[Optimism]

OH MY GOD.

Why do you have to write walls of text with links upon links stapled onto them? Its obnoxious. You make it impossible to address any one subject at a time.



1. Truth is NOT relative. If truth was relative, then truth wouldn't really exist.

Does truth exist? Some forms of truth can be substantiated, however, certainly there are others which cannot (origin of the universe preceding the Big Bang).

Whether truth is relative or absolute is a matter of subjective opinions. I understand many truths are absolute, while others are relative. Given my educational level, you and I would disagree on matters as absolute or relative; however, remember, I have compounding, reproducible, stand-alone-evidence that gives validity to what I "believe" and claim to be absolute. Moreover, tangible results that enable benefit or harm could be demonstrated at numerous levels on a plethora of topics, substantiating the aforesaid statement.

The answer: truth is both or only one option depending on the individual. However, those that give advancement to society see many truths as absolute, and not relative (scientists). For instance, vaccinations, cancer treatment, surgical procedures that enable life-sustaining/saving methodologies to be repetitively implemented with success, etc., are considered absolute truths by those who perform the task to safe a life and by those saved.

If you can't get past the philosophy of the relativity of certain matters, then you will under-live your true potential and for this, I pitty you and wish you a great education that enables a revelation.

As for the Big Bang theory, refer to the red text. Christianity is none of this and therefore, is not a valid belief. If you still disagree, I demand a full paper from you within 2 weeks explaining the big-bang (in paraphrase of course, of how it occurred and why scientists state they've detected remnants and how these remnants correlate to the Big Bang itself). Keep in mind, the writing of this paper must include references from reputable academic sources (peer-reviewed, which are validated through an objective means). Only then will you truly come to appreciate the red text listed previously. If you don't understand something written, then consult another source for clarity. Off you go.

Truth is absolute per individual and relative between individuals <<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://godisimaginary.com/

We've discussed this. I don't know how many times we have to go through this.

In conclusion, for some reason you seem to believe that religion has rendered me blind to logic. Not your logic, mind you - your way is not the only way, and thus your logic is not the only logic. (By your thinking, truth is relative. This means that logic must also be relative ).

Congratulations -- you understand the concept via this statement. Yes -- logic is relative; however, the extent to which logic benefits humanity and how it holds up within debate is how I and others determine it so.


2. I have never heard you call yourself an agnostic atheist humanist. Tell me your beliefs. Please don't wall of text it.



Sure. This term means the following: A disbelief in any god associated with any religion due to religious paradox/ambiguity. Meaning, one religion can't substantiate its truth over another given how each attempts to prove its validity. I do not, however, claim that a god does or does not exist with regard to the constructs of the universe, as this is unknowable and there is no evidence to propose otherwise (for or against -- which is your logical fallacy). As for humanist -- this simply entails a wanting to benefit all of humanity (the progression of human rights to all individuals).

[Optimism]

3. Atheists have not discovered non-supernatural causation for the big bang because it does not exist. There is no other more plausible explanation.

Do you understand and know all intricacies of every detail of mathematics, physics, biology, etc (knowledge)? No, so you can't possibly say there is no other plausible explanation. 2000 years ago, if I were to set a lap-top in-front of a cave man, he would have said god created it. God of the gaps in its truest form -- another substantial logical fallacy.



4. Are you even being serious..? o.O.. The presence of a supernatural creator is no reason for progression to be thrown aside. Its not like atheism - or any other religion - created medication. It would have been created either way.

This is true -- I didn't make myself clear enough within the initial post. Allow me to differentiate between the two existing facets of religious belief and how they relate to science. A-matter-of-fact, I'll let Neil handle that for me:

Neil DeGrass Tyson @ BYU - are you religious?


5. I HAVE set my prejudices aside in search of truth, Opti ;|. I have heard all the "truth" you have thus offered. Obviously there is some reason I am in disagreement of it. Either I am mentally blind, or you are.

If you imply god of the gaps within your logic, then you aren't setting aside bias. Quite the opposite.



In conclusion, for some reason you seem to believe that religion has rendered me blind to logic. Not your logic, mind you - your way is not the only way, and thus your logic is not the only logic. (By your thinking, truth is relative. This means that logic must also be relative ).

Yay -- you're going somewhere here!

Your stubborn :\




EDIT:
By the way, if I'm absurd, then your the friend of an absurd man!
YOUR ABSURD TOO

[Xrow]

It seems as though you haven't learned a thing from our discussions.

Sigh.



Regardless of whether humans know the exact origins of the universe, truth still exists in regards to the subject. It is either absolutely true that the universe had a creator, or it is absolutely true that it did not.

Truth isn't relative, Opti :|.



Mr. Neil speaks truth, unfortunately. Many Christians do run to the Bible as a factual basis for knowledge - when it simply is not. However it is a method with which to form Christian beliefs. Scientific and historic evidence, as well as logic and reasoning, can then be used to substantiate the claims of the Bible.



