Subjectivist Cowardice on Display

_{Barry Arrington
November 6, 2018

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

JDK wrote in a comment to my last post: “I just believe it is true that there is no Truth that we can know.”

I replied by stating that the fact that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure is certainly true. And I challenged JDK: “Deny that. I dare you.”

JDK refused my dare and ran for cover.

JDK’s statement and my statement are mutually exclusive. They cannot be both be true. So it should be easy for JDK to deny my claim if he truly believes his claim. Yet he refuses to do so. Why? Because at bottom he is a coward. He comes into these pages and makes bold claims about the unknowability of truth. And when confronted with the loathsome repugnance of his moral squalor, instead of standing by his claim, he tucks tail and runs.

Maybe I am wrong. I will give JDK another chance just to make sure. Here goes.

JDK, you say “there is no Truth that we can know.” I say we can know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure. Go ahead, deny my claim. I dare you again.

Comments

Comments on this thread closed. If you desire to comment further on this topic, go here.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

ScuzzaMan
If it is true that the person exists then commitment to falsehood is commitment to personal non-existence.
Very good point. Even the act of making a commitment "I will do [whatever]" - has foundation in truth. In the first place, the person affirms the truth to himself. Even if the goal is nothingness or to rebel against truth - a commitment to truth is necessary.Silver Asiatic_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Weighing in a bit late here, but while some moral relativists may say that there are no absolute truths, their conversation will evidence nothing but the most perfunctory doubt about the ideas they push. Their War on Certainty is always against other people's certainty, and never their own.EvilSnack_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

"A person cannot make an absolute commitment to falsehood." Not while remaining (long) a person. For commitment to falsehood is self-negation. If it is true that the person exists then commitment to falsehood is commitment to personal non-existence. This is why certain theological schools of thought openly label subjectivism and its cousin moral relativism as a death cult. That the majority of subjectivists and relativists don't recognise it as such has of course no bearing on the truth of the label.ScuzzaMan_{November 9, 2018
November
11
Nov
9
09
2018
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

JDK
In general, a question is loaded when it contains an “controversial or unjustified assumption” such that any answer to the question assents to the truth of the assumption.
There is nothing controversial or unjustified about the proposition that evil exists. Now if I were to say, “Do you agree that the evil Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not be on the Supreme Court” that would be a loaded question because in that context, the word evil is controversial. Do you understand?
In Barry’s case, the question contains the assumption that objective transcendent moral standards exist and that human beings can know them with certainty.
Again, there is nothing controversial or unjustifiable about that statement. You are confusing "controversial" and "unjustified" with “debatable.” A debatable assumption is not a loaded assumption. Study my example above of a true way of loading a question with the word “evil.” Barry’s question does not do that.
I have been clear about that. I do not believe objective transcendent moral standards exist, and consequently, I don’t believe we have some ability to know them with certainty (as we can’t know something that doesn’t exist.)
Of course. That means that you also don’t believe that we have the ability to know that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun. I know your position, and I have stated it, even as you refuse to state it.
Therefore, to me, Barry’s question is not meaningful (see 61 for response to vivid on that phrase), loaded as it is with assumptions with which I do not agree.
I have already refuted this point several times - even in this exchange.StephenB_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

re 56, concerning loaded questions: Stephen writes,
The question “Do you still beat your wife,” for example, is loaded because it prematurely assumes guilt. To assume that evil exists, on the other hand, is not to load a question because it implies no guilt on your part. It simply claims that the existence of evil can be known with a specific example and asks if you agree.
Implying guilt on someone's part is just an example of how a question can be loaded. In general, a question is loaded when it contains an "controversial or unjustified assumption" such that any answer to the question assents to the truth of the assumption. In Barry's case, the question contains the assumption that objective transcendent moral standards exist and that human beings can know them with certainty. It then asks whether a certain action meets the criteria of "evil". Since I don't believe the assumptions are true, any further question about any action is just not meaningful. This is why the question is loaded: acknowledging the question about the action implicitly endorses the assumptions. Later, Stephen writes,
This is madness The question is ASKING if you disagree with those assumptions.
Yes, I disagree with the assumptions. I have been clear about that. I do not believe objective transcendent moral standards exist, and consequently, I don't believe we have some ability to know them with certainty (as we can't know something that doesn't exist.) Therefore, to me, Barry's question is not meaningful (see 61 for response to vivid on that phrase), loaded as it is with assumptions with which I do not agree.jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

