There's no such thing as "truth"

[diuretic]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

[avatar4321]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

You've already acknowledged the contradiction of your position. How can you sustain it?

[diuretic]

It's just a qualifier because when I was thinking about "facts" I then started thinking about truth being relative to certain known facts and I decided that truth is relational. So I do need to amend myself I suppose. Truth isn't an absolute. There, I feel better :coffee:

[Dilloduck]

It's just a qualifier because when I was thinking about "facts" I then started thinking about truth being relative to certain known facts and I decided that truth is relational. So I do need to amend myself I suppose. Truth isn't an absolute. There, I feel better :coffee:


truth is relational

Is that statement true ?

[diuretic]

Is that statement true ?

:laugh2:

It was when I made it :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

I disagree.

There is such a thing as TRUTH....

It is just a little hard to find, now a days.... :(, but with due dilligence, it is there to find.

[diuretic]

I disagree.

There is such a thing as TRUTH....

It is just a little hard to find, now a days.... :(, but with due dilligence, it is there to find.

It's not there. It never was. It's a con job. There is no such thing as "truth". "Truth" is relative.

I need to insert my "this is not personal" disclaimer. I really do believe there is no such thing as "truth" of itself. When you put it up against a circumstance you can infer truth but that's as far as it goes. Without a frame of reference, a circumstance, there's no such thing as "truth".

[Dilloduck]

It's not there. It never was. It's a con job. There is no such thing as "truth". "Truth" is relative.

I need to insert my "this is not personal" disclaimer. I really do believe there is no such thing as "truth" of itself. When you put it up against a circumstance you can infer truth but that's as far as it goes. Without a frame of reference, a circumstance, there's no such thing as "truth".


Without a frame of reference, a circumstance, there's no such thing as "truth".

Is that statement true ? :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

It's not there. It never was. It's a con job. There is no such thing as "truth". "Truth" is relative.

I need to insert my "this is not personal" disclaimer. I really do believe there is no such thing as "truth" of itself. When you put it up against a circumstance you can infer truth but that's as far as it goes. Without a frame of reference, a circumstance, there's no such thing as "truth".

no offense intended butttttttttt,


There is no such thing as "truth".

That's what Lucifer wants you to believe....that there is no truth.... ;)

Jesus Christ said that he was "the Way, the Truth and the Life''.....

Disregarding truth or saying there is no truth, for a believer is disregarding Christ....

I will do NO such thing! :D

jd

[diuretic]

Is that statement true ? :laugh2:

Only in context :D

[diuretic]

no offense intended butttttttttt,



That's what Lucifer wants you to believe....that there is no truth.... ;)

Jesus Christ said that he was "the Way, the Truth and the Life''.....

Disregarding truth or saying there is no truth, for a believer is disregarding Christ....

I will do NO such thing! :D

jd

And I wouldn't dare ask it of you JD. I might be an atheist but I'm not anti-religion, I just don't want it to affect me. I might arc up a bit sometimes but that's usually because a nutter fundie winds me up.

But on "truth". I need to remove the religious context. If someone believes that their god/prophet has revealed the truth to them then I'm not going there because that's about faith.

I'm interested in the secular view of "truth". As I said, I don't think it exists (in secular form I reiterate).

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

The definition has been debated for as long as mankind has exsisted.

The truth in my name stands for the old fashion kind of definition, you know the one where your Mommy asks you if you took a cookie from the cookie jar.

You either took the cookie or you did not and you KNOW the truth.

I have seen in these times people CHOOSING to believe what is they know is not true to defend their party or even worse one member of their party.

This war has harmed America and most of the Bush policies have devided us and put us in debt and given nothing to this country in return.

That my friends is the truth.

He did take the cookie.

[Dilloduck]

And I wouldn't dare ask it of you JD. I might be an atheist but I'm not anti-religion, I just don't want it to affect me. I might arc up a bit sometimes but that's usually because a nutter fundie winds me up.

But on "truth". I need to remove the religious context. If someone believes that their god/prophet has revealed the truth to them then I'm not going there because that's about faith.

I'm interested in the secular view of "truth". As I said, I don't think it exists (in secular form I reiterate).

How about reality? Does that fit in there some where in the truth (that doesn't exist) category ?

[diuretic]

How about reality? Does that fit in there some where in the truth (that doesn't exist) category ?

Reality is what we call our subjective experiences. Your reality and my reality are very different. That's because we both experience different things. So in a sense there is no "reality" because if there were we would all have to experience it and we don't. We have private, subjective "realities". "Reality" is the sum of the exercise of our senses, it doesn't exist beyond each individual. In the sense it exists it's only because each individual shares the same sensory organs (physiologically speaking) and if they are in the same culture then they might share the same interpretation of the information gained by the use of those sensory organs but no, there's no "reality" outside of our senses.

[Abbey Marie]

It's not there. It never was. It's a con job. There is no such thing as "truth". "Truth" is relative.
I need to insert my "this is not personal" disclaimer. I really do believe there is no such thing as "truth" of itself. When you put it up against a circumstance you can infer truth but that's as far as it goes. Without a frame of reference, a circumstance, there's no such thing as "truth".

Sounds like a classic oxymoron. If it isn't true, it isn't truth at all, so no need to say it is "relative". And if nothing is true, then everything isn't relative; it's false.

[5stringJeff]

Truth isn't an absolute.

That is a self-contradictory statement, because you just made an absolute claim regarding truth (that it doesn't exist).

If your statement is correct, then you cannot make such a statement.

If you stand by that statement, then it disproves itself.

Therefore, some absolute truth(s) must exist.

[Hagbard Celine]

Truth is simply conformity with fact or reality. Since fact and reality exist, so does truth. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

[darin]

Truth doesn't need facts or one's concept reality to be True. Truth doesn't need to be BELIEVED to be true.

