I see a lot of these debates on here narrow down to whats true and whats not.
I didnt see another topic for this so il post it.
The basic argument here is. Is there truth? is truth relative to you? Is there any form of complete absolute truth we can rely on? if so what is truth and how can you find it?
a lot of questions asked so this will be interesting.
If you have seen any of my other posts you probably know that i am a christian and i belive that there is truth and gods word( the bible) is where you find it. But we are not debating religion here just views on truth. What do you think?
Sorry to add my two cents but I hope I give a nugget of clarity to your continuing dialogue.
Take a colour for example. This is from wiki.
Red is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light consisting predominantly of the longest wavelengths of light discernible by the human eye, in the wavelength range of roughly 630â"740 nm.[2] Longer wavelengths than this are called infrared (below red), and cannot be seen by the naked human eye.
I think this is about as close to an absolute truth as you can have. i.e. for our current state of being this just is. Dont matter if you are colour blind or if one persons red is anothers blue etc... take away as much subjective info as you can and you are left with this.
If everyone in society uses their common sense, the 'best' way to behave is to clearly temper your individual desires and exercise responsibility and compassion towards others, in long term mutually beneficial relationship.
Right with you on this one, and trying to spread the word that this is possible right now.
I think this is about as close to an absolute truth as you can have. i.e. for our current state of being this just is
I like the example you give, so maybe we can come up with what kind of truth this is. So, essentially we're saying this" "Red is the name given to light that is between 630 and 740 nm wavelength." Seems reasonable to hold, justified, clearly a solid case of knowledge. So, essentially this is an identity claim. We're identifying a word we use with the state of affairs of the world that it represents. So really, we can say "red" = n (where n is the wavelength of light we identify as red). My first thought is that this seems to be a trivial truth. This part of the spectrum of light is called the red spectrum, but surely we mean to say more by this than just "red" is red. So maybe it's an analytic truth - by stipulation. Just like how we stipulate the word "bachelor" to mean all and only unmarried adult males, we stipulate "red" to mean a certain wavelength of light. So it's analytically true - is it necessarily true? Either way, should we only include as absolute truths those truths which are analytic? Just throwing these thoughts out there. I don't know what to make of them.
Absolute truth is based on fixed and unalterable facts. But there are no such facts. Now, I just contradicted my self by saying this, because I stated that there are no fixed and invariable facts, and this is obviously an absolute statement. My statement is logically contradictory, cause if my statement is true then there is a fixed fact that there are no fixed facts. My conclusion is that when we say that something is relative (wrong/right, lie/truth etc.) we will contradict ourselves. Also we argue against the absolute truth by using absolute statements. So my opinion is that there is an absolute truth.
Absolute truth is based on fixed and unalterable facts. But there are no such facts.
I think we've come up with several examples of these kinds of facts. It seems we can clearly put analytic and necessary truths as part of the schema of absolute truth. But it still seems to me that certain contingent truths are candidates for absolute truth.
Right with you on this one, and trying to spread the word that this is possible right now.
Preach brother preach!
Just throwing these thoughts out there. I don't know what to make of them.
Hmm. I never really thought about truth in this sense. I can't really find the right word to facilitate my intuitive feeling on the subject, but personally absolute truths have to be more substantial than merely 'red', or analytical truths. Why? It just seems too easy and perhaps belitteling the fairly serious arguments which can arise out of concepts of absolute truth. Or maybye I'm being too emotional about it. Perhaps analytical truths are the only ones which can be classified as absolute?
The Truth is there is No God, We are created by chance we exist by chance. We are imperfections. Abominations. Killers. And Deserve Absolute Death.
While there is no evidence for God leading to us to not be able to say such a being definitively exists. We at the same time can not say definitively such a being does not exist.
While yes we are imperfect and killers I don't think I would go as far as to say we are abominations deserving of death. We just have to much potential to be more.
The absolute truth is that humans are incapable of knowing the truth, as everyone's perception of the truth differs, and humans are close-minded enough to staunchly defend their versions to meaningless extremes.
How can there be absolute truth without a guide for truth or a being to create that guide? Your point makes no sense.
IMO, religion was created by either a benevolent person who wanted to create brotherhood between those who would rather kill each other, and set rules governing how they should best behave, and punishments horrible enough to make them stay within the lines.
Or, It could have just been created as a method of control such as politics, like the old Hawaiian chiefdoms.
IMO, religion was created by either a benevolent person who wanted to create brotherhood between those who would rather kill each other, and set rules governing how they should best behave, and punishments horrible enough to make them stay within the lines.
Or, It could have just been created as a method of control such as politics, like the old Hawaiian chiefdoms.
Yet it still wouldn't be absolute truth right?
Side note I accidentally Googled that and ended up on a Jesus Camp link.
The absolute truth is that humans are incapable of knowing the truth, as everyone's perception of the truth differs, and humans are close-minded enough to staunchly defend their versions to meaningless extremes.
How can you say relative truth is an absolute truth?
If all truth is relative, wouldn't absolute truth be also?
The joy of a good paradox; this is actually one of the reasons I believe there has to be a god of some sort so even if I'm wrong I'm banking on the whole "good person" thing.