re 59: When I wrote, "I can’t assent to the presuppositions, so specific questions which are based on those presuppositions are meaningless to me", Vivid repleid
Barry has a point this does sound a bit crazy. After all what was the purpose of your post 48 if you did not know what he meant by his question?
I think it should be fairly clear that two different meanings of "meaning" are involved here. Yes, I know what Barry's question means. In fact, in 48 I described my understanding of the broader context of what it means: “evil” exists as an objective, transcendent moral category, and we have the capability to know those objective transcendent moral truths with certainty. Within this context, the meaning of his question is clear. However, when I wrote that his question was meaningless to me, I meant that since I don't accept his presuppositions, his question has no significance or relevance to me: a question about something I don't believe in can't have a meaningful answer. To be flippant, it's like asking whether unicorns are pink. I know what the question means, but since unicorns don't exist, there is no possible answer to the question: it's a meaningless question. I think this distinction should have been obvious, and I'm a bit surprised vivid made the objection he did. Hopefully this explanation clears things up.jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Bely not belly LOLvividbleau_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

JDK “. I can’t assent to the presuppositions, so specific questions which are based on those presuppositions are meaningless to me.” JDK Barry has a point this does sound a bit crazy. After all what was the purpose of your post 48 if you did not know what he meant by his question? Your actions belly your words. Vividvividbleau_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

BA77 - fascinating talk, thanks.Silver Asiatic_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

re 55: aha, now I am also insane. I agree, Barry: you should move on.jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

JDK
Barry’s question assumes that “evil” exists as an objective, transcendent moral category. He has made that clear. It also assumes that we have the capability to know those objective transcendent moral truths with certainty. Therefore his question presupposes the truth of the very metaphysical issues upon which we disagree: the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths and the ability of human beings to access that transcendent realm.
Incorrect. You are just using the term “loaded” to mislead your readers into believing that Barry’s question is unreasonable. A loaded question is one, among other things, that assumes guilt on the part of the person being asked. The question “Do you still beat your wife,” for example, is loaded because it prematurely assumes guilt. To assume that evil exists, on the other hand, is not to load a question because it implies no guilt on your part. It simply claims that the existence of evil can be known with a specific example and asks if you agree. Now we all know that you don’t agree and that you don’t think it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun. We just want you to be honest enough to admit it. So far, you have not demonstrated that kind of honesty.
This meets both of the criteria above: “a rhetorical tool [that] attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda” and “the facts are presupposed by the question, and [are] an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.”
No, it doesn’t meet the criteria. The facts about your position are not presupposed in Barry’s question. On the contrary, the point of his question is to *get the facts* about your position, not to presuppose them. You just don’t want to provide the facts because they expose your impoverished philosophy. Not because Barry is being mean to you. Rhetorical tools to serve an agenda are logically permitted as long as they do not presuppose the facts about your position. (notice the word “and” in the formulation). There are millions of questions that can be fairly asked in a yes or no fashion that do not entrap the one being questioned. Barry’s question takes the form of “Do you accept my claim or do you not.” It is a perfectly reasonable question that does not involve entrapment.
Going further, the link in the Wikipedia article to the “fallacy of many questions” is relevant: A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, “of many questions”) is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called “complex” because it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.[1] [from Wikipedia]</
Totally irrelevant. There are no “tricks” or “complex presuppositions,” and you know the meaning of all the words being used.
This issue is quite complex, involving many different philosophical subjects. To boil it down to a single question that incorporates within it Barry’s views on these matters, but not mine, makes it a loaded question of the “many questions” sort.
No, it doesn’t.
The fact that I disagree with the assumptions embedded in the question is one reason I am not going to answer it.
This is madness. The question is ASKING if you disagree with those assumptions. You either know that it is evil to torture babies for fun or you do not. Why not just disclose the truth: For your part, you do not know that it is evil to torture babies for fun. Why are you afraid to tell the truth about what you believe?StephenB_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

re:53. I can't assent to the presuppositions, so specific questions which are based on those presuppositions are meaningless to me. And since Barry is incapable of and/or entirely unwilling to even entertain my framework for understanding our moral nature and moral judgments, I can't try to answer within my framework. So I won't answer Barry's loaded question.jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Vivid, JDK has descended into Insane Denial Mode. Time to move along.Barry Arrington_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

