There is no overall absolute truth, but that isn’t to say that all truth is relative. There are truths that cannot change — these are the only truths that can be considered absolute; there are truths that can be changed; there are truths that lack support and there are relative truths.

• Absolute truth that cannot change: my biological parents are my biological parents. It’s a tautology of sorts, but it is no less true and it isn’t subject to change. Moreover, even death cannot change that when considering that historical records will list them as my biological parents.

• Truth that can and will change: the Earth orbits the Sun — that is until the Sun goes red giant and consumes the Earth. That’s definitely going to happen in about 4 billion years. Then there are hypotheticals (i.e. an asteroid or rogue planet large enough to knock Earth off its orbit).

• Truth that needs support: John Smith killed Jon Doe. In this case, John Smith is innocent until proven guilty.

• Relative truth: humans (civilization A) have calculated that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from the Earth; civilization B has calculated that the Andromeda Galaxy is 5 billion light years away from their home planet. In such a case, no one is wrong. The truth is relative to their respective distances away from Andromeda.

When considering these varying degrees of truth, how can anyone conclude that there’s an overall absolute truth? I understand how believers derive such an idea from the Bible, but to prove any absolute truth derived from the Bible, the Bible must be proven true. Unfortunately, that is far from the case; the Bible is false in more ways than one. Most Catholics already agree that the Bible is fallible. Moreover, some say that the Creation account is allegorical. So, if the Bible is fallible, what are we to conclude concerning the god of its pages? A fallible god isn’t worthy of worship or devotion; might as well bow to a fellow human being. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that he doesn’t exist.

Note:  This is a comment I left on http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/why-christianity-is-far-more-sensible-than-whatever-youre-doing-right-now.html

chubbylisk:

Pardon my intrusion of your fancy speak, but… Gosh… This post really bothered me. No offense, but you kinda sound like a kid who just got out of logic class with a C. Maybe a C+.

One, I’m not a kid and two, I got an A four semesters ago in a Philosophy class that focused on Logic.  Your first attempt to condescend failed miserably.

In fact, I was going to take a nap but then I stumbled upon this and it got my brain fired up. I have to admit, sadly, I had a discussion about your post with two people before I was comfortable to reply to it.
You see… I was confused by something: was I too unintelligible to understand this post? Or was this post just unintelligible to begin with?  My fellow INTJ buddies and my ENFP self all concluded that it was most likely the latter.

I guess that’s because you didn’t get the thrust of the argument.  I’ll expound on that below.

Let us dissect your post, yeah?
We will begin by defining a sound argument:
A sound argument is valid and has prepositions that are true. (You didn’t have to say that the argument is both valid and true, by the way.. That’s just redundant. If an argument is sound, it is obviously valid.)

I know exactly what a sound argument is.  You obviously missed the point.  The post was written for people not educated in logic or people, perhaps like yourself, that swear they have logic.  That’s why I made the “redundant” assertion.  Then I followed with an example to show that my conclusion is true.  There’s philosophy and then there’s practicality.  That’s why I broke away from the syllogism and gave an example.  It will make more sense to a believer of free will.

While I will agree that your argument is valid, it is notsound because the prepositions are not necessarily true. You claim (For your first preposition, P1):

“Can god honor a man’s will to murder whilst honoring the man’s victim’s will to avoid harm?  Opposing wills cannot be honored simultaneously.  Thus, it follows that god doesn’t honor free will.”

Your scenario yields:
Man 1: Wills to murder Man 2.
Man 2: Wills to avoid harm from Man 1
It is impossible for God to “honor” both wills.
Therefore, God does not honor “free” will.
(Watch my quotations, they’re quite important.)

Do not mistake my definitional approach for dabbling in semantics but… I think you’re mistaking “free will” (when choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God) with “will” of having a desire for something.

I’m not making a mistake between free will and desire.  I’m speaking of generalized free will.  In the Libertarian sense, a murderer would be free of all deterministic variables and constraints.  One who avoids harm at all costs will also be free from deterministic variables and constraints.  The wills are fundamentally in opposition when the murderer decides to murder the individual avoiding harm.