[Hagbard Celine]

Truth doesn't need facts or one's concept reality to be True. Truth doesn't need to be BELIEVED to be true.

Truth is reality. If you break your leg and tell everyone you broke your wrist, the truth is still that your leg is broken. It doesn't change just because you've told everyone or you believe differently.

[PostmodernProphet]

Your reality and my reality are very different. That's because we both experience different things.

no, where they overlap the realities are identical....what may differ is the perceptions......if the sun is up and the temperature is 76 degrees, then the sun is up and the temperature is 76 degrees for both of us.....you may feel warm, I may feel cool.....those are perceptions, but the realities are identical........

[darin]

Truth is reality. If you break your leg and tell everyone you broke your wrist, the truth is still that your leg is broken. It doesn't change just because you've told everyone or you believe differently.

But your reality isn't always truth. Reality is subjective - NOT truth.

[Hagbard Celine]

But your reality isn't always truth. Reality is subjective - NOT truth.

Reality and truth are synonymous.

[PostmodernProphet]

one of the issues often raised regarding postmodernism is the thought that we believe there is no truth......

this is actually a misunderstanding on the part of both sides, I believe.....

there is truth out there, but it is for the most part unachievable.....

younger generations have grown up in a society where you cannot trust even your senses.....

we see things on television that appear real but we know are not.....recently there was a video on You-Tube documenting a UFO sighting in the Caribbean......video experts examined it and said it was genuine.....then an animator stepped forward and admitted he had produced it on a high-tech computer system......we can see what is real and know it is not real at the same time.....

that does not mean that there is not something which is real, it simply means that even when we experience something ourselves, we no longer can be sure that it IS real......

[darin]

Reality and truth are synonymous.

Except they are not.

(shrug).

My paranoid-schitzo brother has his reality. No amount of facts or convincing can change what is real or him. Reality is not much more than one's perspective of things around him/her. TRUTH, however, TRUTH is not bound by mere perspective or opinion.

[PostmodernProphet]

My paranoid-schitzo brother has his reality

so you redefine 'reality' to include delusion?.....why not say he is incapable of recognizing reality?......

[darin]

so you redefine 'reality' to include delusion?.....why not say he is incapable of recognizing reality?......

because for HIM, it's real. Hence "Reality" is subjective, based upon the person doing the perceiving. What is REAL differs from viewer to viewer. Truth does not depend on perception or acceptance or belief or sanity or lack thereof.

[Hagbard Celine]

Except they are not.

(shrug).

My paranoid-schitzo brother has his reality. No amount of facts or convincing can change what is real or him. Reality is not much more than one's perspective of things around him/her. TRUTH, however, TRUTH is not bound by mere perspective or opinion.

Your brother's reality isn't reality. (fart)

[darin]

Try telling HIM that. WE decide and accept our own reality.

Of course, YOU could actually be a butterfly having a dream you're a person.

[PostmodernProphet]

What is REAL differs from viewer to viewer

sorry, but it doesn't.....if I watch a group of talented actors enact a play, it doesn't become real simply because they had enough skill to make me lose myself in the plot....there is an underlying reality (actors/stage/props)....the reactions of the audience, varying from total involvement in the plot to critical analysis of the quality of the props used in scene 1, do not alter the underlying reality......

[darin]

sorry, but it doesn't.....if I watch a group of talented actors enact a play, it doesn't become real simply because they had enough skill to make me lose myself in the plot....there is an underlying reality (actors/stage/props)....the reactions of the audience, varying from total involvement in the plot to critical analysis of the quality of the props used in scene 1, do not alter the underlying reality......

that's not a good example. Those folk are knowingly faking. Like my wife, during...uh..nevermind.

Reality - what is REAL to one and REAL to another can be different. The TRUTH, however, is not bound by what we feel and know is "real."

[Hagbard Celine]

Try telling HIM that. WE decide and accept our own reality.

Of course, YOU could actually be a butterfly having a dream you're a person.

I could be a blue praying mantis who poops icecream. But I'm not. I'm an incredibly goodlooking 24-year-old Georgian who makes sardonic comments on an Internet political forum.

[glockmail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

The definition has been debated for as long as mankind has exsisted.

The truth in my name stands for the old fashion kind of definition, you know the one where your Mommy asks you if you took a cookie from the cookie jar.

You either took the cookie or you did not and you KNOW the truth.

I have seen in these times people CHOOSING to believe what is they know is not true to defend their party or even worse one member of their party.

This war has harmed America and most of the Bush policies have devided us and put us in debt and given nothing to this country in return.

That my friends is the truth.

He did take the cookie.


Truth is one of the fundamental building blocks of reality. One could probably say that without truth, nothing could exist. In fact, not only is truth a fundamental building block of reality, but it is also a central character trait and attribute of the one who is in control of all things, namely God himself. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the triune God, proclaimed about himself in John 14:6, "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life...". From that verse and others, we can conclude that truth is not something external to God himself, but is rather something that is inextricably joined and a part of His Being.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Truth

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Truth

Conservapedia! YEAH! :thumb:

[glockmail]

Conservapedia! YEAH! :thumb: Makes sense as a direct response to any wiki article.

[avatar4321]

It's just a qualifier because when I was thinking about "facts" I then started thinking about truth being relative to certain known facts and I decided that truth is relational. So I do need to amend myself I suppose. Truth isn't an absolute. There, I feel better :coffee:

You realize that relative truth is a correlated doctrine with special relatively in science? its an extrapoloation of that theory in the moral world. Recently, scientists broke the speed of light, and by doing so raised some serious questions to the accuracy of that theory.

However, relativity when it comes to morality has been disproven for years. Its only logical conclusion is genocide.

[avatar4321]

And I wouldn't dare ask it of you JD. I might be an atheist but I'm not anti-religion, I just don't want it to affect me. I might arc up a bit sometimes but that's usually because a nutter fundie winds me up.