Do you understand and know all intricacies of every detail of mathematics, physics, biology, etc (knowledge)? No, so you can't possibly say there is no other plausible explanation. 2000 years ago, if I were to set a lap-top in-front of a cave man, he would have said god created it. God of the gaps in its truest form -- another substantial logical fallacy.

*Sigh.
I don't use God of the gaps arguments. Thanks though.
I agree, I cannot prove that there is no other plausible explanation. But none has yet been presented. And logic actually supports a supernatural creator - logic you are pitifully blind to.



For the second time, Opti, why have you not swayed me with your "evidence?"
BECAUSE IT ISN'T LOGICAL.

I agree that microevolution exists. In fact, evolution as a whole is not an absurd notion (although there is no real evidence to support it - missing links, beneficial mutations, ect). What is impossible to believe is that all fine-tuned values necessary for life came into being by way of a random explosion.

I don't see how anyone can grasp that an extremely intricate design came from anything but a designer.
The notion is absurd to me.

[Optimism]

It seems as though you haven't learned a thing from our discussions.

Sigh.

lol? I'm willing to empathize with all beliefs and understand that each maintains a truth to that individual and I wish them all the best -- even you. However, when you infringe on another's life-style because of your beliefs, that is where I'll step in and call you on it (gays, reproductive rights, etc.).

My philosophy: live and let live -- there are many "absolute truths" within this world. But if you attempt to throw your beliefs onto another's, degrading their humanity in the process, I'll smack you around verbally.

Moreover, I won't condemn you to eternal damnation in the process. I respect all ways-of-life. But, I expect the same respect in return.

It doesn't get anymore "open-minded" than this.

[Xrow]

Read my edit

[Optimism]

It seems as though you haven't learned a thing from our discussions.

Sigh.



Regardless of whether humans know the exact origins of the universe, truth still exists in regards to the subject. It is either absolutely true that the universe had a creator, or it is absolutely true that it did not.

Truth isn't relative, Opti :|.



Mr. Neil speaks truth, unfortunately. Many Christians do run to the Bible as a factual basis for knowledge - when it simply is not. However it is a method with which to form Christian beliefs. Scientific and historic evidence, as well as logic and reasoning, can then be used to substantiate the claims of the Bible.



Do you understand and know all intricacies of every detail of mathematics, physics, biology, etc (knowledge)? No, so you can't possibly say there is no other plausible explanation. 2000 years ago, if I were to set a lap-top in-front of a cave man, he would have said god created it. God of the gaps in its truest form -- another substantial logical fallacy.

*Sigh.
I don't use God of the gaps arguments. Thanks though.
I agree, I cannot prove that there is no other plausible explanation. But none has yet been presented. And logic actually supports a supernatural creator - logic you are pitifully blind to.



For the second time, Opti, why have you not swayed me with your "evidence?"
BECAUSE IT ISN'T LOGICAL.

I agree that microevolution exists. In fact, evolution as a whole is not an absurd notion (although there is no real evidence to support it - missing links, beneficial mutations, ect). What is impossible to believe is that all fine-tuned values necessary for life came into being by way of a random explosion.

I don't see how anyone can grasp that an extremely intricate design came from anything but a designer.
The notion is absurd to me.

@ the red -- how so?

As for microevolution -- you do realize, if you understand and accept this form of evolution, then you accept macroevolution? They are one in the same. lol? If a change in genetic structure, resulting in a new phenotypic structure occurs within several generations, then there is nothing from stopping even more substantial change from occurring over millions and millions of years...

Truth is absolute per individual and relative between individuals, as truth itself is defined by the individual.

You may be willing to submit that your way-of-life is incorrect and that another, absolute truth exists. However, many will not go this far, maintaining that their way-of-life is the way and the truth (absolute truth). You claiming an absolute truth is, in itself relative, when compared to what another will claim. Is there one truth? You can't say for certain. Ambiguity, my friend.

Putting things in persepctive,

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PaleBlueDot.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.universetoday.com/49091/pale-blue-dot/&usg=__SxPQJ1JBK9gF7DSZiG_gdo05nl0=&h=895&w=792&sz=61&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=TqtaEngUSQ8koM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=116&ei=zeViTaGpJ8L7lwe4qZjcCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblue%2Bdot%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1112%26bih%3D692%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=299&vpy=202&dur=472&hovh=133&hovw=118&tx=122&ty=140&oei=zeViTaGpJ8L7lwe4qZjcCw&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

There is earth as viewed by voyager one. Not even this picture does the following concept justice. If you honestly think that this entire universe was created (and possibly an infinite amount of others) for the sole purpose of yourself and the 7 billion other individuals on this planet, then please, take a good hard look once again. Upend your centrist view that follows from your religious beliefs. You aren't that special.

Still want to make a claim on what you define as "absolute truth"? C'mon...really?

[Xrow]

Red1:
History: Multiple outside sources, including non-Christian sources, agree with the claims of the Bible. None contradict it.
Science: The unbelievable intricacy of life alludes to a creator. The fine-tuning of the universe needed to support intelligent life alludes to a creator. The Cambrian Explosion (a massive explosion of intelligent and complex life in a short amount of time during the beginning of the middle Cambrian - fossil records) alludes to a creator. The intelligence of DNA alludes to a creator. To name a few.