JDK At the moment i dont see how the issues you brought up changes anything I wrote. “Therefore his question presupposes the truth of the very metaphysical issues upon which we disagree: the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths and the ability of human beings to access that transcendent realm.” I trust I got that right, if so your position is still the same. Since you do not hold to these presuppositions you do not believe we can certainly know that it is evil to torture babies for pleasure. Vividvividbleau_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

re 50 and 51: It appears neither of you addressed the issues I brought up in 48. Perhaps Stephen will?jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Readers, Given JDK's explanation at 48, if he were not a gutless coward, instead of refusing my challenge he would have responded as follows: BARRY'S CHALLENGE: You said this: “There is no Truth that we can know.” I said this: “We can know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure.” And then I said this: “Go ahead, deny my claim. I dare you again.” JDK'S RESPONSE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES HE SET FORTH IN COMMENT 48: Barry, I can't answer the question because it is all just so nuance-y and complex. Maybe we cannot know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure. It all depends on what one means by the word "evil." JDK, anyone who will not stand up and say that with absolute certainty he knows it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure is either a fool, a coward, or an aggressively evil person, or perhaps all three.Barry Arrington_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

JDK Barry’s question is, “We can know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture babies for pleasure.” Yes or No? Barry’s question assumes that “evil” exists as an objective, transcendent moral category. He has made that clear. It also assumes that we have the capability to know those objective transcendent moral truths with certainty. Therefore his question presupposes the truth of the very metaphysical issues upon which we disagree: the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths and the ability of human beings to access that transcendent realm.” The above seems to me that your saying that you believe that we cannot know with absolute certainty that is is evil to torture babies for pleasure. If so why not come out and say that? Vividvividbleau_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic and jdk, this is semi-related to the puzzle piece analogy:
Great Minds: Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved on the American Miracle - November 8, 2018 - podcast interview Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer assumes the role of interviewer, and does it very well. They talk about the thesis of Mr. Medved’s book, The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic. The topics includes the settling of North America and the Constitutional Convention. The series of “happy accidents” is strongly suggestive of providence, “divine favor,” as many Americans have perceived today and in the past. Medved makes a couple of additional provocative points. First, that seeing “design” in your country’s history, or you own marriage or your life, is healthy and beneficial. He discusses his own marriage in this context. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/great-minds-stephen-meyer-and-michael-medved-on-the-american-miracle/
bornagain77_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Stephen writes,
You cannot use that [stating that Barry's question is loaded] as an excuse for refusing to answer his challenge.
I have a number of reasons for not answering Barry's question, some of which I mentioned in 31, and some of which I didn't. That the question is loaded is not the only reason. I will address the "loaded question" issue, though. Barry's question is, "We can know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture babies for pleasure.” Yes or No? Barry's question assumes that "evil" exists as an objective, transcendent moral category. He has made that clear. It also assumes that we have the capability to know those objective transcendent moral truths with certainty. Therefore his question presupposes the truth of the very metaphysical issues upon which we disagree: the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths and the ability of human beings to access that transcendent realm. Therefore his question is loaded with the assumption that his view on the general metaphysical issues are correct. This meets both of the criteria above: "a rhetorical tool [that] attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda" and "the facts are presupposed by the question, and [are] an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed." Going further, the link in the Wikipedia article to the "fallacy of many questions" is relevant:
A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.[1] [from Wikipedia]
This issue is quite complex, involving many different philosophical subjects. To boil it down to a single question that incorporates within it Barry's views on these matters, but not mine, makes it a loaded question of the "many questions" sort. The fact that I disagree with the assumptions embedded in the question is one reason I am not going to answer it.jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

jdk @44 I already know the meaning of a loaded question, which is why I raised the issue. Barry's challenge does not qualify as a loaded question under the Wikipedia definition or any other. You cannot use that as an excuse for refusing to answer his challenge. If you disagree, please explain exactly how Barry's challenge is "loaded" by using his own words and relating them to the principles involved. Please do not let this be another example of how you also avoid my questions.StephenB_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

