Does absolute truth exist?

[rrr6]

Still waiting for and example of absolute truth not being true? None has none to offer.

At best he can offer only short words or word sentences "ho hum" an believes that to be the sum of all rational, logical common sense pathways.

A narrow set of viewpoints is forever blinded by a few realtive trees{ tuths } to the greater forest of absolute truths. Sad :--(

r6

 

[none]

Still waiting for and example of absolute truth not being true? None has none to offer.

At best he can offer only short words or word sentences "ho hum" an believes that to be the sum of all rational, logical common sense pathways.

A narrow set of viewpoints is forever blinded by a few realtive trees{ tuths } to the greater forest of absolute truths. Sad :--(

r6

wait for it, wait for it... your wrong in the context where you are wrong... visit the OP it will help.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But the contexts where the definition isn't logical aren't contexts. They're nothing. You are making a logical argument and you can't base it on "this is logical when I stop using logic".

That's even more baseless than if you'd said "There are no absolute truths because I say so".

enough declaration, I don't need you say your right without showing how ""a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical, not a context, and the definition of absolute truth isn't valid.
like I said I could use an illogical context and that would still be a context. not sure how you are filtering things at this point so clarify a bit, will you?

I am saying that "I can find no exceptions to this statement" and "The only exceptions I can find to this statement are logically invalid" are identical statements when you're making a logical argument - which is the type of argument that you're making. You cannot use illogical premises to come to an logical conclusion.

Your method for judging something as not being an absolute truth appears to be this:

P1) Statement X is not an absolute truth if there is a single context where it is false
P2) When you have Context X, Statement X is false
C) Therefore, Statement X is not an absolute truth

P2 needs to be logically valid in order for you to reach that conclusion. If it's not logically valid, you don't come to this conclusion. Having something illogical under P2 is no different from saying:

P1) Statement X is not an absolute truth if there is a single context where it is false
P2) Booga booga booga
C) Therefore, Statement X is not an absolute truth

You don't get to a logical conclusion through the use of illogical arguments, which is what you're doing when you base your argument on illogical contexts.

 

[none]

You don't get to a logical conclusion through the use of illogical arguments, which is what you're doing when you base your argument on illogical contexts.

so use my example, don't fabricate a scenario.
show how ""a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical, not a context, and the definition of absolute truth isn't valid.
I don't need a bunch of equations, just show me where it is illogical, not a context, and where the definition of absolute truth isn't valid.

here:
""a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical?

theists do that shit all the time, give an argument about god but never produce god.

 

[rrr6]

if "wait for it" is the best rational, logical common sense examples None can pull-out-of societies hat.......

Then there is little hope for humanity to survive. imho.

r6

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't get to a logical conclusion through the use of illogical arguments, which is what you're doing when you base your argument on illogical contexts.

so use my example, don't fabricate a scenario.
show how ""a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical, not a context, and the definition of absolute truth isn't valid.
I don't need a bunch of equations, just show me where it is illogical, not a context, and where the definition of absolute truth isn't valid.

here:
""a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical?

theists do that shit all the time, give an argument about god but never produce god.

Holy shit, dude. If you can't even use basic logic, I'll take the opportunity to just exit the thread.

Please feel free to make a final passive-aggressive, snitty comment about how everybody is stupid except you.

 

[none]

Holy shit, dude. If you can't even use basic logic, I'll take the opportunity to just exit the thread.

Please feel free to make a final passive-aggressive, snitty comment about how everybody is stupid except you.

yeah not getting the vibe, your acting similar to theists, all story no substance.
If you want to show me where "a practical context where 2+2=4 would not be true in a practical context is where 2+2=4 is not true in a practical context" is not logical, not a context, and the definition of absolute truth isn't valid be my guest.
at least then you could make your argument valid: that P2 is not logical.
it is all x's and y's right? nothing about what I actually said, just your declaration without substance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are no circumstances when the statement "water boils at 100°C given specific conditions" is false.

sure there are, one circumstance is when the statement "water boils at 100°C given specific conditions" is false.

There are also no circumstances where all statements would be false.

Except in the context where all statements are false.

If you believe differently, please identify those circumstances for me.

sure no problem.

Rembember, you defined context as: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

at least you understand the less nuanced arrangement of words but have trouble piecing together the broader picture.

Your context where all propositions are false does not specify any actual circumstances.
EB

sure it does, the circumstance is that all propositions are false.

Nonsense.
Bye-bye!
EB

 

[none]

...
Nonsense.
Bye-bye!
EB

in what context?

 

[none]

how odd, were these people (Speakpigeosn and Tom Sawyer) trying to prove that an absolute truth exists?

 

[Kharakov]

how odd, were these people (Speakpigeosn and Tom Sawyer) trying to prove that an absolute truth exists?

Absolute proof?

 

[none]

how odd, were these people (Speakpigeosn and Tom Sawyer) trying to prove that an absolute truth exists?

Absolute proof?

I was thinking any proof, maybe

 

[Kharakov]

Absolute proof?

I was thinking any proof, maybe

Absolute vodak.

 

[fromderinside]

190?

 

[none]

I quit drinking so it might be impossible

 

[none]

Yeah this whole thing got turned around from proving something is true in all contexts to prove something wrong in at least one...

 

[Kharakov]

If you can prove that it doesn't exist, it does.
If you can prove that you don't know that it exists, it does.
If you can prove that you can't prove that it exists, it does.
If you can prove that you don't know how to prove it exists, it does.

 

[Philos]

how odd, were these people (Speakpigeosn and Tom Sawyer) trying to prove that an absolute truth exists?

Absolute proof?

Folks,

I think the notion of 'absolute proof' is absolutely false.

Alex.

 

[Kharakov]

Look at definition 3 of absolute.

 

[none]

Look at definition 3 of absolute.

Ironic