But on "truth". I need to remove the religious context. If someone believes that their god/prophet has revealed the truth to them then I'm not going there because that's about faith.

I'm interested in the secular view of "truth". As I said, I don't think it exists (in secular form I reiterate).

if it doesnt exist then science has no point, because science is the pursuit of truth.

[avatar4321]

one of the issues often raised regarding postmodernism is the thought that we believe there is no truth......

this is actually a misunderstanding on the part of both sides, I believe.....

there is truth out there, but it is for the most part unachievable.....

younger generations have grown up in a society where you cannot trust even your senses.....

we see things on television that appear real but we know are not.....recently there was a video on You-Tube documenting a UFO sighting in the Caribbean......video experts examined it and said it was genuine.....then an animator stepped forward and admitted he had produced it on a high-tech computer system......we can see what is real and know it is not real at the same time.....

that does not mean that there is not something which is real, it simply means that even when we experience something ourselves, we no longer can be sure that it IS real......

there is nothing unachievable about truth. we can know and live by it.

[Dilloduck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

The definition has been debated for as long as mankind has exsisted.

The truth in my name stands for the old fashion kind of definition, you know the one where your Mommy asks you if you took a cookie from the cookie jar.

You either took the cookie or you did not and you KNOW the truth.

I have seen in these times people CHOOSING to believe what is they know is not true to defend their party or even worse one member of their party.

This war has harmed America and most of the Bush policies have devided us and put us in debt and given nothing to this country in return.

That my friends is the truth.

He did take the cookie.

Your statement that "this war has harmed America" is an opinion and a very vague one at that. Your perspective is no more accurate than anyone elses. You would have to at least define America before anyone could even bother rebutting your perception.

[5stringJeff]

Reality and truth are synonymous.

I would say that truth is that which conforms to reality, although I'm not sure I would call them synonymous.

[truthmatters]

Your statement that "this war has harmed America" is an opinion and a very vague one at that. Your perscpective is no more accurate than anyone elses. You would have to at least define America before anyone could even bother rebutting your perception.


Tell me what this war has done for AMERICA?

[Dilloduck]

Tell me what this war has done for AMERICA?

please re-read my post and get back to me.

[truthmatters]

You never back up anything you say do you?

[PostmodernProphet]

Reality - what is REAL to one and REAL to another can be different. The TRUTH, however, is not bound by what we feel and know is "real."

that leaves you with silly consequences, such as truth being 'not-real'......

[PostmodernProphet]

there is nothing unachievable about truth. we can know and live by it.

no, you can make a faith choice regarding how you will live your life, in reference to that which you accept as truth.....for example, I choose to believe in YHWH who created the universe and chose to become incarnate to save me from my disobedience. I choose to accept that as being true regardless of whether I can prove it to be truth to you, anyone else, or even myself. Someone else believes there is no deity. We are not both right, cannot be. The truth of the matter is not different for me than it is for him.

So, one can accept something as true and live their life accordingly, but they cannot ascertain the essence of truth within it.

[avatar4321]

no, you can make a faith choice regarding how you will live your life, in reference to that which you accept as truth.....for example, I choose to believe in YHWH who created the universe and chose to become incarnate to save me from my disobedience. I choose to accept that as being true regardless of whether I can prove it to be truth to you, anyone else, or even myself. Someone else believes there is no deity. We are not both right, cannot be. The truth of the matter is not different for me than it is for him.

So, one can accept something as true and live their life accordingly, but they cannot ascertain the essence of truth within it.

Yeah they can. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

People can go to the source of truth. They can learn about God and the Principles of eternal life from the source. They dont have to rely on others or themselves. they can go to the source and find out the truth straight from the source.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah they can. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

People can go to the source of truth. They can learn about God and the Principles of eternal life from the source. They dont have to rely on others or themselves. they can go to the source and find out the truth straight from the source.

if that were true, there would be no need of 'faith' and we would be saved by our knowledge of the truth, we would approach God through reason....please, realize that what I am saying detracts nothing at all from the reality of God's existence...I am merely acknowledging that God is 'unknowable'......

[Dilloduck]

You never back up anything you say do you?

I clearly said you would have to define "America" before anyone can comment on whether it's been hurt or not.

[darin]

...I am merely acknowledging that God is 'unknowable'......

Well that's just not true. David, from the bible knew God to such a degree he was proclaimed to be a Man after God's own heart.

Jesus instructed us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

I'll find more stuff later. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

......love him with all your mind, yes........ but "know" him with all your mind?......even Mother Theresa apparently had times when she doubted.......

[glockmail]

You never back up anything you say do you? :lol: This coming from the master drive-by bomb thrower.

[darin]

......love him with all your mind, yes........ but "know" him with all your mind?......even Mother Theresa apparently had times when she doubted.......

What does Mother Theresa have to do w/ this? I know God. I know his ways. To a degree. He's pretty clear about a lot of things about his nature. I cant speak for Mother Theresa's relationship with Christ - that's between she and Him.

[diuretic]

I'm not being intentionally offensive or difficult here dmp but why do you differentiate between God and Christ? Is it a theological issue? I stress, I am not being a prick, it's a real question, not some sort of semantic trap.

[darin]

I'm not being intentionally offensive or difficult here dmp but why do you differentiate between God and Christ? Is it a theological issue? I stress, I am not being a prick, it's a real question, not some sort of semantic trap.

I don't. I'm using the terms interchangeably.

[PostmodernProphet]

What does Mother Theresa have to do w/ this? I know God.

I mention her because it underlines the fact that you can make a heart choice to believe in God without a head 'surety' of his existence....in truth, the way I understand scripture, that is what God intends....

he wants followers who are prepared to accept what he says as truth, without proof......that is why he created us the way we are.....

