If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Dubious]

That kind of gives Theists the pole position, I would say.

If God is going to chose on whether you believed in him (why it's so important to god, I'll never know!) and not on any other criteria then I wouldn't want to be a member in that stupid club to begin with...especially if you're there. That alone would want to make me pray for oblivion a million times over.

[Belinda]

It's all relative. You seem to be caught up in absolutes and dismiss relativities as nothing. In truth, relativities appear to be everything for all life. This "absolute truth", if existent, is not something you can hope to know. It would be akin to teaching a cockroach QM equations - insufficient equipment.

"It's all relative," you say. Is that absolutely true?

You see the relativists paradox: if it's true, then relativism is false. If relativism is then false, then by definition it's not true.

Either way, relativism has to be false -- because of its own claim, not because of anyone's opinion.

But the claim that truth is relative is an empirical claim. There is no paradox for the empiricist.

It may be the case that all the relative empirical truths add up to a huge big absolute truth, but this we cannot know.

"If true then relativism is false" is one of those paradoxes which are caused by linguistic insufficiency. There are other paradoxes with the same structure. I must look them up.

[Immanuel Can]

Which particular theism? I'm sure there are countless notions of what follows death.

Christianity, I would say. But either way, we'll find out.

...you simply can't allow any doubt to creep into your mind.

That's kind of funny. You have no idea. But that's okay.

[Immanuel Can]

But the claim that truth is relative is an empirical claim.

It's not, actually. It's a deductive-analytic claim, actually...it's based on straight logic, not empirical testing.

It may be the case that all the relative empirical truths add up to a huge big absolute truth, but this we cannot know.

You might need to check the meaning of that word, "empirical." It's not the opposite of "absolute." It has to do with the weight one places on sensory experience, which in this case is not involved in the Relativism paradox. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism)

"If true then relativism is false" is one of those paradoxes which are caused by linguistic insufficiency.

Actually, it's not a linguistic problem but a conceptual one. The concept of epistemological Relativism is just plain wrong, no matter how one frames it in language. Any assertion about the unreliability of assertions is subject to the same defeater.

[Belinda]

But the claim that truth is relative is an empirical claim.

It's not, actually. It's a deductive-analytic claim, actually...it's based on straight logic, not empirical testing.

(Belinda)

The hypothetico deductive method attempts empirically to falsify hypotheses

It may be the case that all the relative empirical truths add up to a huge big absolute truth, but this we cannot know.

You might need to check the meaning of that word, "empirical." It's not the opposite of "absolute." It has to do with the weight one places on sensory experience, which in this case is not involved in the Relativism paradox. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism)

Belinda)

The best candidate for the opposite of absolute is relative.

"If true then relativism is false" is one of those paradoxes which are caused by linguistic insufficiency.

Actually, it's not a linguistic problem but a conceptual one. The concept of epistemological Relativism is just plain wrong, no matter how one frames it in language. Any assertion about the unreliability of assertions is subject to the same defeater.

What do you mean "epistemological relativism" ? We synthesise knowledge by relative means . We compare and contrast qualities and quantities .There is no other way to synthetise knowledge.

I quite understand that paradoxes are entertaining

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean "epistemological relativism" ? We synthesise knowledge by relative means . We compare and contrast qualities and quantities .There is no other way to synthetise knowledge.

There are two types of Relativism: "epistemological," as in the statement, "All truth is relative," and "ethical," as in the claim, "Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong." Both claims are ultimately problematic, I believe, but epistemological Relativism is dead easy to defeat because it self-defeats.

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true.

Either way, Relativism is simply not true. QED, by its own fundamental claim.

So what we can know for certain is that something is true. After that, we can always argue about who knows the truth, how to know the truth, what is the truth, and so on. But we've made an advance on pure Relativism or Nihiism: we've at least proved beyond any reasonable doubt that truth exists.

[Harbal]

...you simply can't allow any doubt to creep into your mind.

That's kind of funny.

It must be, I can see you laughing.

You have no idea. But that's okay.

That's true, I really don't know and I wouldn't trust anyone who said they did.

[Greta]

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true.

Either way, Relativism is simply not true. QED, by its own fundamental claim.

This might seem reasonable if the "absolute" you offer in relativity's place was not a product of popular ancient middle eastern mythology.

[Immanuel Can]

This might seem reasonable if the "absolute" you offer in relativity's place was not a product of popular ancient middle eastern mythology.

