Does absolute truth exist?

[none]

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

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.

^fucking gibberish
let me starighten you out a little bit
your balls dropped, you said so earlier
you insisted that your balls dropped
did they drop in the context here and now or did they drop in the context of there and then?
figure it out, if you drop your balls here and now and your balls dropped there and then then you have two contexts to speak about.
fucking gibberish, I am not even sick of your denials... I just don't know why you are doing it.

 

[rrr6]

Still Waitig For Rational, Logical Common Sense Invalidation

Still waiting for rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate inviolate absolute truths. None is offered because none have rational, logical comments that, invalidate my commments as stated.

Answerings like "no" with no examples and no rational, logical common sense comments is a lot like talking to a 2 year old toddler who has learned to say "no". That have nothing valid to say so they just say "no". Sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

Where has all the intellect gone, long time passing..................

r6

Absolute 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

 

[none]

Still waiting for rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate inviolate absolute truths. None is offered because none have rational, logical comments that, invalidate my commments as stated.

Answerings like "no" with no examples and no rational, logical common sense comments is a lot like talking to a 2 year old toddler who has learned to say "no". That have nothing valid to say so they just say "no". Sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

Where has all the intellect gone, long time passing..................

r6

Absolute 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

your contexts are invalid in the context where they are invalid, get over it.
they maybe true in one context but not all, it isn't hard to figure it out either.

 

[untermensche]

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.

^fucking gibberish
let me starighten you out a little bit
your balls dropped, you said so earlier
you insisted that your balls dropped
did they drop in the context here and now or did they drop in the context of there and then?
figure it out, if you drop your balls here and now and your balls dropped there and then then you have two contexts to speak about.
fucking gibberish, I am not even sick of your denials... I just don't know why you are doing it.

To every observer the things they observe happening happen in the here and now.

There is no other possible context for them to happen.

The past is not another context to observe the event. The past is inaccessible.

As inaccessible as heaven.

 

[none]

^fucking gibberish
let me starighten you out a little bit
your balls dropped, you said so earlier
you insisted that your balls dropped
did they drop in the context here and now or did they drop in the context of there and then?
figure it out, if you drop your balls here and now and your balls dropped there and then then you have two contexts to speak about.
fucking gibberish, I am not even sick of your denials... I just don't know why you are doing it.

To every observer the things they observe happening happen in the here and now.

There is no other possible context for them to happen.

The past is not another context to observe the event. The past is inaccessible.

As inaccessible as heaven.

so the past is an inaccessible context, got it...
your balls dropping in the past?

 

[untermensche]

To every observer the things they observe happening happen in the here and now.

There is no other possible context for them to happen.

The past is not another context to observe the event. The past is inaccessible.

As inaccessible as heaven.

so the past is an inaccessible context, got it...
your balls dropping in the past?

If a thing is inaccessible it can't be the context of anything.

Again, it is like saying you are considering the context of heaven.

 

[none]

so the past is an inaccessible context, got it...
your balls dropping in the past?

If a thing is inaccessible it can't be the context of anything.

Again, it is like saying you are considering the context of heaven.

so you deny the past as a context?
and you flippantly conjured up a context, see it isn't hard.
so the context of heaven you deny but speak about... interesting...

 

[untermensche]

If a thing is inaccessible it can't be the context of anything.

Again, it is like saying you are considering the context of heaven.

so you deny the past as a context?
and you flippantly conjured up a context, see it isn't hard.
so the context of heaven you deny but speak about... interesting...

The context is the here and now.

The past is just events that occurred in that context.

It isn't some new context where there are new things to consider.

The past is not an alteration of the context of the here and now. Nothing is added to the context of the here and now by claiming the past is some new context.

 

[none]

so you deny the past as a context?
and you flippantly conjured up a context, see it isn't hard.
so the context of heaven you deny but speak about... interesting...

The context is the here and now.

The past is just events that occurred in that context.

It isn't some new context where there are new things to consider.

The past is not an alteration of the context of the here and now. Nothing is added to the context of the here and now by claiming the past is some new context.

blah blah blah I never said anything about alteration or addition.
that is your weird delusion and in the context of your weird delusion you think it has some logical meaning.
3 things: your balls dropped, your balls drop, and your balls will drop
what is the context of each declaration?
easy peasy, the context for the first is that context of the past, the second is the context of present, and the third is the context of the future.
now you define what "the context of here and now" is....

 

[rrr6]

"No" Is For Two Year Old Toddlers

Still waiting for rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate inviolate absolute truths. None is offered because none have rational, logical comments that, invalidate my commments as stated.

Answerings with "no" with no examples, and no rational, logical common sense comments, is a lot like talking to a 2 year old toddler who has learned to say "no".

They have nothing valid to say so they just say "no". Sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

Where has all the access to intellect gone, long time passing the "no" buck without examples.......

5 regular polyhedra

4 regular stable polyhedra

Pi ratio of diameter to circumference of circle.

Yes is the correct answer..."no" is for toddlers. Sad :--(

r6

 

[none]

Still waiting for rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate inviolate absolute truths. None is offered because none have rational, logical comments that, invalidate my commments as stated.

wow, thanks for mentioning me, but I have mentioned rational and logical comments that invalidate your comments.
take for instance the context where you are wrong.. thanks!