[5stringJeff]

I'm not being intentionally offensive or difficult here dmp but why do you differentiate between God and Christ? Is it a theological issue? I stress, I am not being a prick, it's a real question, not some sort of semantic trap.

Christians use the word 'God' to mean two things, usually interchangably: 1. God the Father (the First Person of the Godhead); 2. God the Trinity, consisting of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. So when someone uses God and Christ in the same sentence, they are not denying the Deity of Christ; they are simply using the word 'God' in the first sense.

[Dilloduck]

I mention her because it underlines the fact that you can make a heart choice to believe in God without a head 'surety' of his existence....in truth, the way I understand scripture, that is what God intends....

he wants followers who are prepared to accept what he says as truth, without proof......that is why he created us the way we are.....



you can make a heart choice

I like it--I owe ya :clap:

[diuretic]

I don't. I'm using the terms interchangeably.

Okay, thanks.

[darin]

I mention her because it underlines the fact that you can make a heart choice to believe in God without a head 'surety' of his existence....in truth, the way I understand scripture, that is what God intends....


Not 'feeling' God's presence for years is a 'head choice' to believe in god - quite the opposite of the example you're using.



he wants followers who are prepared to accept what he says as truth, without proof......that is why he created us the way we are.....

Where there's 'proof' their lacks 'faith' - although God has proven himself to me, personally, many times. Yet I have faith. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

Where there's 'proof' their lacks 'faith' - although God has proven himself to me, personally, many times. Yet I have faith.

and I have experienced God as well, though he didn't do it to 'prove' himself to me....and I know full well that I could not use that experience to 'prove' his existence to anyone else....

[badger]

Reality is what we call our subjective experiences. Your reality and my reality are very different. That's because we both experience different things. So in a sense there is no "reality" because if there were we would all have to experience it and we don't. We have private, subjective "realities". "Reality" is the sum of the exercise of our senses, it doesn't exist beyond each individual. In the sense it exists it's only because each individual shares the same sensory organs (physiologically speaking) and if they are in the same culture then they might share the same interpretation of the information gained by the use of those sensory organs but no, there's no "reality" outside of our senses.There is such a thing as truth that is not relational. The abstract notion that "one" plus another "one" equals "two." Is true now, was true then, and will always be true, no matter what the context. Mathematical truth is independent of context and is not relational. The square root of 25 equals 5 whether you are here on Earth or some alien a million light years from here. That the cube of 2 equals eight was true before humans even existed. And will still be true if someday we no longer exist.

[Dilloduck]

There is such a thing as truth that is not relational. The abstract notion that "one" plus another "one" equals "two." Is true now, was true then, and will always be true, no matter what the context. Mathematical truth is independent of context and is not relational. The square root of 25 equals 5 whether you are here on Earth or some alien a million light years from here. That the cube of 2 equals eight was true before humans even existed. And will still be true if someday we no longer exist.

I hate to be picky but in a binary system 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.

I'm more curious if there is "truth" if there is no observer or someone to affirm it.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm more curious if there is "truth" if there is no observer or someone to affirm it.

did gravity exist before there was a human being who dropped something and noticed it?......whether someone heard it or not, gravity made the tree fall in the forest.....

[darin]

and I have experienced God as well, though he didn't do it to 'prove' himself to me....and I know full well that I could not use that experience to 'prove' his existence to anyone else....

Absolutely - you can't prove to anyone what God has shown you to be truth. But to you, God has proven himself. That's a head-knowledge of God, typically. Although I believe in Him because he's also touched my soul (the feeling nature of my brain) as well as my mind (the logic, scientific part of my brain).

You're saying God never 'touched' you to 'prove' Himself to you - You've got a right to feel that way. But I'm very Sure God PURPOSELY interacts with us to do just that - to help us KNOW He is God.

[Dilloduck]

did gravity exist before there was a human being who dropped something and noticed it?......whether someone heard it or not, gravity made the tree fall in the forest.....

I imagine things fell and made noise without a human there to hear it. I just wonder if there was truth there.

[PostmodernProphet]

I imagine things fell and made noise without a human there to hear it. I just wonder if there was truth there.

isn't it 'truth' that things fall?.....the laws of gravity and other physical, chemical, and biological laws are 'truth'.........

[darin]

physical, chemical, and biological laws are 'truth'.........

...until they are proven otherwise, yes. :)

[GW in Ohio]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

Of course there is truth. I invite everyone to comment on the truth of these statements:


Barry Bonds is a butthead and a cheater.
George Bush is the stupidest, most incompetent sonofabitch that ever sat in the Oval Office.
Dick Cheney is a mighty hunter.
Albero Gonzalez is a great American who was hounded out of office because liberal weenies just don't know how the game is played in Washington.
The New York Yankees suck.
The Iraq war was a war for about 30 days. For most of the last 4 years it's been a national embarrassment.


See how easy it is to find truth?

[Dilloduck]

isn't it 'truth' that things fall?.....the laws of gravity and other physical, chemical, and biological laws are 'truth'.........

According to humans I guess. I think things like "truth" and "reality" are a function of humans trying to figure out who they are and what is their purpose BEYOND doing what is necessary to survive.

[PostmodernProphet]

According to humans I guess. I think things like "truth" and "reality" are a function of humans trying to figure out who they are and what is their purpose BEYOND doing what is necessary to survive.

throw a cat out the window.....they fall too........

