-
Features
Does absolute truth exist?
- Thread starter none
- Start date
wow you really have become a believer. bravo, bravo
- - - Updated - - -
then you woke up to the context where you are completely wrong.
Absolute truth is access-able to those with sincerity of heart, and some effort to expend and expand, rational, logical common sense. None address my examples as given, with rational, logical common sense, that, invalidated my comments as stated. Less energy output is easier than finding and acknowledging truth.
r6
r6
then came along the context where you are proven wrong yet again.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,722
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
What does 'sincerity of heart' even mean? This appears to be simply an appeal to faith.
untermensche
Contributor
I am a disbeliever.
I don't believe in things that have no evidence to support them.
Things like "absolute" truth as somehow distinguishable from simply truth.
ok, you have given your opinion...
untermensche
Contributor
SURE I COULD DISPUTE IT, BUT I CHOOSE NOT TO BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING.
I GAVE A DEFINITION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND THAT DEFINITION EXISTS.
I DON'T BELIEVE ABSOLUTE TRUTH EXISTS IN THE CONTEXT PROVIDED IN THE OP.
YOU DON'T BELIEVE ABSOLUTE TRUTH EXISTS BECAUSE OF YOUR REASONS.
I'M FINE WITH IT, MOVE ALONG.
untermensche
Contributor
My argument is that you are asking an irrational question in the OP.
It makes no sense to talk about truth in any other context than the context we are trapped in, our present existence.
If you agree with me it is sheer chance, not that you have a sound argument.
Sorry I became impatient.
basically you have provided a context where absolute truth doesn't exist
I am fine with that.
Absolute Truth Available to Those With Sincere Heart to Find Truth imho
Absotlute truths are inviolate, non-contradictory in all contexts i.e. everywhere and everywhen.
None offer rational, logical common sense, that, invalidate my given examples. This because they have not comments that invalidate.
Metaphyiscal-1, 5 regular polyhedra is only possible set. Thx Max Tegmark.
Metaphysical-1, tetra{4}hedron, octa{8}hedron and icosa{20}hedron are the only three regular and stable systemic structures of "U"niverse. Thx Bucky
Ratio Pi, of diameter of perfect circle to circumference circle is absolute truth in all contexts.
thx r6
Absotlute truths are inviolate, non-contradictory in all contexts i.e. everywhere and everywhen.
None offer rational, logical common sense, that, invalidate my given examples. This because they have not comments that invalidate.
Metaphyiscal-1, 5 regular polyhedra is only possible set. Thx Max Tegmark.
Metaphysical-1, tetra{4}hedron, octa{8}hedron and icosa{20}hedron are the only three regular and stable systemic structures of "U"niverse. Thx Bucky
Ratio Pi, of diameter of perfect circle to circumference circle is absolute truth in all contexts.
thx r6
untermensche
Contributor
I have provided an argument, or at least tried to, where the idea of "absolute" truth is meaningless.
There is nothing to say about it because it doesn't exist.
All we have are truths, like the ball falling. There is no such thing as "absolute" truths.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
I can't address an issue that is not made apparent. The OP doesn't explain what a context is supposed to be. You didn't provide even one example and your explanation above doesn't make sense at all. I already addressed the fact that the term "absolute truth" just means truth. When used properly, it is merely an emphasis, a rethorical technique that doesn't add anything of substance to the notion of truth. Used improperly, it is just a misleading way to express your views. Tell me what is a context and maybe I will understand your point.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Just try to find a quote of what I said over the last few years to justify your seriously idiotic claim here.
You seem so useless with quotes of other posters and minimal justification of your critics that your claim here is just as pathetic as could be. Gratuitous claim is the word.
If only you would remember what other posters' positions are you'd know that I don't believe "in magical truth" and perhaps you wouldn't ridicule yourself so needlessly. I already said it once but let me repeat it: you are making a fool of yourself.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Hegel did explain what he meant by absolute truth and you didn't, at least not until I asked you. Without definition, we try to interpret compounds as such and in this case it doesn't work so we needed you to make explicit what you meant. You did it eventually but please don't try to rewrite the sequence of events.
But there is no distinction. Knowledge is absolute knowledge is knowledge. It's only if you specify the particular meaning you have in mind that we can understand what you mean. There's just no way we could guess.
The problem is not imagining some distinction. Any one would do but would be irrelevant. The issue was to make the distinction relevant to what you meant and then we just cannot guess. Hegel, Kant and Husserl wrote books and these provided what they meant by absolute knowldege. You didn't until I asked.
How am I suppose to know you're not using the meaning of Hegel, Kant or Husserl or even some idiot.
It does not. The expression of "absolute truth" was introduced by the OP and the poster did explain somwhat what he meant. You came on his footsteps, use the same expression but not with the same meaning and you don't even feel the need to explain the meaning you use. And you think there's no problem understanding you? You're kidding, right?
Something idiotic for example. I grant you the meaning you use is not idiotic but I would still dispute the appropriatness of the expression. You should use "all truths" or "the whole truth", that would be more explicit and less confusing.
I agree but how am I supposed to guess your use is not meaningless and idiotic? You've already entertained us for a very long thread over the notion of infinity and that was completely idiotic and meaningless and only you couldn't see it was.
EB
im pretty sure I defined context, I used the google definition.
if I didn't then use the google term, it might help you understand.
here, from google...
context:the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
now I know there has been some activity in this thread.
untersmech tried to say a truth he provided was true in all contexts, and that I defined as absolute truth in the OP
the problem is the truth he provided isn't true in all contexts.
then he said a absolute truth doesn't exist
context:the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
now I know there has been some activity in this thread.
untersmech tried to say a truth he provided was true in all contexts, and that I defined as absolute truth in the OP
the problem is the truth he provided isn't true in all contexts.
then he said a absolute truth doesn't exist
untermensche
Contributor
That's impossible.
untermensche
Contributor
I said it was true in the only context available to us.
I didn't say it was true in all contexts because I only think one context exists.
But if it is not true in some context, that context is as available to us as heaven, and we can talk about truth there with just as must rationality as we can talk about the truths of heaven.