Absolute Truth Does Not Exist

Absolute Truth Does Not Exist

Created by Brother Marine on Aug 21, 2011

87 votes

Click on an option to vote

Absolutely True

False

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“make someone smile today”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#106 Jan 28, 2013
Humblbee,

I fully understand the difference between concepts and objects and that a concept can not exist. you are debating existance, while others are debating absolute truth. absolute truth does not exist, but a statement can be absolutely true.

“make someone smile today”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107 Jan 28, 2013
Absolute truth can be interpreted in different ways based on its usage, just like truth. Some believe that the correct communication cannot be found for describing ideas of absolute truth by entities that possess the metaphysically true state of the ability to lie and have lied before, thus making the following description vulnerable to potential inaccuracy as long as those entities maintain the definition.

Absolute truth is often defined in two ways: state-truth and action-verity form

“make someone smile today”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#108 Jan 28, 2013
As A state (truth)

Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statements are called absolute truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticize absolutism is the absolute truth statement: Absolute truths do not exist.

“make someone smile today”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#109 Jan 28, 2013
As an action (verify)

In action form, absolute truth most closely represents verity. This form can be likened to the action usage of metaphysical truth, but not its state usage (which represent metaphysical truths in state form). Absolute truth in action form is considered by many to be metaphysical only, and therefore the same as the action usage of metaphysical truth. Some believe the outcome of absolute truth (verity) can be metaphysical truths, physical truths or both, but by definition not any form of a lie.

“make someone smile today”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#110 Jan 28, 2013
A particularly confusing absolute truth in state form (but good for example) is:
Absolute truth cannot be a lie.
Some interpret this to mean:
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
But that refers specifically to the action form of absolute truth. Others interpret it as:
Absolute truth statements cannot be lies.
But that refers specifically to the state form of absolute truth. The original statement can be interpreted as either the state or action form. In the state form the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either way the statement is an absolute truth in state form.

A potential example of absolute truth in action form is:
The words you are reading exist because of absolute truths in action form supporting their ability to exist.
ATTENTIVE readers will recognize the previous statement as an absolute truth in state form describing absolute truth in action form. Whether or not the statement is true is left as an exercise for the reader.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#111 Jan 28, 2013
kissmegoodnite wrote:
Humblbee,
I fully understand the difference between concepts and objects and that a concept can not exist. you are debating existance, while others are debating absolute truth. absolute truth does not exist, but a statement can be absolutely true.
Follow the post's header...

It states, "Absolute truth does not exist". I am agreeing with the header, and as such, must define the KEY TERMS used to analyze the claim. I am not discussing mere existence. The terms we use to analyze any notion need to be clearly, concisely and consistently defined, or else we will inevitably fall into equivocation.

Your definition for absolute is unchanging and permanent FACT. But 'fact' is just another word for 'object'. They are synonyms. Are you defining 'absolute' as an unchanging and permanent OBJECT?!

Objects are the only ontological entities that could possibly exist. You agree with this, but also claim 'absolute truth' does not exist. How can objects be unchanging, permanent and NOT exist at the same time? This definition needs refining...

Please provide the audience with a more consistent definition of 'absolute' before we go any further. Was the definition given by 'Hitherepeople' not appropriate? If it is appropriate, you obviously know the very concept of absolute is self-contradictory, and therefore, could not possibly make sense when applied to the concept of truth.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#112 Jan 28, 2013
kissmegoodnite wrote:
Absolute truth can be interpreted in different ways based on its usage, just like truth. Some believe that the correct communication cannot be found for describing ideas of absolute truth by entities that possess the metaphysically true state of the ability to lie and have lied before, thus making the following description vulnerable to potential inaccuracy as long as those entities maintain the definition.
Absolute truth is often defined in two ways: state-truth and action-verity form
We have already determined 'absolute' is contradictory and makes no sense, about as much as 'square circle' makes sense. Analogously, you are now attempting to describe the different types of 'square circles', and it still makes no sense; its inconsistent and irrelevant.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#113 Jan 28, 2013
kissmegoodnite wrote:
As A state (truth)
Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statements are called absolute truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticize absolutism is the absolute truth statement: Absolute truths do not exist.
Are you saying 'all truth is absolute truth'? What do you mean by "domain of thought"?

We gotta have definitions, man...

"A common reaction..."

I didn't realize my ANALYSIS was reactionary. I thought it was rational and critical. Please demonstrate what part of my overly-lengthy "reaction" was inconsistent or irrational. I will amend my analysis, as needed.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#114 Jan 28, 2013
kissmegoodnite wrote:
As an action (verify)
In action form, absolute truth most closely represents verity. This form can be likened to the action usage of metaphysical truth, but not its state usage (which represent metaphysical truths in state form). Absolute truth in action form is considered by many to be metaphysical only, and therefore the same as the action usage of metaphysical truth. Some believe the outcome of absolute truth (verity) can be metaphysical truths, physical truths or both, but by definition not any form of a lie.
"Verity" is just another word for 'truth'; let's call a spade, a spade, please...