[PostmodernProphet]

I think things like "truth" and "reality" are a function of humans trying to figure out who they are and what is their purpose BEYOND doing what is necessary to survive.

typical modernist....tries to turn the discussion into label that we apply to experience......

if I trip and fall on my face, I experience a variety of truths.....they are not simply a function of trying to figure something out....you can attach labels to them, e.g. "pain", but the truth is the experience, not the label.....messing around with labels is half of humanity's problem......

look at religion.....I experience deity.....one says, you met YHWH, the next, you met God....another says, it had to have been Allah, another Buddha....

one person says it was Christ because of this, the next says, couldn't have been Christ because Christ would not have done that he would have done something else, because they have different labels attached to their "Christs".....

fact of the matter is, if there is a God (and I believe there is), he prints his own labels or he isn't much of a god......

[Dilloduck]

typical modernist....tries to turn the discussion into label that we apply to experience......

if I trip and fall on my face, I experience a variety of truths.....they are not simply a function of trying to figure something out....you can attach labels to them, e.g. "pain", but the truth is the experience, not the label.....messing around with labels is half of humanity's problem......

look at religion.....I experience deity.....one says, you met YHWH, the next, you met God....another says, it had to have been Allah, another Buddha....

one person says it was Christ because of this, the next says, couldn't have been Christ because Christ would not have done that he would have done something else, because they have different labels attached to their "Christs".....

fact of the matter is, if there is a God (and I believe there is), he prints his own labels or he isn't much of a god......


The entire thread is premised on labeling and I agree that they create problems but where would we be without them ? Aren't they descriptions of experiences and sensations that are used to try to comunicate with others?

[diuretic]

There is such a thing as truth that is not relational. The abstract notion that "one" plus another "one" equals "two." Is true now, was true then, and will always be true, no matter what the context. Mathematical truth is independent of context and is not relational. The square root of 25 equals 5 whether you are here on Earth or some alien a million light years from here. That the cube of 2 equals eight was true before humans even existed. And will still be true if someday we no longer exist.

Mathematics is a human invention. The concept "two" requires someone to learn its meaning. Everything else you mentioned was invented and has to be learned. It's all relational.

[diuretic]

did gravity exist before there was a human being who dropped something and noticed it?......whether someone heard it or not, gravity made the tree fall in the forest.....

That's a good point, yes it existed before it was noticed by a human and certainly before it was examined as a concept. "Gravity" exists independent of human perception. But it was probably wind and perhaps the action of insects or simple degradation that made the tree able to fall in the forest :D

[diuretic]

isn't it 'truth' that things fall?.....the laws of gravity and other physical, chemical, and biological laws are 'truth'.........

They're only a way of predicting things. If A then B sort of thing. Nothing to do with "truth".

[diuretic]

The entire thread is premised on labeling and I agree that they create problems but where would we be without them ? Aren't they descriptions of experiences and sensations that are used to try to comunicate with others?

I really wasn't worried about the semantics, I was sort of looking at the concept. But nevertheless, it's been interesting.

[badger]

I hate to be picky but in a binary system 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.

I'm more curious if there is "truth" if there is no observer or someone to affirm it.What? Yes it does if you convert the decimal system to that system of numbers.

[badger]

Mathematics is a human invention. The concept "two" requires someone to learn its meaning. Everything else you mentioned was invented and has to be learned. It's all relational.Mathematics is a human discovery, not invention. Mathematical truth exists independent of human beings. 1+1=2 was true before humans ever existed, and it will still be true when we're gone. Billions of years ago, the first metorite hit the new Earth, then the second, and when that happened, two metorites had fallen to Earth. That quantity of metorites required no human input, no human invention.

PS. As an aside, imagine you are watching a fast forwarded movie of the history of the Earth that was shot from near space. For almost all of the movie, objects fall from space onto the Earth. Now in the last second of the film objects have begun to fly off the Earth. Startling.

[gabosaurus]

The truth is what the people who make the rules say it is.

[manu1959]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

i have two children and a wife

[gabosaurus]

i have two children and a wife

You probably haven't had much experience with the truth lately. Especially if your kids are older. :lmao:

[manu1959]

You probably haven't had much experience with the truth lately. Especially if your kids are older. :lmao:

my kids are nothing like you....yet another truth...i am 2 for 2

[darin]

my kids are nothing like you....yet another truth...i am 2 for 2



:D Liberals tolerate Lies from their kids. They let kids find 'their specific' truth. It's in the nature of Liberals to allow their kids - encourage at times - to lie.

[diuretic]

Mathematics is a human discovery, not invention. Mathematical truth exists independent of human beings. 1+1=2 was true before humans ever existed, and it will still be true when we're gone. Billions of years ago, the first metorite hit the new Earth, then the second, and when that happened, two metorites had fallen to Earth. That quantity of metorites required no human input, no human invention.

PS. As an aside, imagine you are watching a fast forwarded movie of the history of the Earth that was shot from near space. For almost all of the movie, objects fall from space onto the Earth. Now in the last second of the film objects have begun to fly off the Earth. Startling.

I hope I don't descend into semantics myself here :laugh2: but I think it's more appropriate to think of mathematics as a human invention applied to natural phenomena for various uses including predictability. I'm hopeless at mathematics so I can't do much more than look at it from a lay person's point of view, but that's what it looks like to me.

[diuretic]

i have two children and a wife

Truly?

Hah just kidding :laugh2:

That you have two childen and a wife is a claim and it can be proven by facts. You can prove it by - and I'm not asking for proof, just working through the methods - the use of a range of methods. But it still means that you have two children and a wife and you can prove your claim. That makes your claim valid or if you like "truthful" (and in a world of "truthiness" that's an important distinction). It means you are telling the truth but it doesn't help explain the idea of "truth." Heck I probably committed several tautologies there, I'd point them out if I knew what the hell they were :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

The entire thread is premised on labeling and I agree that they create problems but where would we be without them ? Aren't they descriptions of experiences and sensations that are used to try to comunicate with others?

but in the end they destroy communication.....we spend time debating about whether there is 'truth' or 'reality' which have merely become labels to describe the experience of the 'ouch' when you fall on your face or the gravity that made you fall....

of course there is truth and there is reality, but people debate whether there is Truth and Reality.......