Man 1 can “will” to murder man 2, as a decision of his own volition. However, it is fallacious to say that Man 2 can “will” to avoid harm. Your “free will” is the ability to make decisions by your own constraints. You can’t will yourself against the action of others. That is not “will” in the context of free will or as you mentioned, libertarian free will.. that’s will in the context of desire. Free will is an extension of your actions, not the actions done upon yourself from others. XD

Let me get this straight: you can’t make the decision to avoid harm when the murderer decides to murder you?  Isn’t that an extension of your actions?  Run away or defend oneself?  Wouldn’t that also be an extension of one’s actions?  You were so busy trying to be condescending that you forgot to proofread what you wrote.  Your entire argument thus far is worse than some Theists I’ve come across.  Yes, you’re dabbing in semantics.  They do that also.  You’re also trying to find mistakes where there aren’t any.  As a matter of fact, out of 8 people so far (myself included), you’re the only one who misunderstood the argument.  Should I call them stupid and call myself stupid?  Or, should I help you realize that you misunderstood the argument?

I am also inclined to question what you mean by God “honoring” someone’s free will. Again, Free Will is NOT God giving you what you want; it’s freedom from determinism from outside sources such as an omnipotent God.

This is what I get from “god honors free will”:  god allowed Satan to rebel against him because he honors free will; he allows us to “sin” because he honors free will.  So if it sounds like I addressed the issue in that manner, blame the argument put forth by them and not my response to them.

I can will to be a billionaire but that doesn’t mean that I’ll be a billionaire. That doesn’t implicitly imply that God isn’t honoring my will.

Implicitly imply?  And you called me redundant…  Again, ask them what is meant by “honor free will”.  It makes no sense to me either.  The argument was drafted under the assumption made when they say that.

LMFAO. I have no idea where you’re getting such an insidious conclusion. Further, if free will existed, God would have no say in it. He wouldn’t “honor” anything. If he had anything to do with the events, it isn’t free will... xDD!!!
So not only does your logic make no sense, it contradicts itself.

I agree.  He wouldn’t honor free will.  Isn’t that the conclusion made?  So where exactly did I contradict myself?  Like I said, your entire response was drafted via a misunderstanding of what I was writing. I mean come on, you don’t even know what is meant by “honor free will” and yet you act as if you know what you’re talking about.  Maybe you wanted to blow off steam.  Unfortunately, you chose the wrong person.  I have a habit of responding to condescension. 

P1 is not true, therefore your argument is not sound.

It would be true in a world where god existed and honored free will.  Again, you didn’t know what was meant by “honor free will”.  Thus, you cannot say that P1 is false when considering that you don’t know the thrust of the argument.  I agree, god wouldn’t honor free will, but if he existed and was able to honor free will, he wouldn’t be able to honor opposing wills.  For instance, Pastor x wants the whole community to be saved, but John Smith in building B doesn’t make the choice of accepting Christ.  These wills are in opposition.  Thus, god wouldn’t be able to honor both wills. 

[[I am also questioning your ending syllogism but that’s not worth mentioning because it doesn’t really follow the 4 categories a,e,i,o….. ]]

Now my atheist friend, if you would like a better argument against free will, I offer you a quote from the bible:

“You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed”(Psalm 139:16)

^I think that’s more effective than anything.

But this is just my two cents.
Am I misinterpreting anything?

You misrepresented a lot.  I can send swarms of followers to tell you how many times I’ve used that verse when debating Theists.  You’re not teaching me anything new.  You pat yourself on the back, pretend to be educated, give me a condescending response because maybe you had a bad day, and through it all, you missed the point of the post and didn’t know what you were talking about.  Am I to take you serious my “Atheist friend”?  Instead of trying to make a mockery of people, engage in a debate with a Theist who strongly believes that there’s free will.  Listen to it first hand.  Then come back and tell me if that verse is enough.  For the record, I’m respected by my peers on Tumblr.  I am respect demanding, but I’ve never had to demand respect from any of my own — that is until now.  Next time you feel the urge to talk to me, remove your XD, LMFAO, and all such nonsense.  I don’t play nice with snark.

I’m sure you’ve heard it said:  god honors free will.  However, there’s an issue with that statement.  The following syllogism will outline the problem:

P1  If opposing wills exist, god doesn’t honor free will.