So, "absolute truth most closely represents 'truth'(verity)". Do you always talk in circles? What do you mean by 'truth'? Without this definition, your statement relays no meaning,'representation' or rational thought.

"...considered by many..."

Fallacy of appealing to the masses, or authority, depending on who you mean by "many". Justify your claims, please. I have taken the time to respond to inquiries regarding my ontological stance, please return the favor.

Overall Comment: How about some clarity? I read a lot of gibberish that seems convoluted. Let's start by defining 'truth','exist' and 'absolute' in CLEAR, CONCISE, CONSISTENT and OBJECTIVE terms. Then you can defend your comments as a rational, RELEVANT claim, as I still don't understand why you would have different ontological categories for something that doesn't exist... but does exist, but doesn't....
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#115 Jan 28, 2013
kissmegoodnite wrote:
A particularly confusing absolute truth in state form (but good for example) is:
Absolute truth cannot be a lie.
Some interpret this to mean:
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
But that refers specifically to the action form of absolute truth. Others interpret it as:
Absolute truth statements cannot be lies.
But that refers specifically to the state form of absolute truth. The original statement can be interpreted as either the state or action form. In the state form the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either way the statement is an absolute truth in state form.
A potential example of absolute truth in action form is:
The words you are reading exist because of absolute truths in action form supporting their ability to exist.
ATTENTIVE readers will recognize the previous statement as an absolute truth in state form describing absolute truth in action form. Whether or not the statement is true is left as an exercise for the reader.
"A particularly confusing..."

You can say that, again!

"Action form"... "state form"... "absolute truth"... "universal truth",... "metaphysical truth"... Where are the clear, concise, consistent definitions for these various terms? You have only provided one, so far, and it has been found wanting. Please organize your thoughts and reiterate for clarity. Speaking in tongues is reserved for the Pentecostals...

"In the state form the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either way the statement is an absolute truth in state form."

Now it makes perfect sense... absolute truth can have the ontological nature of both truth and not-truth. Really...

"A potential example..."

Its either an example or not... this is just another ACTUAL example of philosophical sophistry at work. Terms used to obfuscate and misdirect, logic that contradicts itself, and hypothetical instances that demonstrate nothing...

"The words you are reading exist..."

I thought you said you know the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT? You must also know, ONLY objects can possibly exist. Words are NOT objects. They are concepts! Concepts CANNOT exist. The words I am reading and writing are visible marks systematically arranged to represent their audible counterparts and convey meaning.

"Whether or not the statement is true is left as an exercise for the reader."

Your analysis is absolutely-kinda-maybe-hypothe tically-obtuse,... for now. And if you stare at the words long enough, you can see a sailboat!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#118 Jan 29, 2013
Humblebee wrote:
Hithere -
Elaborate on what?
Have you 'discovered' the proof of existence? You might want to publish. I think several science and philosophy journals would take your entry....
Or maybe you should keep the number for Arkham on the refrigerator door, just in case you forget how to use speed-dial...
Here I thought you INFERRED the existence of your Head and Shoulders shampoo bottle when you grabbed it and poured it in your hand.
Inference and proof are two different beasts. One deals with inferential logic (inference), and proof deals with deductive logic. This is basic logic and we are getting WAY off topic...
We're supposed to be discussing the ontology of 'absolute truth', not the epistemology of objects.
Epistemology is the field philosophers go into after getting a B- in Metaphysics and a C+ in Logic...
Perhaps you can demonstrate your proof for the existence of an object? How about proving I exist. Maybe just the computer in front of you.
Any of these would be acceptable. But I think what you will do is refer back to your subjective sensory system. "Look, I can see it, feel it, touch it... therefore it is proven to exist". This is NOT a valid deductive argument. And ONLY valid deductive arguments, where the premises are 'true', can demonstrate 'proof'.
Many people spend a tremendous amount of time DOING logic, without understanding WHAT logic is. Perhaps a refresher course would be enlightening.
You said you had a 'ton of questions, but wanted to wait until after my 'existence' post to ask them'. Now's the time to ask.
Cheers!
Humblebee,

Regardless of my senses, my shampoo bottle (along with the shampoo inside it) exists because it has a state of being, not because it can be felt - or even has spacial separation; can you feel someone else's heartache - or is it an object? Of course not. But it exists nonetheless.

It's state of being is 'proof' that is exists; our knowledge of it's state of being is evidence to our subjective senses (if I can say it that way) that it exists.