[diuretic]

but in the end they destroy communication.....we spend time debating about whether there is 'truth' or 'reality' which have merely become labels to describe the experience of the 'ouch' when you fall on your face or the gravity that made you fall....

of course there is truth and there is reality, but people debate whether there is Truth and Reality.......

But we could be watching tv too :laugh2:

I think most, if not all, of the posts in this thread have demonstrated that labels are convenient but that when you look beyond the surface there is much to find out.

You've asserted that there is "truth" and "reality" but you haven't provided any evidence for either claim :D

[PostmodernProphet]

but you haven't provided any evidence for either claim

you are your own evidence of both....I cannot prove to you that you are typing on a keyboard, but if you can't convince yourself, you need some serious help......

[diuretic]

you are your own evidence of both....I cannot prove to you that you are typing on a keyboard, but if you can't convince yourself, you need some serious help......

Ta dah! You win! :laugh2:

[diuretic]

you are your own evidence of both....I cannot prove to you that you are typing on a keyboard, but if you can't convince yourself, you need some serious help......

No you don't win, I was just messin' with ya. :cheers2:

I did say you didn't produce evidence of your claim. That was a statement, not so much of fact but of inference from what I read. You could have typed it, someone else could have typed it, I don't know, but I do know there was no evidence in that post.

[PostmodernProphet]

I did say you didn't produce evidence of your claim. That was a statement, not so much of fact but of inference from what I read. You could have typed it, someone else could have typed it, I don't know, but I do know there was no evidence in that post.

which brings us back to my original point.....the argument isn't really about truth, it's about perceptions.....

you know the truth about whether you are sitting in a chair, typing at a keyboard.....I can only form perceptions about the truth of that matter, knowing the various means available for transmitting data into a computer.....

you could in truth be an alien with the ability to create posts telepathically, but I can only form my perceptions of that reality....

however, it is only my perceptions that are variable.....the truth is not......

[badger]

I hope I don't descend into semantics myself here :laugh2: but I think it's more appropriate to think of mathematics as a human invention applied to natural phenomena for various uses including predictability. I'm hopeless at mathematics so I can't do much more than look at it from a lay person's point of view, but that's what it looks like to me.There are many mathematical truths that were discovered and are not human inventions attempting to describe the natural world, e.g., Cantor's discovery of transfinite numbers, or Mandelbrot discovery of fractal geometry. Such mathematical truths are part of the fabric of the Universe, not the relative inventions of humans. Below is the famous Mandelbrot set. It was discovered, not invented:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg/322px-Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg

[diuretic]

which brings us back to my original point.....the argument isn't really about truth, it's about perceptions.....

you know the truth about whether you are sitting in a chair, typing at a keyboard.....I can only form perceptions about the truth of that matter, knowing the various means available for transmitting data into a computer.....

you could in truth be an alien with the ability to create posts telepathically, but I can only form my perceptions of that reality....

however, it is only my perceptions that are variable.....the truth is not......


Exactly, we can only infer.

[diuretic]

There are many mathematical truths that were discovered and are not human inventions attempting to describe the natural world, e.g., Cantor's discovery of transfinite numbers, or Mandelbrot discovery of fractal geometry. Such mathematical truths are part of the fabric of the Universe, not the relative inventions of humans. Below is the famous Mandelbrot set. It was discovered, not invented:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg/322px-Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg

You need to explain to be what transfinite numbers are, I haven't got a clue and please don't tell me to Google, I just said I don't understand them. Same for fracal geometry, haven't got a clue about that either.

[badger]

You need to explain to be what transfinite numbers are, I haven't got a clue and please don't tell me to Google, I just said I don't understand them. Same for fracal geometry, haven't got a clue about that either.Go to this site, follow some links, and get ready to be amazed: http://www.math.com/students/wonders/fractals.html

[diuretic]

Go to this site, follow some links, and get ready to be amazed: http://www.math.com/students/wonders/fractals.html

Thanks I'll have a look.

[Jeff32]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

Is that true? Truth surrounds us.

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree, i like to say there is no truth, only perception.. nice thread



That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

[diuretic]

Is that true? Truth surrounds us.

Truth is air? :D

[Dilloduck]

Truth is air? :D

Noooooooo---truth is skin !!!!:laugh2:

[manu1959]

I agree, i like to say there is no truth, only perception.. nice thread

perception is for those that can not accept the truth....

[actsnoblemartin]

I know thats the point :laugh2:


perception is for those that can not accept the truth....

[manu1959]

I know thats the point :laugh2:

which is why i pointed it out.....

[actsnoblemartin]

good im glad, the truth is 100%, not 50%, or 99%


which is why i pointed it out.....

[diuretic]

Noooooooo---truth is skin !!!!:laugh2:

"Ya gotta have skin!" :laugh2:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there is *TRUTH*.
2. It stares you in the face all the time.
3. Seeing it can be difficult, if you find that you have wall papered your reality with *LIES*.
4. Some times, man will prop up a *LIE* in order to have things easy.
5. *LIES* can make a warm and fuzzy feeling within a man's subconsciousness.
6. Because to believe in a *LIE* is far easier than working to understand the, *TRUTH*.
7. The, *TRUTH* takes work to discover, and most men, want to take the easy route.
8. Finding the *TRUTH* takes trial and error, till you whittle down reality, till all that's left is the, *TRUTH*.
9. *TRUTH* is man has a problem with finding *God*, because the *DEVIL* has supplanted *GOD* and to a certain degree, the *DEVIL* has won many a man to his army.
10. Your main concern about *TRUTH* is this, do you follow *GOD* or are you lead to destruction by the *DEVIL*.
11. This is, *TRUTH*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Classact]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.Is the statement, "I think, therefore I am" not proof of a true statement. It is true I exist because I think. Can anyone prove that to be false?