P2  Opposing wills do exist.

C    Therefore, god doesn’t honor free will.

The argument is both valid and sound.  If anyone doubts, just ask yourself this question:  can god honor a man’s will to murder whilst honoring the man’s victim’s will to avoid harm?  Opposing wills cannot be honored simultaneously.  Thus, it follows that god doesn’t honor free will.

The argument is made under the assumption that there is Libertarian free will.  Libertarian free will is an illusion.  Nonetheless, in a world where both Libertarian free will and the Judeo-Christian god exist, god would be unable to honor free will.  Unfortunately, that world is considered real by many Christians.  Nevertheless, apologetic attempts to defend certain aspects of the Bible fall apart when considering the truth value of the above syllogism.

ieatbabiessoulsforbreakfast:

• We are totally free. That is, we are not determined by heredity or environment.

False:  Determinism is the prevailing philosophical view and Compatibilism doesn’t say anything to refute determinism.  We are determined by our heredity, environment, and other uncontrollable factors.  Neuroscience has also weighed in on the issue and the evidence strongly favors determinism.

• Since there is no God to define our being, we must define our essence.
• We are completely responsible for our actions, and we are responsible for prescribing a moral philosophy for everyone else too. We create our morality.
• Because of the death of God and the human predicament, which leaves us free to create our own values, we must exist in anguish, forlornness, and despair.

I strongly disagree with the part I crossed out.  We mustn’t exist in anguish, forlornness, and despair.  That is to say that people existed in such a way prior to abstracting gods.  The absence of god(s) does not make the ‘must’ imperative.

• Yet we should celebrate the fact that we are the creators of or essence and our values.

Existence precedes essence. That is, we, existing entities, create our essence, our being, our values.

This isn’t a response to the blogger who posted this.  Rather, it is a response to Existentialism.  I feel that a new word is necessary.  Existentialism’s dependence on the idea of free will is its downfall.  Nihilism and Absurdism are far worse, but for different reasons.  If only there were a form of Existentialism based on determinism.  I agree with a lot of Sartre’s Existentialism, but I feel it’s an incomplete agreement due to the parts I disagree with.

Sam Harris (Free Will)

philosophersdog:

I don’t see how existentialism implies that we have free will. I want to be a compatibilist, yes, but I hesitate to call myself one quite yet. I would probably still consider myself a hard determinist, but I really don’t know right now.

Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying concepts:

• Human free will
• Human nature is chosen through life choices
• A person is best when struggling against their individual nature, fighting for life
• Decisions are not without stress and consequences
• There are things that are not rational
• Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial
• Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and secular rules are arbitrary
• Worldly desire is futile

source

That is why I disagree with Existentialism.  Because I am a determinist I cannot subscribe to Existentialism.  Some have proposed Existential Determinism and Existential Compatibilism, but little is written about both. 

I meant that I may be considered an absurdist in that I don’t think we can resolve the issue with current methods. The debate as it stands now is absurd, though I don’t necessarily think the different stances are each absurd (though a nihilist caring enough to call himself a nihilist is, admittedly, absurd). C’est la vie.

I agree with your last assessment.  I asked something similar to it:  would a discussion on meaning mean something to a nihilist?  It’s more a pun than a rhetorical question. 

philosophersdog:

I suppose I would consider myself an existentialist (assuming I’m understanding correctly what an existentialist is). I believe that humans give their life meaning—it is subjective rather than objective.

I think that the whole issue has been addressed in the wrong way though. I don’t know what the right way is, but I have some intuitive problems with the debate right now. In that sense, I might be an absurdist.

You are fortunate.  You can subscribe to Existentialism because you’re a Compatibilist (if my memory serves me correctly).  One of the key aspects of Existentialism is free will.  I am a determinist; thus, the free will implied in Existentialism repels me per se.  However, I do agree with you; we do give our lives meaning.

I disagree with Absurdism because of one of its premises:  the universe is meaningless.  I think it naive and even arrogant to assert that positively or absolutely.  Think of it — a 200,000 year old primate deeming a 13.8 billion year old universe meaningless.  I can’t make such a conclusion — one that is absurd in and of itself.