Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2007-04-14T02:04:22Z

Tom Stockton:

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2007-04-14T01:55:42Z

Tom Stockton: Beware reading the 1st Amendment in isolation

There are, in fact, instances of the 10 Commandments on just about every building in Washington D.C. When considering the 1st Ammendment, it should considered in its entire context instead of a portion taken out of context of the whole amendment.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Ten Original Amendments:
The Bill of Rights.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789.
Ratified December 15, 1791.

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note: That meaning the Congress shall not interfere with a persons free exercise of an established religion, such as Judaism or Christianity.

Today people no longer follow our American Constitution of the United States of America. They preach that there should be a separation of the Church from the State. A separation of the Church from all public arenas. This isn't from the 1st Amendment but rather it is from:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html

CONSTITUTION
(FUNDAMENTAL LAW)
OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of
the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
Ninth Convocation
On October 7, 1977

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

This should settle the matter. But for some, the big lie, is more important than the entire truth.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: Read "Lemon v. Kurtzman," Supreme Court Case, and tell me what the Constitutions says afterwards.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A classic mistake. First you read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, to get a true understanding of what their original intent was in the historical record of that time. Did that already. That way you'll know when a judge or lawyer has subverted the American peoples rights. i.e. Lemon v. Kurtzman. I'm going to give you a clue as to how to identify the big lie that subverts the 1st Amendment into the complete opposite of its original intent. When anyone only mentions the "establishment clause" out of context with the rest of the meaning that the whole amendment is meant to convey. That's why I provided article 52 of the now defunct USSR. It's only a recent attempt to establish the secular Humanist religion as the predominant religion. Recent political reinterpretations don't change the original, and whole true intent of it. So go ahead and site as many cases as you can where the rights of Americans have been taken away in a court of law. Just remember that everything Hitler and his nazis goons did was first made legal by his politically appointed judges and lawyers. You may remember what happened to that group of people that took religious liberty from people? So then, which version of the facts will you be casting your future with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beware reading the 1st Amendment in isolation ==

While the 1st Amendment does restrict establishment of religion by Congress, this was changed by ratification & interperetation of the 14th Amendment. Under the US Supreme Court's incorporation doctrine, the 14th expanded applicability of the 1st & some other amendments to all of government. While you won't find the exact phrase, "separation of church & state", in the Constitution, this phrase is shorthand for a body of thought that developed over centuries to become the law of the land. However, it isn't uniformly enforced.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2007-04-14T01:46:48Z

Tom Stockton:

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event. Nor would be a civilization firing a brace of missiles laden with primitive life, to crash on another planet and have life begin anew.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#Many physicists argue that the creation of the universe ''was'' a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hey, I didn't say that God was "subject to quantum physics." You said that--or at least you said that God, did He exist, would be so subject. God is not subject to any physical law. He ''made'' those laws, and He can break them. As He did to create this wondeful planet we live on, and as He does from time to time. We call such occurrences "miracles."

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?

2007-04-14T01:38:46Z

Tom Stockton:

==Yes==
Except for FOX, which has a neocon bias. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is not a doubt about it, the media is liberal. Yes you can say FOX tilts right, but they offer the liberal counterpoint. Yes, you can say talk radio is conservative. The vast majority of media TV, print is operated by, employs liberals that promote liberal points of view. These medias go out of the way to deny a conservative point of view, not balanced. Maybe why FOX and conservative radio have a big following. They are the only game in town. Tilt a political direction and bias to one point of view, are two different meanings.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a difficult question because of shifting/tricky definitions of liberal & conservative. Conservative can variously mean neo-con (ie, big gov't conservative) to libertarianism. Populism can be an oppressive combination of the left & the right. If "liberal" means leftist (ie, secular big-gov't welfare state), then I see this orientation as a slight overall bias of combined radio, TV & print media. My personal observation is untrustworthy, but surveys of journalists show that Democratic Party orientation predominates. Of course, many individual sources will be exceptions. I believe the safest course is to seek reliable sources of different stripes to get a broader picture.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The media is not one monolithic entity plus Fox. Some media outlets take a more liberal perspective, some a more conservative one. Talk radio, for example, is overwhelmingly conservative. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think this should be rephrased as "does the MSM (Mainstream media) have a liberal bias?", because the big ones (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.) are pretty liberal. Should I move the page?--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The media has a bias toward making money. That is why even CNN is hiring people from Fox. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Interesting and relevant link--go to www.jibjab.com and click on 'it's what we call the news' (high speed only) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Reporters and other people in the media are generally better educated than the dudes who get together in the bar to complain about stuff. Therefore, the media has a different, more educated point of view: they know more history, they know more science, they know more about other countries, they know you get what you pay for. The complaining dudes in the bar who think we should just eliminate taxes and bomb all the people who protest against US foreign policy are the majority of the public, but that doesn't make them right. Therefore, yes, the media has a bias, but it's not a liberal bias. It's a bias in favor of an intelligent, educated, well-informed point of view. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I must say I do not share your faith in the media. In my experience they are often lazy and disinclined to do any but the most cursory research. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::I never said the media are intelligent and well-informed. I just meant to say that they are more intelligent and better informed than the average complaining dude in the bar, or the average Conservapedia contributor, or the average voter. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey!, I'm the average Conservapedia contributor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Reporters do tend to be liberal, but publishers tend to be conservative, so it all balances out. Editors generally try to have the media's opinion reflect the mainstream of their readership, because—obviously—the media are businesses and are trying to make money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes And No==

The media is liberal. The media is also Conservative. The media is also Communist, Libertarian, Religious, Atheistic, moral, immoral, Fascist, etc. It just depends on where you look for your news. Depending on where you go for your news, you will get a different angle on current events.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 10:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-04-14T01:10:42Z

Tom Stockton:

{{debate-philosophy}}

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-04-14T01:10:08Z

Tom Stockton:

{{debate-philosophy}}

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)