jdk
Sa, I should have been clearer. My comment at 19 was in response to your statement at 18 that “jdk affirms that he respects the truth but at the same time denies that it has basis in objective reality.” I consider a brick wall an example of objective reality. However, your 22 clears up any confusion about this that I might have had about what you were referring to. You were referring to truth about objective moral values, which is of course what we have been discussing, but I mistakenly thought you might have been talking more generally than that. All is clear to me now about this little interchange.
Ok, yes. You affirm that there is an objective reality. This is a truth affirmation. This means, truth claims are rooted in objective reality. We validate truth through objective means. Truth, however, is a function of reason, the intellectual virtues and of the quality of "goodness". These are the foundations of moral values. Since truth is rooted in objectivity. So also, moral values which are built upon the value of truth. This concept is embedded, ingrained in human nature. It's not optional. It's not subjective. It is impossible to do any kind of rational process and declare that truth and falsehood are subjective - interchangeable, of equal value.Silver Asiatic_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

jdk
So what are the chances of my coincidentally bringing the Dylan lyric and the Eliot novel together into my life this evening. Who could have seen that puzzle piece falling into place?
You're asking the right question. You post a quote referencing a name. That evening you read a book that tells you who the named person was. That's like reaching into one puzzle box, selecting a piece, and then going to an entirely different puzzle box and selecting a piece that matches exactly with the first. I think you have to look for deeper reasons and meaning for such things. Something more than pure chance and blind matter at work in the course of life.Silver Asiatic_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

re 39: From Wikipedia
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1] Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
jdk_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

jdk states:
ba writes,
Your position is equivalent to the insanity of someone believing that pieces of a puzzle can exist but there can be no overarching puzzle to which the pieces belong.
This is a somewhat accurate analogy. Due to various human limitations, our life presents us with millions of puzzle pieces to consider and integrate into our understanding, but we have no way, ever, to step back/up/out and come anywhere close to seeing all of the puzzle.
Apparently jdk agrees that the puzzle pieces, i.e. truths that we currently know, are being put together in such a fashion so as to, at least, let us know that there is indeed a overarching puzzle being put together, i.e. to let us know that there is some ultimate "The Truth" to the overarching puzzle to which the individual pieces are somehow conforming. But jdk also holds that man, from his finite perspective, has no way of ever knowing what the final puzzle will look like. I guess he views us as being much too small to ever see what the final picture of the puzzle actually is. I disagree with jdk. Although the finite mind of man is separated from the infinite Mind of God by an infinite degree, God has, none-the-less, given the finite 'made in the image of God' mind of man the capacity to, at least, grasp 'The Truth" of the final picture of the overarching puzzle to which the individual pieces of the puzzle of this universe are now conforming. And indeed we do know, via quantum mechanics and general relativity, that it is true that the universe is not self originating nor self sustaining but that the universe was created and is sustained, i.e. is 'contingent', on something that is outside of the space-time and matter-energy of this universe. Moreover, we also know that it is true that the universe is not governed by different legislation in different places, and that the universe is therefore not 'schizophrenic' in its operation but that there is indeed an overarching pattern, i.e. a "The Truth", to the puzzle to which the pieces of the puzzle are somehow conforming. Even atheists themselves presuppose that the overarching pattern of "The Truth" to which the pieces of the puzzle are now conforming is graspable by the mind of man. That quest of man to find out exactly what that overarching pattern, i.e. "The Truth", to the puzzle actually is, is generally known as the search for the "Theory of Everything". Atheists presuppose that "The Truth" of the puzzle will be an overarching mathematical truth. Yet, as was mentioned previously, Godel proved, with his incompleteness theorem, that the presupposed 'Theory of Everything" can never be based in mathematics alone, but that it is necessary to postulate something else, a "Mind", that is giving truthfulness to mathematics in the first place. As Dr. Bruce Gordon succinctly put the situation for atheists:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Of course, the main, even final, goal in the quest for the much sought after "Theory of Everything", (i.e. the quest to find "The Truth" of the final picture of the puzzle), is to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the a single overarching theory. All efforts thus far, since they rely solely on math but ignore the necessity of God to 'breath fire into the equations' so as to give the equations a universe to describe in the first place, have, unsurprisingly, failed. Yet, I hold that by allowing the Agent Causality of God 'back' into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (and I might add, with the closing of the free-will loophole, quantum mechanics itself now demands), then a empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics readily pops out for us in Christ's resurrection from the dead. That is to say, to complete the puzzle analogy that we are currently using, that the final picture of the puzzle, i.e. "The Truth", to which all the millions of pieces of the puzzle are conforming, is centered on Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ Astonishing discovery at Christ's tomb supports Turin Shroud - NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. 'However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud
Verses:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{November 8, 2018
November
11
Nov
8
08
2018
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew:
Something in the objective natural moral law said that it was a good idea to start kllling people and “converting” others by force.
The objective natural moral law forbids murder and converting people by force. I assume that your ignorance on the matter stems from your lack of intellectual curiosity.StephenB_{November 7, 2018
November
11
Nov
7
07
2018
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Old Andrew: Something in the objective natural moral law said that it was a good idea to start kllling people and “converting” others by force. The objective natural moral law forbids murder and converting people by force. I assume that your ignorance on the matter stems from your lack of intellectual curiosity.StephenB_{November 7, 2018
November
11
Nov
7
07
2018
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

