there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

[PratchettFan]

I don't need to establish what simple words like "know" mean, that's frivolous and non sensical because words are how we communicate and if we don't agree on their definitions then we are not even communicating and you have just said NOTHING.

If you dispute the very well established English meanings of the words that I used in the phrase "if you are not all knowing, then that is something you can know with certainty" - then you can begin to take apart the logic of the statement itself.

But if you do not dispute the established English meanings of said words, you cannot dispute the logic of the phrase therein either.

My statement is true and supported, irrefutable[/B] in fact. You have not done so, and you have not even ARGUED the meaning of the words.

Now we are talking about the meaning of words. I thought we were talking about truth, about which I believe you said, "An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is." Now it no longer is "just is" but is dependent upon "established English meanings", which of course is not an appeal to authority because that would be a fallacy and you can't have committed a fallacy - by definition.

I do not and have not disputed the meaning. I simply have not accepted it. You are making the claim, prove it. Prove that the established English meaning is correct. Until you have done that - garbage in, garbage out.

 

[PratchettFan]

For example, this discussion does not even exist and neither does the WORD logic if we do not first agree that words have established meanings...

so for the discussion to continue and to get over the frivolity of discussing whether words describe reality or not, either dispute the established meanings of the words therein or leave the discussion because if you don't then you are saying: nothing, and can NEVER say anything meaningful by the very virtue of that worldview.

So now the truth is dependent upon our ability to say something meaningful? It seems to be getting less and less absolute the further we go.

 

[G.T.]

I don't need to establish what simple words like "know" mean, that's frivolous and non sensical because words are how we communicate and if we don't agree on their definitions then we are not even communicating and you have just said NOTHING.

If you dispute the very well established English meanings of the words that I used in the phrase "if you are not all knowing, then that is something you can know with certainty" - then you can begin to take apart the logic of the statement itself.

But if you do not dispute the established English meanings of said words, you cannot dispute the logic of the phrase therein either.

My statement is true and supported, irrefutable[/B] in fact. You have not done so, and you have not even ARGUED the meaning of the words.

Now we are talking about the meaning of words. I thought we were talking about truth, about which I believe you said, "An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is." Now it no longer is "just is" but is dependent upon "established English meanings", which of course is not an appeal to authority because that would be a fallacy and you can't have committed a fallacy - by definition.

I do not and have not disputed the meaning. I simply have not accepted it. You are making the claim, prove it. Prove that the established English meaning is correct. Until you have done that - garbage in, garbage out.

No, it is not dependent on the meanings of the words -

its communication is dependent on the meaning of the words


Not its existence.

I don't have to prove the meaning of a word is correct - it is either agreed upon or it is not, that is the crux of how we communicate. If you cannot establish/agree upon the meanings of words, you cannot communicate thus you cannot relay an absolute truth.

But I can agree upon the established meanings of words as a form of communication, and through such I communicated an absolute truth.

 

[PratchettFan]

all means: the whole of, the greatest possible
know / knowing means: to perceive or understand as fact or truth

if you do not debate those definitions, the logic I have used is sound
if you debate those definitions, then your worldview cannot establish itself and it is frivolous because it cannot even begin to communicate itself, necessarily.

That is the folly of the "words don't have established meanings" debate.

The comment is sound logic.

Once again, you fail to understand the nature of logic. So we shall go back to Logic 101

If A = B, then B = A. And the converse If A ~ B, then B ~ A. Two ways of saying the same thing.

If a prophet is one who carries a message from God and I am a prophet, then I carry a message from God.
If one who is omniscient knows everything and I do not know everything, then I am not omniscient.

Those are two statements which are basic logical statements and both are equally correct, in terms of logic. Logic, as I have said, is a tool. It allows you to arrive at conclusions through a set of rules, it does not validate the facts.

If you claim the facts of statement two do not need to be validated because they are true by definition, then requiring the facts of statement one to be validated just because you do not like the conclusion is violating your own rules. If I have to prove I am a prophet, then you have to prove you are not omniscient. Either both need to be validated or neither does.

BTW, you still have not connected this to any deity.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't need to establish what simple words like "know" mean, that's frivolous and non sensical because words are how we communicate and if we don't agree on their definitions then we are not even communicating and you have just said NOTHING.