Specifics with regard to "sources"; moreover, I can throw out any other religion along with "sources" validating that religion as well. It simply isn't a sufficient means to isolate any one religion from any other. And, as for alluding to a creator -- how? Just because something seems complex, doesn't mean there was a creator of divine origin. You are jumping a logical canyon and falling directly into it without reaching the other side. There is ZERO correlation to this proposition and the existence of a god associated with your religion. There is NO evidence of a creator. Absolutely none. Therefore, you cannot come to this conclusion in the slightest. You need evidence before you can substantiate a claim. This would be impossible, as again, there IS NO evidence.

I need far more specifics here. Far more.

Red2:
Simply put, evolution teaches that natural processes created everything. For one thing, nature cannot write DNA (an extremely intricate language). For another thing, nature did not exist until after the big bang, and therefore could not have created the big bang. So where did it come from? Finally, nothing can create itself - therefore there must have been a cause of all causes. This cause has to be timeless, otherwise it would have to have had a cause, and therefore would not be the cause of all causes. Understand? This is undeniable.
This, as well as the arguments stated in "Red1" allude to a creator.

Your knowledge of science and what is possible and what isn't is lacking undeniably from this paragraph -- laughably so, in fact. I'm assuming you've never taken a Biochemistry class, molecular genetics or a simply college chemistry class for that matter. If nothing can create itself, then what created god? If god is timeless and infinite, why can't the universe be? I think Carl Sagan puts it best:

Carl Sagan on "God" and "gods"



You sad thing.. I fear your confusing truth with opinion. Opinion is relative per individual, truth is not. Whether you live in China or America, 2+2=4. If 1 in 6 billion believes otherwise, it is NOT true for him - he is merely incorrect.

To address another misconception: truth is defined by the proposition of a statement, not the statement itself. Ex: I say "Obama is president." And someone in Russia says "Thats true for you but not for me; he is not my president." What did the Russian get wrong?Heres what: I didn't really say "Obama is president.," I said "Obama is president of the United States on February 21, 2011." That is true for all people, in all places, no matter what someones opinion is. Truth is absolute.

Relative truth cannot exist. If it did, it wouldn't really be truth, now would it?

Relative truth is still truth; however, this truth takes on a subjective form. All truth is, subjective. All truth. If you don't understand this statement, then you don't understand the intricacies of the concepts of both objectivity and subjectivity.

As for "intelligent design":

Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson

C'mon man...open your eyes. Let us use some common sense here.

[Optimism]

Edited your post.

An addition that you will find helpful:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/

Microevolution and its relation to the macroevolutionary theory, in a format the nearest red-neck can grasp entirely.

[Xrow]

" If nothing can create itself, then what created god? If god is timeless and infinite, why can't the universe be?"

Sigh, we've been over this.

The Law of Causality states that all that is finite must have a cause.
The Creator of the universe must be infinite for a couple reasons:
1. Because every finite thing needs a cause (see Law of Causality and Infinite Regression), and because nothing can create itself, something timeless must be the cause of all causes. This is undeniable logic. (LOL)
2. Because in order to have created time, He must have been outside of time - and thus timeless (otherwise He would not have created it).

The universe can't be timeless and infinite for one obvious reason: it is losing energy (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This is because it is an open system (and therefore cannot be infinite). If the universe was timeless, it would have run out of energy quite a while ago, don't you think? =)

You speak of these laws as if they were created by god itself. These laws have origins within the human population, which is innately flawed. You are attempting to apply these laws to something that is far beyond any individual's understanding, which is absurd. These laws are inapplicable in this regard, as we don't understand in the slightest the very founding principles on which this universe was created. It is impossible.

As for the universe not being infinite -- the collapse/expand theory refutes this claim. I could go on and on regarding propositions claiming it to be infinite; however, this doesn't substantiate truth. You can't make a claim regarding this issue, yet you are. Truth claims in the absence of evidence=laughable. Stop.

[Optimism]

Edited your post.

Overlooked the following:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/

[Xrow]

Red Herring and Straw Man.
Pitiful.

Fortunately, this argument will remain true regardless:
Nothing can create itself, therefore a timeless creator must have been the cause of all causes.

Using cognitive certainty and logic, this statement is true.

[Xrow]

By the way, if truth is absolute per individual.. Why are you still debating with me? Not to persuade me of an absolute truth I have yet to grasp, I dare say. 

[Optimism]

Red Herring and Straw Man.
Pitiful.

Fortunately, this argument will remain true regardless:
Nothing can create itself, therefore a timeless creator must have been the cause of all causes.

Using cognitive certainty and logic, this statement is true.

Cognitive certainty is grounded in the observable and tangible, of which, your propositions are neither. In other words, your usage of these terms are completely inapplicable.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/ (read it already).

[Allie]

I got tired of reading your posts.
Just don't break rules in em, kay?

[Rossbach]

I got tired of reading your posts.
Just don't break rules in em, kay?

*Pst* you guys can now break the rules without getting caught. /not directed at Allie.