If moral subjectivism and relativism are true (which itself is a self-refuting claim) what is the basis for human rights? Where do our rights come from? Many moral subjectivists or anti-realists argue that we are the ones who invent human rights. For example, J.L. Mackie entitled one of his books, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. However, how can metaethical claims about morality and ethics possibly be true if such statements are ruled in error and therefore false a priori? That’s what Mackie (and others) have argued with his so-called error theory. It follows from that kind of thinking that there can be no such thing as universal human rights. We should be very concerned where all this is leading, because, the rights you presently believe you have and believe are protected by law can be taken away. So called rights according to the subjectivist and relativist are really ad hoc and arbitrary. It seems rather pointless to reason with a person who doesn't understand basic logic. Self-refuting and contradictory propositions cannot possibly be true. That is a self-evident truth. Why should I, or anyone, else trust a person who has no basis, therefore, no real belief or respect for human rights?john_a_designer_{November 7, 2018
November
11
Nov
7
07
2018
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

JDK
I have consistently explained why I think questions such as yours are loaded, and have always answered with some explanations of why I think that, and what I do think.
Barry did not ask a "loaded" question. You really ought to go back and check the meaning of that term.StephenB_{November 7, 2018
November
11
Nov
7
07
2018
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

On the other hand, the puzzle analogy is not very accurate, because everything we experience, including our own internal experiences such as our feeling and thoughts, is incorporated into our holistic system of understanding: our own personal worldview. To take a trivial example, while hiking in the woods I might "see" all the beauty and peace of undisturbed nature, someone else might see the possibility of timber harvest, and someone else a potential golf course. So there is no way any one of us can see all the different interpretations of the raw data - all the puzzle pieces, so to speak. There is a nice line in the Dylan song "High Water" that is relevant:
George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew "You can't open up your mind, boys To every conceivable point of view"
This is really the big problem in our discussions here - the real 600 pound gorilla. Many of you here have the idea of an immaterial realm, including God, deeply embedded in your personal worldview, and everything you experience is seen in that context. Other of us do not have that: we have different foundational beliefs with which we structure our understandings of our experiences. If we are willing, we can abstractly learn about other points of views, but we can't really be someone else: we can't open up our minds to every conceivable point of view. That is why it is useful to discuss different points of view in a constructive environment: it broadens one's perspective of the breadth of humanity and also helps one evaluate, refine, and strengthen one's understanding of one's self. But there isn't just one puzzle. There are as many different puzzles as there are people. [Total trivia, which I'm documenting just for the record, to myself. I've liked the Dylan line for a long time, but just assumed "George Lewis" was just a name. Fact number two: I'm reading George Eliot's 1875 novel "Daniel Deronda". Eliot (real name Mary Anne Evans) was a remarkable author noted for her realism and psychological insight. She was also an unorthodox, free-spirited woman who lived with the English philosopher and writer George Lewes for many years in a common-law marriage. A website on Dylan lyrics says that George Lewes is the George Lewis of the Dylan song. So what are the chances of my coincidentally bringing the Dylan lyric and the Eliot novel together into my life this evening. Who could have seen that puzzle piece falling into place?]jdk_{November 7, 2018
November
11
Nov
7
07
2018
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next