Environmental Toxins

Invisible Killers! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Time Magazine Spacial

Truth?

WordTruth
Truth
Adultery ... Far Worse than You Might Think
Biblical Insights that are Out of Sight (part 1)
Biblical Insights that are Out of Sight (part 2)
Born To Die: The REAL Christmas Story
Confession - Insight into the Real You
Confession - The Ultimate Test of Truthfulness
Counseling Must be Based Solely on the Bible
Discipleship Must be Based Solely on the Bible
Divine Sufficiency or Divine Deficiency
Do You Really Believe What You Say About Prayer?
Every Thought Captive
False Teaching In The Church And How To Oppose It
False Teaching that is Easily Recognized and Exposed
Forgetting Your Sins . . . What Does the Bible Say?
Free Speech Either Exalts Self or Honors God
God's Truth is Your Foundation for Life
Good Works are not Good Enough and do not Work
Grace, Mercy, and Peace
Gratifying Yourself or Glorifying Your Savior
Heaven ... Are You Going There?
Illuminating the Gray Areas of Life
Is Jesus Lord of Your Life?
Is Self-Love Biblical?
Lies and More Lies: Can Lying be Eliminated?
Life's Most Important Decision
Living a Life of Grace and Truth
Living by Faith or Living by Feelings
Rejecting Popular Untruths - Forgiving Yourself and Forgetting Your Sins
Salvation Explained by the Romans Road
Spiritual Realities Before and After Receiving Christ
Taking God's Name in Vain is More than Cursing
Telling the Truth is Naturally Impossible
The Futility of Forgiving Yourself
The Most Difficult People In The World - Fools and Scoffers
Trinity - Think Bigger
TRUTH - The Measurement for All Aspects of Life and Relationships
Truth in Life Basic for Growth in Christ
Truth is Personal, Not Merely a Concept
Unmasking Lies that Masquerade as Truth
What Do You Believe? . . . No, Really
Words - The Thermometer of Your Heart
Your Way or God’s Way … Your Choice

U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America
Fascinating Facts about the U.S. Constitution
The 1789 Project

Megan and Aaron

My dear friend Megan

Brain Games

Brain Games website with Brain Games :-)
THIS is why I say "There is NO truth"!

Conditional Logic Statements

Every geometry proof is a sequence of deductions that use if-then logic.
You write one of the given facts as statement 1. Then, for statement 2, you put something that follows from statement 1 and write your justification for that in the reason column.
Then you proceed to statement 3, and so on, till you get to the prove statement.
The way you get from statement 1 to statement 2, from statement 2 to statement 3, and so on is by using if-then logic.
A two-column geometry proof is in essence a logical argument or a chain of logical deductions, like
If I study, then I’ll get good grades.
If I get good grades, then I’ll get into a good college.
If I get into a good college, then I’ll become a babe/guy magnet.
(And so on . . .)
(Except that geometry proofs are about geometric figures, naturally.)
Note that each of these steps is a sentence with an if clause and a then clause.
From Logic for Dummies
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Conditional Statements and Material Implication
In logic, a conditional is a compound statement formed by combining two sentences (or facts) using the words "if ... then." A conditional can also be called an implication.
Wikipedia on Conditional Statements

Relativeism might be my box!

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
Although I do not believe in boxes..........there is no spoon in the Matrix, don't try to put God in a box, etc.
My friend decided I should try this on for size............see if the box fits!!
Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.
Definition from http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/

Major Relativistic Variables

• Dependent Variables (What is Relative)
  • 2.1 Central Concepts
  • 2.2 Central Beliefs
  • 2.3 Perception
  • 2.4 Epistemic Appraisal
  • 2.5 Ethics
  • 2.6 Semantics
  • 2.7 Practice
  • 2.8 Truth
  • 2.9 Reality
• Independent Variables (Relative to What)
  • 3.1 Language
  • 3.2 Culture
  • 3.3 Historical Period
  • 3.4 Innate Cognitive Architecture
  • 3.5 Choice
  • 3.6.1 Scientific Frameworks
  • 3.6.2 Religion
  • 3.6.3 Gender, Race, or Social Status
  • 3.6.4 The Individual

  2.8 Truth Truth is important because it is a major goal of inquiry, a central component of knowledge, the thing justification is supposed to track, what valid arguments preserve, perhaps (in the form of truth conditions) a component of linguistic meanings and, for many people, a valuable end in itself. Philosophers call truth and falsity truth values, so it is natural to call relativism about truth truth-value relativism. Descriptive truth-value relativism is the empirical claim that in some cases the members of different groups believe different things to be true. Normative truth-value relativism is the claim that tokens of sentences, beliefs or the like are only true relative to a framework. Thus Kuhn says “If I am right, then ‘truth’ may, like ‘proof’, be a term with only intra-theoretical applications” (1970a, p. 266). Normative truth-value relativism comes in two versions. The weak version is the claim that there may be things that are true in one framework that are not true in a second simply because they are not expressible in the second. The strong version, which receives the most attention, is the claim that one and the same thing, e.g., one and the same belief, can be true in one framework and false in another. Relativism about truth boils down to relativism about belief, but rather different sets of issues are typically connected with central beliefs or principles, on the one hand, and issues about relative truth, on the other. The first set of issues involves what I will call framework principles, very general principles (e.g., every event has a cause) that guide classification and inquiry. By contrast, the second set of issues involves the strong version of normative truth-value relativism quite explicitly. Since the two sets of issues are rather different, we treat them separately here. Truth is a major flash point in discussions of relativism. The traditional indictment of the strong version of truth-value relativism is that it is self-refuting. The claim that truth is relative is, by the relativist's own lights, only true relative to some frameworks and it may be false relative to others. Hence, it is argued, the relativist cannot account for the status of his own claims. We examine this objection in §5.9.

5.9 Self-Refutation: Quicksand all the Way Down? Truth is the Achilles' heel of relativism. According to the normative thesis of strong truth-value relativism one and the same thing can be true relative to one framework and false relative to another, true for some groups and false for others, and ever since Plato's argument against this form of relativism in the Theatetus many philosophers have agreed that the view is self-contradictory or self-refuting. Plato's argument is sometimes known as the peritrope; it's a turning the tables, turning the relativist's line of reasoning back against itself to show that his thesis succumbs to the very relativity he defends. Relativists always face the occupational hazard of sawing off the limb they are sitting on, but with strong truth-value relativism they seem to cut down the whole tree. The Problem is General The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises when truth is relativized to a framework of concepts, beliefs, standards, or practices. It also arises for many of the more sweeping claims that central epistemic notions are somehow relative. If the epistemic relativist argues that all justification or rationality is framework relative, he lays himself open to the reply that his very claim is at best justified relative to his framework, only rational by his own standards, only defensible by his own guidelines, just as much a social construction as he insists everything else is. Plato's argument against strong truth-value relativism is typically said to go like this: either the claim that truth is relative is true absolutely (i.e., true in a non-relative sense) or else it is only true relative to some framework. If it is true absolutely, all across the board, then at least one truth is not merely true relative to a framework, so this version of the claim is inconsistent. Furthermore, if we make an exception for the relativist's thesis, it is difficult to find a principled way to rule out other exceptions; what justifies stopping here? On the other hand, if the relativist's claim that truth is relative is only true relative to his framework, then it can be false in other, perhaps equally good, frameworks. And why should we care about that the relativist's (perhaps rather idiosyncratic or parochial) framework? From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/