Let me invite you to offer your own absolute. What we both know, though, is that there is one. That's the important point. And we know it not because I say it or because you say it, but because of logic.

[uwot]

... epistemological Relativism is dead easy to defeat because it self-defeats.

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true.

Either way, Relativism is simply not true. QED, by its own fundamental claim.

Mr Can, it is only "dead easy to defeat" if you are attacking the straw man that only exists in your head. 'Nothing is true' is not a fundamental claim of relativism. Relativism is not about the truth of facts, as you insist; it is about the truth of belief.

So what we can know for certain is that something is true.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. The fact that different people, have different beliefs, about the same universe, is all the evidence you need to show that relativism is demonstrably the case.

[Dubious]

What does Relativism actually relate to when stripped of its philosophical jargon? It usually begins with a different perception from mine which ends in a different conclusion from mine for all things not ascertainably known. ICan't starts with the perception that God and bible are inherently absolute thereby renouncing and dismissing all variations of relativism in its wake. The bogus crystals of absolutes rise to the surface to the extent relativism is denied.

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.

...quite true! since nothing would exist if nothing is true making god a very lonely captain in his realm of nothing. This presupposes god to be the single and final point of truth unencumbered by any creation IT could have made.

If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true.

...it is not true only when it refers to that specific something which is true and not merely imagined to be true. Relativism cannot be qualified with a generic called "something"! It's oxymoronic when used in that manner since no entity exists which is called "Something".

[Greta]

This might seem reasonable if the "absolute" you offer in relativity's place was not a product of popular ancient middle eastern mythology.

Let me invite you to offer your own absolute. What we both know, though, is that there is one. That's the important point. And we know it not because I say it or because you say it, but because of logic.

I don't presume to know. Sure, logically, reality can be thought of ultimately being one thing so there would seem to be some kind of absolute there. I am just not sure that naming that one thing after the flawed anthropomorphic entity of the Old Testament. It doesn't help that that (or IMO, misuse) use of language has resulted in popular culture and the media embracing the anthropomorphic version, hence the mostly unchallenged assumption of God as "He", as a man or manly being.

I have some sympathy with the idea of God as love or being itself, as I do for a largely blind, emerging reality. There's much we don't know. Still, I don't see an advantage in naming an "essential essence" after a vain, harsh and generally unwise Old Testament deity.

[Immanuel Can]

I have some sympathy with the idea of God as love or being itself, as I do for a largely blind, emerging reality. There's much we don't know. Still, I don't see an advantage in naming an "essential essence" after a vain, harsh and generally unwise Old Testament deity.

Well, let's just start with this concept: Supreme Being.

After that, there are details to be filled out, sure. But that first recognition is a big one, so it's not bad to pause to consider it. We've moved from imagining the universe as a cosmic accident of some kind, and migrated to thinking in terms of some kind of purposed existence, if we've come that far.

That's not small.

[Greta]

I have some sympathy with the idea of God as love or being itself, as I do for a largely blind, emerging reality. There's much we don't know. Still, I don't see an advantage in naming an "essential essence" after a vain, harsh and generally unwise Old Testament deity.

Well, let's just start with this concept: Supreme Being.

Well, it also could be said that a dog is the god of its microbes. In context, Sun and Earth worship make sense. Everything that we have and are is part of those systems. Yet where is the worship of the Milky Way, or of Laniakea, which are surely so much greater?

In worship, we humans seem to skip these marvels and go right to the top. As I've said before, focus on God is akin a contract cleaner working on one floor of a building seeking contact with the CEO of the multinational conglomerate in which that building is just one of thousands of holdings. It would seem more logical to work with your (metaphorical) supervisor in the cleaning company first.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:
It's all relative. You seem to be caught up in absolutes and dismiss relativities as nothing. In truth, relativities appear to be everything for all life. This "absolute truth", if existent, is not something you can hope to know. It would be akin to teaching a cockroach QM equations - insufficient equipment.


"It's all relative," you say. Is that absolutely true?

You see the relativists paradox: if it's true, then relativism is false. If relativism is then false, then by definition it's not true.

Either way, relativism has to be false -- because of its own claim, not because of anyone's opinion.

This will remind you, Immanuel Can, that we are addressing epistemological relativism. N.B Greta uses the phrase "can hope to know".
I have pointed out that science uses the hypothetico deductive method which depends upon the possibility of falsifying evidence. Please note that evidence is empirically known therefore it is synthetic, a posteriori, knowledge.