[PostmodernProphet]

It's just a qualifier because when I was thinking about "facts" I then started thinking about truth being relative to certain known facts and I decided that truth is relational. So I do need to amend myself I suppose. Truth isn't an absolute. There, I feel better :coffee:

the "facts" are the truth......what is known about them is opinion......the facts are not relational, opinion is.......

[bullypulpit]

That's my contention. Even facts are a bit dodgy too. But "truth" doesn't exist except in a particular reference.

Truth exists, but like all other phenomena, it is a dependent phenomena. I think it would be more appropriate to state that absolute truth, truth outside of dependent phenomena, does not exist.

[Hobbit]

Statements such as "There's no such thing as 'truth'" are nothing but idiotic pseudo-philosophy specifically designed to invalidate opposing viewpoints so as to excuse your own. Statements like this are typically used by the immoral to explain away their immorality as being moral on a relativistic scale. Truth is a philosophical context, but to properly study or opine about philosophy, one must believe that there is underlying, absolute truth, as philosophy is the pursuit of this truth. It is generally accepted by philosophers that this absolute truth will never be found by human beings in this life (true, impartial philosophy must allow for the possibility of afterlife, even if one doesn't believe such things), but that the intermediate truths that appear from pursuit of this truth are a worthy end.

Of course, when you get into the study of facts, you're in a whole new ball park...science. Facts are completely verifiable and totally non-relative. They're either true or false.

[PostmodernProphet]

Facts are completely verifiable

that's problematic......take the statement "there is a god".....it is either true or false....therefore either "the statement there is a god is false" or "the statement there is a god is true" is a fact.....no getting around it......however, neither is verifiable.......

[Hobbit]

that's problematic......take the statement "there is a god".....it is either true or false....therefore either "the statement there is a god is false" or "the statement there is a god is true" is a fact.....no getting around it......however, neither is verifiable.......

It is, in fact, verifiable. We do not, however, have any empirical method for verifying said fact. Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done, and if a fact can't be verified, it's just classified as 'undetermined.' In a real sense, every fact is somehow verifiable and is either true or false. It's just a matter of finding a way to verify it.

[bullypulpit]

Statements such as "There's no such thing as 'truth'" are nothing but idiotic pseudo-philosophy specifically designed to invalidate opposing viewpoints so as to excuse your own. Statements like this are typically used by the immoral to explain away their immorality as being moral on a relativistic scale. Truth is a philosophical context, but to properly study or opine about philosophy, one must believe that there is underlying, absolute truth, as philosophy is the pursuit of this truth. It is generally accepted by philosophers that this absolute truth will never be found by human beings in this life (true, impartial philosophy must allow for the possibility of afterlife, even if one doesn't believe such things), but that the intermediate truths that appear from pursuit of this truth are a worthy end.

Of course, when you get into the study of facts, you're in a whole new ball park...science. Facts are completely verifiable and totally non-relative. They're either true or false.

'Absolute truth' is applicable to all circumstances, at all times and without condition. Since no human can ever hope to percieve each and every one of these circumstances at every point in time, speculation about any 'absolute truth' is rank speculation at best.

[Hobbit]

'Absolute truth' is applicable to all circumstances, at all times and without condition. Since no human can ever hope to percieve each and every one of these circumstances at every point in time, speculation about any 'absolute truth' is rank speculation at best.

I don't recall stating otherwise. I stated that the absolute truth existed, not that it was known by any man. I also stated that pursuit of that absolute truth often leads to other applicable truths, making the pursuit worthwhile.

[bullypulpit]

I don't recall stating otherwise. I stated that the absolute truth existed, not that it was known by any man. I also stated that pursuit of that absolute truth often leads to other applicable truths, making the pursuit worthwhile.

In stating that "absolute truth exists", you imply human knowledge of such "absolute truth". Your logic has collapsed under the weight of its contradiction.

[diuretic]

Is the statement, "I think, therefore I am" not proof of a true statement. It is true I exist because I think. Can anyone prove that to be false?

I think it's a bit self-evident actually. It's more a confirmation of consciousness than a proof of anythning. Besides, this proof and logic thing has limits.

St Thomas Aquinas used logic to prove the existence of God but in reality it was just a mental exercise. Nothing happened as a result of it. Any of us can replicate Aquinas' logic exercise and still nothing will happen. Bit pointless isn't it?

"I think therefore I am", always seemed to me to be a bit circular anyway. But again, as always, I'll stand corrected.

[diuretic]

the "facts" are the truth......what is known about them is opinion......the facts are not relational, opinion is.......

Facts are only things we know. We can prove them by various means. But that just means we can prove things we know. That's got nothing to do with "truth".

[diuretic]

Truth exists, but like all other phenomena, it is a dependent phenomena. I think it would be more appropriate to state that absolute truth, truth outside of dependent phenomena, does not exist.

That makes more sense to me.

[diuretic]

Statements such as "There's no such thing as 'truth'" are nothing but idiotic pseudo-philosophy specifically designed to invalidate opposing viewpoints so as to excuse your own. Statements like this are typically used by the immoral to explain away their immorality as being moral on a relativistic scale. Truth is a philosophical context, but to properly study or opine about philosophy, one must believe that there is underlying, absolute truth, as philosophy is the pursuit of this truth. It is generally accepted by philosophers that this absolute truth will never be found by human beings in this life (true, impartial philosophy must allow for the possibility of afterlife, even if one doesn't believe such things), but that the intermediate truths that appear from pursuit of this truth are a worthy end.

Of course, when you get into the study of facts, you're in a whole new ball park...science. Facts are completely verifiable and totally non-relative. They're either true or false.

You could have saved yourself a bit of time by starting with, "off course, when you...." and so on. The rest of it was bullshit.

