Your Purpose in Life

Originally posted by FMF
Do you consider this to be "proof" that what you believe is "true"?

No of course not.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Two contradictory beliefs can't both be true. Either one is true and the other is false. Or they are both false.

There is a difference between 'truth' and 'truth claims.'

Clearly, as an atheist, I think the claims by both Hindu and Christian are false. But to the Christian his claims are true, and the same goes for the Hindu.

End of the day though, all you have to offer is truth claims, not truth.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Two contradictory beliefs about an actual event can't both be true.

This statement comes across as carefully avoiding what I actually said in the post you were purportedly responding to. What I said to you was offered in the spirit of having a genuine conversation but time and time again you brush past such offerings with ripcord questions and ripcord declarations. Here is what I said again:

Fetchmyjunk: Do you agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true?

FMF: If it turns out that God has revealed Himself to both, and did so deliberately in different ways in different parts of the world, then I suppose it is possible that they are both "true", aside from any claims either religion has generated about it being the 'only one' and all others being 'wrong'. That might be an understandable upshot of overreaching partisan spirit and cultural chauvinism . So, in essence, and aside from that, no, I don't agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
There is a difference between 'truth' and 'truth claims.'

Clearly, as an atheist, I think the claims by both Hindu and Christian are false. But to the Christian his claims are true, and the same goes for the Hindu.

End of the day though, all you have to offer is truth claims, not truth.

So no one knows the actual truth?

Originally posted by FMF
This statement comes across as carefully avoiding what I actually said in the post you were purportedly responding to. What I said to you was offered in the spirit of having a genuine conversation but time and time again you brush past such offerings with ripcord questions and ripcord declarations. Here is what I said again:

[i]Fetchmyjunk: Do you agree that ...[text shortened]... e, and aside from that, no, I don't agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true.[/b]

So you are saying "Reincarnation" and "Heaven and Hell" can both be true at the same time?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So no one knows the actual truth?

Oh dear. Are you trying to take the piss out of Ghost of a Duke?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you are saying "Reincarnation" and "Heaven and Hell" can both be true at the same time? I think not.

Well you have your underpants nailed to Christianity's mast. So I didn't expect you to go for the 'If it turns out that God has revealed Himself to both, and did so deliberately in different ways in different parts of the world' idea.

Originally posted by FMF
Oh dear. Are you trying to take the piss out of Ghost of a Duke?

Why would I do that? It was a serious question. If he says all there is are 'truth claims' but no 'truth'. He is implying that no one can know that actual 'truth'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How did you logically make that conclusion from what I said?

I believe it does because I believe every law has a law maker. God put a universal law in place just like he put the law of gravity in place.

I asked you what it was about universal moral law that entailed a lawmaker and you said all three. So if it is a requirement that a law be in the realm of morality and it be universal then that seems to imply that laws not fulfilling these criteria do not require a lawmaker. That being so it was logical for me to wonder why morality should have this privileged role.

Now, what you haven't said is why a law requires a law maker. In the case of physics we observe a behavior which is consistent. We refer to our paradigm theories of these behaviours as laws. I see no particular reason to think that a lawmaker is necessarily required. Essentially, either there is a creator or there is not, but the claim that the presence of a behaviour which is absolutely consistent entails a creator needs some justification. I wonder if you can provide it.

Originally posted by FMF
Well you have your underpants nailed to Christianity's mast. So I didn't expect you to go for the 'If it turns out that God has revealed Himself to both, and did so deliberately in different ways in different parts of the world' idea.

And it turns out you don't even know to which mast you have nailed yours.

It is not logical for 'one God only' and 'a million gods' to exist at the same time.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why would I do that? It was a serious question. If he says all there is are 'truth claims' but no 'truth'. He is implying that no one can know that actual 'truth'.

How is it a "serious question"? It's as if you have absolutely no idea what he just said to you and you are completely incapable of conceiving of ideas and beliefs that are different from yours. It's as if you just did not read any of the words he wrote. It surely can't have been a serious question.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And it turns out you don't even know to which mast you have nailed yours.

Well I am referring to prepackaged off the shelf retail religions when I talk of 'masts' so, given the fact that I don't subscribe or adhere to one, why would I be seeking to nail my underpants to a mast?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It is not logical for 'one God only' and 'a million gods' to exist at the same time.

Two different revelations in two different cultural contexts?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I asked you what it was about universal moral law that entailed a lawmaker and you said all three. So if it is a requirement that a law be in the realm of morality and it be universal then that seems to imply that laws not fulfilling these criteria do not require a lawmaker. That being so it was logical for me to wonder why morality should have this pr ...[text shortened]... solutely consistent entails a creator needs some justification. I wonder if you can provide it.

Obviously my worldview is based on God being the uncaused first cause of the universe. So everything that exists does so because of God having caused it.

Originally posted by FMF
How is it a "serious question"? It's as if you have absolutely no idea what he just said to you and you are completely incapable of conceiving of ideas and beliefs that are different from yours. It's as if you just did not read any of the words he wrote. It surely can't have been a serious question.

I believe don't that two contradictory accounts can both be true. I see no reason why is should be possible.