize you have your hands full, at the moment, but if you happen across any leads I might consider... Date Added: 27/04/2005
vanessa Bar brawl? Pugilist? Pfft... I am a laaaaaydeeeee *bats eyelashes* (biting notwithstanding...)I've been reading for a long while, I just don't usually say much unless provoked. It's kind of like poking an animal in a cage, y'know? ;) Date Added: 27/04/2005
Gone Away Of course you are a lady, Vanessa, and our little discussion was as civilized as these things may be. But, to be honest, I am glad I rattled your cage for that was fun indeed. :D I must also thank you for providing at least part of the inspiration for my next post. Methinks you might enjoy it. :) Date Added: 27/04/2005
prying1 Glad I finaly got to read this from beginning to end. That is if it has ended. This might be the middle of the comments. Guess we won't know till later. Anyway, This has been a delightful read from start to finish. I got to catch snatches of it here and there but had no time to comment. The way I see it it really comes down to this. Logic states: God is. - Knowledge of absolute truth depends on personal knowledge of God. - Enough people in this world have this personal knowledge of God that to remain ignorant of it is foolish. To find this personal knowledge simply find someone who has it and follow the path they took. For myself, I simply asked God into my heart. He has lead me from that point deeper into knowledge of him. Unless I get self centered, decide to turn and go my own way again. BUT I find the pull of His love always draws me back on the path He has set before me. He really is a good God and does have our own interest at heart. - Thanks Clive! Great post! Date Added: 02/05/2005
Gone Away And thank you, Prying. I have always found it easy to talk to atheists (not agnostics - they just slide away from any logic at all) because once I was an atheist. All their arguments were used by me in those days so I've heard it all. God came and found me - I did not ask to be introduced. But, once you have met Him, everything becomes clear and all argument melts away. He is indeed the first and foremost Absolute Truth. Date Added: 02/05/2005
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