[diuretic]

It is, in fact, verifiable. We do not, however, have any empirical method for verifying said fact. Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done, and if a fact can't be verified, it's just classified as 'undetermined.' In a real sense, every fact is somehow verifiable and is either true or false. It's just a matter of finding a way to verify it.

How is it verifiable?

[Hobbit]

In stating that "absolute truth exists", you imply human knowledge of such "absolute truth". Your logic has collapsed under the weight of its contradiction.

So, human perception is so defining that nothing exists unless there is empirical human knowledge of it? I suppose other galaxies simply sprang into being as soon as the telescope was invented? Bacteria first appeared when we developed the microscope? The idea that the existence of something implies human knowledge of that thing is to limit the universe to the perceptions of humans, which is retarded.

[Hobbit]

How is it verifiable?

Seeing as how we have not yet discovered a way to verify the existence of God, I don't know how to verify the existence of God. If I knew that, I could write a book and retire. If some device was discovered that could, empirically, prove or disprove the existence of God, then we could verify it. For now, the only way to verify it is to die and hope the atheists aren't right.

[bullypulpit]

So, human perception is so defining that nothing exists unless there is empirical human knowledge of it? I suppose other galaxies simply sprang into being as soon as the telescope was invented? Bacteria first appeared when we developed the microscope? The idea that the existence of something implies human knowledge of that thing is to limit the universe to the perceptions of humans, which is retarded.

No. It simply means we can have no knowledge of it. Once we have the tools to percieve a thing, we can and will gain knowledge of it. The 'absolute truth' you speak of is utterly beyond the grasp of human perception and experience...hence we can have no knowledge of it. For to percieve such 'absolute truth' we would need to be omniscient and omnipresent, and if that were the case we would be something much different than human.

[Hobbit]

No. It simply means we can have no knowledge of it. Once we have the tools to percieve a thing, we can and will gain knowledge of it. The 'absolute truth' you speak of is utterly beyond the grasp of human perception and experience...hence we can have no knowledge of it. For to percieve such 'absolute truth' we would need to be omniscient and omnipresent, and if that were the case we would be something much different than human.

Meaning we can't find it, not that it doesn't exist.

[Yurt]

http://members.aol.com/okkep/truth.gif

[diuretic]

Seeing as how we have not yet discovered a way to verify the existence of God, I don't know how to verify the existence of God. If I knew that, I could write a book and retire. If some device was discovered that could, empirically, prove or disprove the existence of God, then we could verify it. For now, the only way to verify it is to die and hope the atheists aren't right.

Yep, but of course there's a flaw in the mechanism. As far as I know no-one's actually died and reported back one way or the other. Anyway if the atheists are right it doesn't matter does it?

[diuretic]

Meaning we can't find it, not that it doesn't exist.

Exactly. And that's why we have to hypothesise and then try and find evidence for our hypothesis. We are in a state of diminishing ignorance though and that's a good thing.

[PostmodernProphet]

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done

?????......and here I thought your LAST statement was problematic......you aren't by any chance a REAL hobbit, are you?....that sounds like something Sam would say.....

[bullypulpit]

Meaning we can't find it, not that it doesn't exist.

Meaning that if we have no way of perceiving it or its effects on the world at large, its pursuit is irrelevant. Its pursuit is one best taken up by the otherwise unemployable. That is a definition of theology which I find both accurate and amusing...The debate of the undebatable by the otherwise unemployable.

[Hobbit]

Meaning that if we have no way of perceiving it or its effects on the world at large, its pursuit is irrelevant. Its pursuit is one best taken up by the otherwise unemployable. That is a definition of theology which I find both accurate and amusing...The debate of the undebatable by the otherwise unemployable.

Wrong, as the pursuit of that truth leads to other relevant truths. We have no known way to perceive the true nature of the universe, but that pursuit has led to technological breakthroughs. We have no known way to truly predict the stock market, but attempts have gotten us close enough to predict recessions. Just because the end goal of the pursuit cannot be achieved doesn't mean that the pursuit itself is useless. Even if the moon shot had been discovered to be scientifically impossible, the space program still would have brought us Velcro.

[bullypulpit]

Wrong, as the pursuit of that truth leads to other relevant truths. We have no known way to perceive the true nature of the universe, but that pursuit has led to technological breakthroughs. We have no known way to truly predict the stock market, but attempts have gotten us close enough to predict recessions. Just because the end goal of the pursuit cannot be achieved doesn't mean that the pursuit itself is useless. Even if the moon shot had been discovered to be scientifically impossible, the space program still would have brought us Velcro.

We cannot perceive the <i>true</i> nature of anything, claims of essentialist philosophers notwithstanding. We can only perceive things <i>as they have come to be</i> as a result of the complex interaction of the object of the senses, the sense organs and the emotional and intellectual evaluations of those interactions that result in every perception.

[5stringJeff]

Here's an absolute truth, for all beings, in all places, at all times:

2 + 2 = 4

[Hobbit]

Here's an absolute truth, for all beings, in all places, at all times:

2 + 2 = 4

Actually, it's false when done in base 3 or 4.

And bully, I really don't know what you're getting at with that post. The pursuit of universal truths leads us to great discoveries, whether or not we are capable of perceiving universal truths at all.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, it's false when done in base 3 or 4.


and when done in base 3 or 4 you come up with other numbers which are also absolutely true for base 3 and 4.......wait a minute, wouldn't it still be true in base 4?

[5stringJeff]

Actually, it's false when done in base 3 or 4.

4 isn't a numeral in base 3 or 4. But, if you converted the numerals in that equation into base 3 or 4, it would still be true:

Base 3: 2 + 2 = 11
Base 4: 2 + 2 = 10
Bonus: Base 2 (Binary): 10 + 10 = 100

For all bases 5 and up, the equation is valid with the aforementioned numerals.