You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
This should be a no brainer. Any bets on how many fools try to deny absolute truth?
Not to get philosophical and all, but absolute, no, think of the tree falling in the woods thing
Not to get philosophical and all, but absolute, no, think of the tree falling in the woods thing
Answer the question. Yes or no. No qualifications. Just answer yes or no.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Grugore,
No.
Each of us perceives the world in a different way. And each of our perceptions is constantly changing. The first time you see something you form a mental picture of it. The longer you study it, the more details are filled in. Your first impression of something is not the same as your modified one. Sometimes, due to shortness of allowed time to gather details perhaps, we fill in details which are not there. Later, if we notice the difference, we correct the error with more accurate information. If we never notice the difference, we believe the incorrect detail is 'the truth.'
When two humans look at the same thing, they notice different details. The perception each has, thus differs.
If they both subsequently add the missing details, they both have the same perception. Generally, this rarely occurs.
Each individual's perception of the world is unique.
"Is there such a thing as absolute truth?"
No.
Each of us perceives the world in a different way. And each of our perceptions is constantly changing. The first time you see something you form a mental picture of it. The longer you study it, the more details are filled in. Your first impression of something is not the same as your modified one. Sometimes, due to shortness of allowed time to gather details perhaps, we fill in details which are not there. Later, if we notice the difference, we correct the error with more accurate information. If we never notice the difference, we believe the incorrect detail is 'the truth.'
When two humans look at the same thing, they notice different details. The perception each has, thus differs.
If they both subsequently add the missing details, they both have the same perception. Generally, this rarely occurs.
Each individual's perception of the world is unique.
Hello Grugore,
No.
Each of us perceives the world in a different way. And each of our perceptions is constantly changing. The first time you see something you form a mental picture of it. The longer you study it, the more details are filled in. Your first impression of something is not the same as your modified one. Sometimes, due to shortness of allowed time to gather details perhaps, we fill in details which are not there. Later, if we notice the difference, we correct the error with more accurate information. If we never notice the difference, we believe the incorrect detail is 'the truth.'
When two humans look at the same thing, they notice different details. The perception each has, thus differs.
If they both subsequently add the missing details, they both have the same perception. Generally, this rarely occurs.
Each individual's perception of the world is unique.
You are completely missing the point. Think about it. Something is either true or it is not. Ones perception has nothing to do with it.
Answer the question. Yes or no. No qualifications. Just answer yes or no.
In that case, no
In that case, no
Then why should I believe you? You believe your statement to be true, while stating that there is no truth. Do you see the problem?
You are completely missing the point. Think about it. Something is either true or it is not. Ones perception has nothing to do with it.
Not that simple, does God exist, a question beyond "is either true or it is not." What is liberty, freedom, all abstract concepts that transcend simple dialectical responses
Not that simple, does God exist, a question beyond "is either true or it is not." What is liberty, freedom, all abstract concepts that transcend simple dialectical responses
Once again, why should I believe you, if there is no truth?
Then why should I believe you? You believe your statement to be true, while stating that there is no truth. Do you see the problem?
Exactly, that is why philosophically absolute truth doesn't exist, which was the opening question, Solipsism contended all reality is created in the mind, but common sense, and deductive reasoning gives us a what might be refereed to as a consensus reality
Exactly, that is why philosophically absolute truth doesn't exist, which was the opening question, Solipsism contended all reality is created in the mind, but common sense, and deductive reasoning gives us a what might be refereed to as a consensus reality
I'm drinking an iced tea right now. I'm having a discussion with you about absolute truth. The screen on my smart phone is cracked and the screen is too small for my liking. All of these statements are demonstrably true.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Exactly, that is why philosophically absolute truth doesn't exist, which was the opening question, Solipsism contended all reality is created in the mind, but common sense, and deductive reasoning gives us a what might be refereed to as a consensus reality
You are attempting to use the same argument that Giuliani was referring to, and Atheist Humanists believe. Philosophy defines Absolute Truth as ""Inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares."
