Craig- "Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?"
Dan- "Nope."
Craig... " If you can't agree that an objective Truth exists"
Dan- "GOOD God almighty! YES!
"I AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH EXISTS.
I AGREE THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT I BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!"
"Truth is True, no matter where it comes from."
Dan-"These are competing Truth claims, thus, I refer to the multiple Truth claims."
Dan- "But
I've always been quite clear that I believe in THE TRUTH. I've never
obfuscated or been unclear about this. So, you really have no room now to say that
Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was
already clear."
Craig- " So, you are claiming that we can know the Truth?"
Dan- "YYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! ONE MILLION TIMES, YES!"
Craig- "Personally, I see absolutely zero value in a worldview that is based on anything except the Truth."
Dan- "Me, either."
Dan- " Sometimes we use the term Truths to refer to literal multiple truths"
Dan- " “There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”
Dan- " These are multiple, infinite Truths because there are multiple, infinite questions."
Dan- " He is referring to MULTIPLE Truths"
Dan- " YES, 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 ARE two distinct Truths. But more apt, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ALSO two distinct Truths. There are multiple Truths in this world and that is an observable objective fact."
Dan- " hose are TWO diverse/distinct Truths in one real world. "
Ok, I could post more, but this is representative. What we've seen is multiple adamant references to The Truth (singular), then a bizarre switch to "truths" plural. I think the most telling contradiction is
"So, you really have no room now to say that
Dan does not believe in One Truth,".
This raises several distinct possiilities.
1. Dan decided that talking about objective Truth was headed down a road that he didn't like and decided that changing course and denying what he had been affirming was a good strategy to derail things.
2. One of Dan's contradictory positions is not True.
3. Dan decided that it was critical to introduce a version of subjective morality into the conversation because the notion of some sort of Objective Truth opens the door to an objective morality.
4. Dan is a person who believes that whatever he says or writes in literally True in the moment that he says or writes it, but once he says or writes something else then that becomes True.
I could come up with all sorts of imaginary motivations for Dan contradicting himself, buy it's pointless. It's most likely one of the semantic games he delights in and he'll go to increasingly imaginative and creative ways to explain this contradiction.
10 comments:
??
Again, are you truly not understanding?
A. ABOUT THE QUESTION of whether 1+1=2... THERE IS ONE FACT, ONE TRUTH. YES, 1+1=2 is the ONE Truth to that question.
B. About the question of whether Dan currently owns a Ford... THERE IS ONE FACT, ONE TRUTH. Dan DOES own a Ford currently.
(Now here's the tricky part)
In referring to A and B above, those are TWO UNIQUE TRUTHS. Plural.
Where am I wrong? Answer that question.
Are both of you all saying I'm mistaken to refer to these two separate distinct Truths in the plural?
If so, I am deeply concerned for both of you.
I'm wondering if you will apologize again when you realize that I'm stating a rational, provable, demonstrable point (that if we're talking about multiple Truths about multiple questions/ideas, that we are INDEED talking about literal multiple Truths, PLURAL) or if you'll just keep repeating the false claim that I'm contradicting myself.
I'm wondering IF you finally realize that I'm factually correct - and that coming so quickly following the misstep with the other attacks on me before you finally realized that you asked the wrong questions - if you will begin to recognize that many of your claims about me lying or making false statements or saying something I haven't said are, indeed, arising from you failing to understand my precisely factually correct statements and that maybe you need to be a bit more humble in making these repeated attacks and mocking of folk like me.
For your sake, I hope so.
I did state the rational, provable, demonstrable Truth, that you’ve either totally contradicted yourself, lied, or are incapable of accurately expressing yourself.
The fact that you didn’t bother to do anything but regurgitate the same old crap you’ve been spewing, kind of makes my post look pretty good.
Making demands isn’t a good plan for you right now, just so you know. Especially demands that I answer questions I’ve already answered,
Craig, your comments are increasingly irrational and erratic. If you'd like to communicate, please cite something I've said and respond TO THAT (ideally answering any questions I've asked) to increase your likelihood of being understood.
But seriously, run your words past a loved one to see if you're making sense to them. I'm truly concerned.
Ahhhhhh, the "You're getting irrational gambit.". One we haven't seen in quite a while. I guess anything is better than acknowledging your contradictions.
What contradictions?
Your failure to understand me does not mean that I've contradicted myself.
I DO believe in ONE TRUTH about specific ideas/questions. I believe there is ONE TRUTH in answer to the question of "Is there a creator God?" I believe there is ONE TRUTH on the matter of the righteousness (or not) of having abortions in given circumstances. Etc.
AND, when we talk about BOTH of those Truths, we use plural because we're talking about the Truth nature of multiple ideas.
You still can't point to a place where I've contradicted myself. I've explained it and you have not addressed my explanation. That is irrational on your part.
Answer the questions directly and reasonably, THAT would be a rational response.
"ideally answering any questions I've asked"
Dan, the problem with this particular complaint is the fact that it apparently doesn't matter if I answer your questions or not.
In an earlier comment you asked 10 questions that you claimed that I would not answer, yet I answered all of them and more, and for some reason you've never even acknowledged or responded to those answers. Why ask questions, and make assumptions about the likelihood of them being answered if you're going to ignore the answers? Maybe you don't understand that your actions affect others. In other words, if you don't acknowledge/respond to/follow up when I answer your questions, what would possibly motivate me to answer more questions that you're history indicates that you are likely to ignore?
OK, I've got it now. You avoid the obvious and undeniable contradictions shown above. That the words you use literally contradict yourself, buy adding things that you DIDN"T say, and changing meanings after the fact. But you blame me because I took what you wrote at face value and didn't assume that you meant something other than the clear plain meaning of the words you wrote.
This from the person who's made a practice of bitching and moaning that other people read things into your words that you say aren't there, now you bitch and moan because we don't.
I know this will shock you, but one secret to effective communication is to actually express yourself clearly and accurately. In other words, if your mean "truths", that don't write "TRUTH".
"So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was already clear."
There is absolutely no way that you can spin this to suggest that it doesn't contradict your new multi truths hunch. Because you've literally, clearly, demonstrable said that you believe in "multiple truths", I believe you've claimed that it's "reality".
"Answer the questions directly and reasonably, THAT would be a rational response."
As I pointed out just above, if you're going to ignore the answers, why demand them?
If you want to acknowledge the fact that I answered your 10 questions (at lest the ones not directed to others), and deal directly and specifically with those answers, as well as the responses to things other than questions, just don't bother with this pathetic line of whiny bitching.
"Again, are you truly not understanding?"
Speaking of being divorced from reality. This is the first line of the your first comment on this thread. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Nor do either of your first two comments. Apparently this sort of response that is completely divorced from the reality of the post it responds to is your way of demonstrating your superior powers of Reason and your grasp on reality. If so, then you need to be concerned about yourself, not me.
Post a Comment