If you dispute the very well established English meanings of the words that I used in the phrase "if you are not all knowing, then that is something you can know with certainty" - then you can begin to take apart the logic of the statement itself.

But if you do not dispute the established English meanings of said words, you cannot dispute the logic of the phrase therein either.

My statement is true and supported, irrefutable[/B] in fact. You have not done so, and you have not even ARGUED the meaning of the words.

Now we are talking about the meaning of words. I thought we were talking about truth, about which I believe you said, "An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is." Now it no longer is "just is" but is dependent upon "established English meanings", which of course is not an appeal to authority because that would be a fallacy and you can't have committed a fallacy - by definition.

I do not and have not disputed the meaning. I simply have not accepted it. You are making the claim, prove it. Prove that the established English meaning is correct. Until you have done that - garbage in, garbage out.

No, it is not dependent on the meanings of the words -

its communication is dependent on the meaning of the words


Not its existence.

I don't have to prove the meaning of a word is correct - it is either agreed upon or it is not, that is the crux of how we communicate. If you cannot establish/agree upon the meanings of words, you cannot communicate thus you cannot relay an absolute truth.

But I can agree upon the established meanings of words as a form of communication, and through such I communicated an absolute truth.

And finally we come to the real argument. "It is true because I say so."

 

[G.T.]

BTW, you still have not connected this to any deity.

No, I'm connecting it to theists who claim that in order for there to be any absolutes, a deity must exist.

That an all knowing entity would have to know that it's all knowing is an absolute - an absolute that remains independent of whether or not a deity exists.

 

[G.T.]

Now we are talking about the meaning of words. I thought we were talking about truth, about which I believe you said, "An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is." Now it no longer is "just is" but is dependent upon "established English meanings", which of course is not an appeal to authority because that would be a fallacy and you can't have committed a fallacy - by definition.

I do not and have not disputed the meaning. I simply have not accepted it. You are making the claim, prove it. Prove that the established English meaning is correct. Until you have done that - garbage in, garbage out.

No, it is not dependent on the meanings of the words -

its communication is dependent on the meaning of the words


Not its existence.

I don't have to prove the meaning of a word is correct - it is either agreed upon or it is not, that is the crux of how we communicate. If you cannot establish/agree upon the meanings of words, you cannot communicate thus you cannot relay an absolute truth.

But I can agree upon the established meanings of words as a form of communication, and through such I communicated an absolute truth.

And finally we come to the real argument. "It is true because I say so."

It is true because all knowingness precludes not knowing.

 

[G.T.]

Now we are talking about the meaning of words. I thought we were talking about truth, about which I believe you said, "An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is." Now it no longer is "just is" but is dependent upon "established English meanings", which of course is not an appeal to authority because that would be a fallacy and you can't have committed a fallacy - by definition.

I do not and have not disputed the meaning. I simply have not accepted it. You are making the claim, prove it. Prove that the established English meaning is correct. Until you have done that - garbage in, garbage out.

No, it is not dependent on the meanings of the words -

its communication is dependent on the meaning of the words


Not its existence.

I don't have to prove the meaning of a word is correct - it is either agreed upon or it is not, that is the crux of how we communicate. If you cannot establish/agree upon the meanings of words, you cannot communicate thus you cannot relay an absolute truth.

But I can agree upon the established meanings of words as a form of communication, and through such I communicated an absolute truth.

And finally we come to the real argument. "It is true because I say so."

BTW - This is not an actual response to the words you quoted.

It doesn't even have a meaning. Prove that it does.

 

[rdean]

there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

any deity?

 

[G.T.]

there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

any deity?

Yes, any deity.

 

[G.T.]

The cornball theorem of words have no established meanings is rich irony on a message board where we communicate with words.

The ridiculousness of such an act is only matched by those goldfish that actually enjoy swimming in toilets.

 

[G.T.]

pizza was cold in the Wednesday under the flush

lobster down up the color jump

 

[PratchettFan]

BTW, you still have not connected this to any deity.

No, I'm connecting it to theists who claim that in order for there to be any absolutes, a deity must exist.