 

[untermensche]

The context is the here and now.

The past is just events that occurred in that context.

It isn't some new context where there are new things to consider.

The past is not an alteration of the context of the here and now. Nothing is added to the context of the here and now by claiming the past is some new context.

blah blah blah I never said anything about alteration or addition.

If there is no addition or subtraction it is not an alternative context.

In terms of truths, it is the same context.

There is not a new truth to learn about the ball dropping because it dropped in the past. There is no possible new truth to learn or unlearn.

 

[rrr6]

"no" Is Incorrect Answer

wow, thanks for mentioning me, but I have mentioned rational and logical comments that invalidate your comments.
take for instance the context where you are wrong.. thanks!

Still waiting for your non-existent examples. You offer non,e some umpteen emails later, because you have none.

"no" is incorrect answer. Yes my comments are true is correct answer.

Eternally{ everywhen } Yes!

Everywhere{ infinite potential } Yes!

none = "no" Sad :--(

r6

 

[none]

blah blah blah I never said anything about alteration or addition.

If there is no addition or subtraction it is not an alternative context.

who cares? really a non-alternative context then?

In terms of truths, it is the same context.

There is not a new truth to learn about the ball dropping because it dropped in the past. There is no possible new truth to learn or unlearn.

blah blah blah.
define "the context of here and now" since you brought it up....

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

That's better. That's what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure.

So, if context does refer as you say to the circumstances that form the setting for an event then context is logically expressed by the antecedent of a conditional statement. For example, the statement A, "if water is brought to 100°C at sea level it boils". The context here is "water is brought to 100°C at sea level". The consequent, "water boils", is only necessarily true if the antecedent statement, "water is brought to 100°C at sea level", is true. However, statement A does not assert the truth of the consequent. When statement A is made, only statement A is affirmed, not the consequent, nor the actuality of the context expressed by the antecedent. According to this, it is effectively meaningless to talk of "water boils" as a truth which is not an absolute truth since the statement "water boils" is not asserted by statement A to begin with. However, if statement A is asserted, as indeed it may be by scientists for example, then statement A is meant as a true statement, meaning that truth does not depend on any context. It is true unconditionally, i.e. it is an "absolute truth" in the terminology of the OP.

Now, I don't believe you needed to be reminded of that. So maybe you can explain what's your problem with this view.
EB

 

[none]

I just reread what you wrote, I misunderstood the first time.
I'll reply when I get a chance.

 

[none]

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

That's better. That's what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure.

So, if context does refer as you say to the circumstances that form the setting for an event then context is logically expressed by the antecedent of a conditional statement. For example, the statement A, "if water is brought to 100°C at sea level it boils". The context here is "water is brought to 100°C at sea level". The consequent, "water boils", is only necessarily true if the antecedent statement, "water is brought to 100°C at sea level", is true. However, statement A does not assert the truth of the consequent. When statement A is made, only statement A is affirmed, not the consequent, nor the actuality of the context expressed by the antecedent. According to this, it is effectively meaningless to talk of "water boils" as a truth which is not an absolute truth since the statement "water boils" is not asserted by statement A to begin with. However, if statement A is asserted, as indeed it may be by scientists for example, then statement A is meant as a true statement, meaning that truth does not depend on any context. It is true unconditionally, i.e. it is an "absolute truth" in the terminology of the OP.

Now, I don't believe you needed to be reminded of that. So maybe you can explain what's your problem with this view.
EB

you are using a conditional statement, it is only true based on whatever context it is true in.

In the context of water being unable to boil water doesn't boil at 100C and from the OP "Absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts" so you haven't provided an absolute truth..

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So are you also saying that "water boils" isn't an absolute truth because there are contexts where there's only bread and no water?

 

[none]

heh, yeah it isn't an absolute truth .. from the OP "Absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts."

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's better. That's what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure.

So, if context does refer as you say to the circumstances that form the setting for an event then context is logically expressed by the antecedent of a conditional statement. For example, the statement A, "if water is brought to 100°C at sea level it boils". The context here is "water is brought to 100°C at sea level". The consequent, "water boils", is only necessarily true if the antecedent statement, "water is brought to 100°C at sea level", is true. However, statement A does not assert the truth of the consequent. When statement A is made, only statement A is affirmed, not the consequent, nor the actuality of the context expressed by the antecedent. According to this, it is effectively meaningless to talk of "water boils" as a truth which is not an absolute truth since the statement "water boils" is not asserted by statement A to begin with. However, if statement A is asserted, as indeed it may be by scientists for example, then statement A is meant as a true statement, meaning that truth does not depend on any context. It is true unconditionally, i.e. it is an "absolute truth" in the terminology of the OP.

Now, I don't believe you needed to be reminded of that. So maybe you can explain what's your problem with this view.
EB

you are using a conditional statement, it is only true based on whatever context it is true in.

In the context of water being unable to boil water doesn't boil at 100C and from the OP "Absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts" so you haven't provided an absolute truth..

The truth of the statement "water boils at 100°C given specific conditions" doesn't depend on any context we know of so it is an "absolute truth" according to your home-made definition.

If you think you have a point you'd need to reconsider how to tried to put it across.
EB