If you really believe that nothing can be proven to exist, then I think anyone can say "you can't prove your car exists", and you would agree...

...or worse...in a court of law you can't have a murder without a murder weapon. If someone were to claim that it can't be proven that the murder weapon exists - I'm afraid you would agree.

As much as I've enjoyed talking with you, Humble, I don't think any of the questions I had are now relevant. We can scratch them.:)

Enjoy your week.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#119 Jan 29, 2013
The Holy Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#120 Jan 29, 2013
Dr. REALITY,

Once again, your piercing insight has devastated any RATIONAL explanation. Thank you for your diatribe. But let's let the thinkers work this one out...

Hitherepeople,

'State of being'= PHYSICAL PRESENCE

'Existence'= PHYSICAL PRESENCE

therefore, according to YOUR criteria, something exists because it exists... Sure you aren't in cahoots with Nurse Betty, above?

This is EXACTLY the kind of circular definitions OBJECTIVE analysis avoids. Shape is the ONLY innate, intrinsic, objective property an object can have. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

If you have another definition for existence and object that is clear (unambiguous), concise (relevant scope) and consistent (non-contradictory), then please provide them in the spaces below:

OBJECT :_________

EXIST :_________

If you cannot, or even if you cannot demonstrate why the definitions I have provided lack sufficient objectivity, then we are have no other option but to accept them.

"...can you feel someone else's heartache - or is it an object?..."

Now we are waxing poetic?!? Do you think metaphors are "real"? The very definition of 'metaphor' is that it is NOT "real"... Perhaps a refresher in literature, as well as logic, would be appropriate.

What you are 'describing' is empathy. It is a CONCEPT! The definition of 'empathy' is the imaginative projection of a SUBJECTIVE state. There is no "real" connection, but various chemical interactions in YOUR body that you perceive to be the 'same' chemical reactions in the other person.

Are you just being obtuse? Have you read any of the posts I submitted?

"... But it exists nonetheless."

No it doesn't... We've gone over this. If you have different definitions for the KEY TERMS I have used in my analysis, please provide them.

"It's state of being is 'proof' that is exists..."

'It's (existence) is 'proof' that i(t) exists..." You are talking in circles again.

Let's be clear. Define "proof". Then provide the criteria that is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate an object's existence.

Remember, defining 'existence' is not the same as proving an object's existence.

"...If you really believe that nothing can be proven to exist..."

Who said anything about belief? I provided rational analysis. YOU are the one who "BELIEVES" an object can be proven to exist. I said 'we infer its existence from associations with other objects'.

I will ask you for a SECOND time, please provide YOUR definitions and PROOF for an object's existence. No BEGGING THE QUESTION or CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS. They are not sound or valid.

"...in a court of law..."

This requires YOU to understand the legal definition of 'evidence', which you apparently are completely unfamiliar with. Please educate yourself. Coffee-shop philosophy only impresses high school cheerleaders...

When evidence is presented in court, it is merely tagged (named) and illustrated, never proven to exist. If the defense attorney demanded the prosecution to first 'prove' the gun, marked as exhibit A, exists before submitting it as evidence, the judge would have their bar number revoked.

Instead, prosecution uses associations like finger prints and ballistics to demonstrate the weapon used as evidence against the defendant was the same weapon used in the crime.

Objects are only named and illustrated, they are never proven to exist. Their existence is ASSUMED and INFERRED as the entities mediating associations with other entities. The onus is on YOU to provide your PROOF.
Humblebee

Sparks, NV

#121 Jan 29, 2013
Hithere,

This notion of being able to prove an object's existence is a trap, BOTH religionists and atheists claim, but the 'beliefs' can never be substantiated.

The religionist can 'prove' God exists. Therefore, it is 'true' that God exists. The atheist can also 'prove' God doesn't exist. Therefore it is 'true' that God doesn't exist. Can both claims resolve to the world? I don't think so...

Both parties deal with PROOFS and TRUTHS. This is why philosophers and scientists alike do not address the issues; both terms are cardinal in systems of BELIEF. As belief, they resolve to nothing more than OPINION. Philosophers and scientists leave opinion to pollsters and gossip-hounds.

Anyway, we should probably start a different thread to address this new issue of existence, as it seems we have resolved the issue that 'absolute truth' does not exist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min New Age Spiritual... 980,285
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Robert F 670,462
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 26 min New Age Spiritual... 100,875
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Sky Writer 31 184,298
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr RiversideRedneck 445,661
News Obama Dozed - People Froze AKA Obama's Katrina (Feb '09) 4 hr Jaydon 2,068
AT&T is run by a bunch of crooks who should be ... (Dec '14) 5 hr ATT and Verizon S... 8
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 19 hr Rob Ford Sr 286,457
More from around the web