You want to use the three blind men describing an elephant by touching three different parts of the elephants body argument. All are correct for the particular part they are touching (perspective), and yet all are wrong.
Old Trapper
Verified User
I'm drinking an iced tea right now. I'm having a discussion with you about absolute truth. The screen on my smart phone is cracked and the screen is too small for my liking. All of these statements are demonstrably true.
Except for the limitation of your ability to prove them to be true. So, you have not proven an absolute truth, just what your limited abilities can prove via the medium being used.
You are attempting to use the same argument that Giuliani was referring to, and Atheist Humanists believe. Philosophy defines Absolute Truth as ""Inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares."
You want to use the three blind men describing an elephant by touching three different parts of the elephants body argument. All are correct for the particular part they are touching (perspective), and yet all are wrong.
No, Giuliani's attempt was superficial, right up there with the bogus "alternate facts" arguments
Your latter example is based upon inductive reasoning, not deductive, which indirectly leads to the point you are making, but to return to the opening post, the question was asked if absolute truth existed, which the answer is no, philosophically, the tree falling in the woods thing is accurate
Except for the limitation of your ability to prove them to be true. So, you have not proven an absolute truth, just what your limited abilities can prove via the medium being used.
I cannot prove anything, nevertheless it is the truth.
How about this? If I stab you with a knife, what happens? You bleed. This happens every single time, regardless of who is stabbed, or does the stabbing. If you break their skin, they bleed. This is an absolute truth. If you jump from a plane at an altitude of several thousand feet without a parachute, you will, most likely die. This is an absolute truth. If you are deprived of oxygen for an extended period of time, you will suffocate and die. This is an absolute truth. If you look at the sun for too long, without protection, you will go blind. This is an absolute truth. Should I go on?
Old Trapper
Verified User
No, Giuliani's attempt was superficial, right up there with the bogus "alternate facts" arguments
Your latter example is based upon inductive reasoning, not deductive, which indirectly leads to the point you are making, but to return to the opening post, the question was asked if absolute truth existed, which the answer is no, philosophically, the tree falling in the woods thing is accurate
Sorry, but your "tree falling in the woods" is in error. It can be scientifically proven that any falling object makes a noise. This is an "inflexible reality", and easily proven. Just because there is no device there to "hear" the noise does not mean it is non-existent.
The question asked was "does absolute truth exist", and until proven otherwise the answer is yes. Well, until you find a round square that is.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
How about this? If I stab you with a knife, what happens? You bleed. This happens every single time, regardless of who is stabbed, or does the stabbing. If you break their skin, they bleed. This is an absolute truth. If you jump from a plane at an altitude of several thousand feet without a parachute, you will, most likely die. This is an absolute truth. If you are deprived of oxygen for an extended period of time, you will suffocate and die. This is an absolute truth. If you look at the sun for too long, without protection, you will go blind. This is an absolute truth. Should I go on?
A dead man without blood, will not bleed. There have been cases of people falling from airplanes without parachutes from amazing altitudes who did not perish . You even added "most likely" to that one. People undergoing extreme hypothermia can go a long time without breathing and not die. Looking towards the sun on an overcast day will not cause blindness.
There are absolute truths but you have failed to exemplify even one here.
You fail miserably.
You are a doofus.
Sorry, but your "tree falling in the woods" is in error. It can be scientifically proven that any falling object makes a noise. This is an "inflexible reality", and easily proven. Just because there is no device there to "hear" the noise does not mean it is non-existent.
The question asked was "does absolute truth exist", and until proven otherwise the answer is yes. Well, until you find a round square that is.
The reason some deny the existence of absolute truth is because they reject the truth of God's existence and the truth that they will answer to Him someday. It scares the crap out of them, so they supress the truth. It allows them to sleep at night.
I cannot prove anything, nevertheless it is the truth.
lol
You don't recognize the absurdity of that statement?
Moron.