That an all knowing entity would have to know that it's all knowing is an absolute - an absolute that remains independent of whether or not a deity exists.

Which theists are you talking about?

 

[ZenBubba]

You cannot know that of me but you can know that of yourself.

But if I can't know it of you, then what makes it an absolute truth?

An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is.

I'll also posit to you that you can arrive at an absolute truth: you are or are not omniscient.

You (personally) can & do know that absolutely.

It may be an absolute truth but what can we glean from it?

It is also an absolute truth that you are not a tomato. So what?

 

[G.T.]

BTW, you still have not connected this to any deity.

No, I'm connecting it to theists who claim that in order for there to be any absolutes, a deity must exist.

That an all knowing entity would have to know that it's all knowing is an absolute - an absolute that remains independent of whether or not a deity exists.

Which theists are you talking about?

Ones that I've had discussion with, also ones on youtube debates.

If you're not one of them, don't worry about it. It doesn't mean you're any less special to me in my heart.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it is not dependent on the meanings of the words -

its communication is dependent on the meaning of the words


Not its existence.

I don't have to prove the meaning of a word is correct - it is either agreed upon or it is not, that is the crux of how we communicate. If you cannot establish/agree upon the meanings of words, you cannot communicate thus you cannot relay an absolute truth.

But I can agree upon the established meanings of words as a form of communication, and through such I communicated an absolute truth.

And finally we come to the real argument. "It is true because I say so."

It is true because all knowingness precludes not knowing.

So you say. Prove it. What exactly is this "all" you refer to?

 

[G.T.]

But if I can't know it of you, then what makes it an absolute truth?

An absolute truth doesn't need to be known or unknown to be absolute, it just is.

I'll also posit to you that you can arrive at an absolute truth: you are or are not omniscient.

You (personally) can & do know that absolutely.

It may be an absolute truth but what can we glean from it?

It is also an absolute truth that you are not a tomato. So what?

It's not an absolute truth that I am not a tomato though.

Is it possible we do not know everything about tomatoes?
Is it possible that I am in a virtual reality which convinces me that it's actual reality?
If this is not actual reality, could I be a tomato in actual reality?

Can we say with 100% accuracy without omniscience or infallibility that I am not a tomato? I don't think so. It's very VERY unlikely that I am, but I cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain.

 

[G.T.]

And finally we come to the real argument. "It is true because I say so."

It is true because all knowingness precludes not knowing.

So you say. Prove it. What exactly is this "all" you refer to?

Are you moving from words have no established meanings, to attempting to establish meanings with me?

I mean, it's a step in the right direction for the sake of having a conversation but are you wasting my time though is the question.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I'm connecting it to theists who claim that in order for there to be any absolutes, a deity must exist.

That an all knowing entity would have to know that it's all knowing is an absolute - an absolute that remains independent of whether or not a deity exists.

Which theists are you talking about?

Ones that I've had discussion with, also ones on youtube debates.

If you're not one of them, don't worry about it. It doesn't mean you're any less special to me in my heart.

An argument with people who aren't arguing.

I believe you were asked which deity and you responded any deity, so let's take the one nearest and dearest to the hearts of western atheists - Jehovah. I refer you to the story of Sodom. Abraham asks God not to destroy the city if they can find 100 just men (I think that was the number, forgive me if I do not look that up). So God sends in a couple of angels to check it out. If Jehovah were omniscient, why would he have to have it checked out?

So, taking the story at face value, Jehovah is not all knowing - based upon the facts as provided and not some definition. Remember what I said, if the definition does not reflect reality it is the definition which is wrong and not reality. We have a creator of the universe, upon which all things in the universe are dependent, who is not all knowing.

How does that fit into your argument?

 

[Capstone]

Language is mathematics. Words and phrases (read: equations) are only meaningful on the basis of the values we've ascribed to them, many of which are variable; and while it's true that those values have been widely established, it's the variables that are often said to compromise the objectivity of truth claims and other concepts rightly or wrongly presented as statements of fact.

I suppose the pertinent question would be: does our agreement on the meanings of certain sounds and written symbols amount to the establishment of "absolute truth"?

That's a tough one.