there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. I have never said words have no meaning. I have said that I agree with your original comment, that reality is in no way dependent upon our ability to have meaning. It, as you said, just is. Meaning is entirely internal, truth is not. And this is about truth.

I can't say if I am wasting your time. You're having a discussion on a message board. There are those who would say that is automatically a waste of time - by definition . Only you can be the judge of that.

 

[G.T.]

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?

With all due respect, I'm not arguing whether or not Jehovah is all knowing, or what the bible says.

I'm arguing against actual people who posit that there is no absolute truth without a deity.

But TO YOUR paragraph above, whether or not god is all knowing does not change the fact that "all knowing" precludes a lack of knowledge, thus one cannot be both all knowing and NOT KNOW that they are all knowing - which does not speak to whether or not god is all knowing - - - - - -it speaks to there being absolute truths WITHOUT said god being necessary in the equation AT ALL.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Actually, my cornball theorem is that simply because we have established a meaning for a word does not make it true. For example:

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

That is the established meaning, does that make it true?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yes, because all that words are is a tool of communication - so it's a starting point to describing reality if we can agree on what the sounds or hand signals we are using actually mean.

The color red, for instance.

(leaving our differing SHADES of red aside for the sake of example, let's just go with red).


"Red" is a term used to describe a color. The establishment of the word to describe the certain color which we've all agreed it describes ..................... DOES NOT IN ANY WAY dictate whether the color itself exists as a truth, it only is the naming of said color and our way to communicate that color to each other and know which color the word "red" refers to.

If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

 

[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.

Actually, my cornball theorem is that simply because we have established a meaning for a word does not make it true. For example:

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

That is the established meaning, does that make it true?

It makes it truth that "it is the established meaning," it does not make it true that "god exists." Big difference.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

With all due respect, I'm not arguing whether or not Jehovah is all knowing, or what the bible says.

I'm arguing against actual people who posit that there is no absolute truth without a deity.

But TO YOUR paragraph above, whether or not god is all knowing does not change the fact that "all knowing" precludes a lack of knowledge, thus one cannot be both all knowing and NOT KNOW that they are all knowing - which does not speak to whether or not god is all knowing - - - - - -it speaks to there being absolute truths WITHOUT said god being necessary in the equation AT ALL.

I see. So if I follow your thinking here, if the universe is indeed a construct - that all of reality is entirely dependent upon a supreme being for its existence, that existence is irrelevant because if the universe did not exist then that too would be the truth.

However, if we take you earlier statement that the truth just is, is there truth in the absence of anything? To really bend language, how can something "just is" if there is nothing to "is"?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Actually, my cornball theorem is that simply because we have established a meaning for a word does not make it true. For example:

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

That is the established meaning, does that make it true?

It makes it truth that "it is the established meaning," it does not make it true that "god exists." Big difference.

So I have been saying and you have been arguing against.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, my cornball theorem is that simply because we have established a meaning for a word does not make it true. For example:

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

That is the established meaning, does that make it true?

It makes it truth that "it is the established meaning," it does not make it true that "god exists." Big difference.

So I have been saying and you have been arguing against.

Incorrect. You have been arguing the meanings of the words that I used, but using their established meanings would mean that the sentence is infallible. The definition of God does not magically make the sentence "god exists" infallible even USING the terms you used as their established definitions.

 

[Capstone]

...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"? ...

...If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

If "blue" were actually "red", then the notion formerly attributed with redness would have existed alright, but our descriptive language would not have comported to the "absolute truth" WRT the objective nature of that attribute. More plainly, the attribution would have been a falsehood, no matter how many people initially agreed to it.

That doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that certain statements happen to correspond to "absolute truth", because the ideal isn't limited to the so-called 'reality' we perceive empirically. The notion of truth itself is an abstract concept that may or may not apply to the things we perceive. Did David Blaine really penetrate the exterior window of some cafe with a standard playing card, as many people thought they witnessed on national television; or was 'the truth' derived from what escaped their perceptions (namely one of his cohorts inside the restaurant sticking the predetermined card to the interior side of the glass on cue)? The truth, in that case, is certainly not contingent on perceptions or the language we use to describe them.

That's where David Hume hit a wall, by the way.

So, how do we determine whether our statements on perceived reality correspond to the truths of objective reality? Maybe we can't.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Yes, because all that words are is a tool of communication - so it's a starting point to describing reality if we can agree on what the sounds or hand signals we are using actually mean.

The color red, for instance.

(leaving our differing SHADES of red aside for the sake of example, let's just go with red).


"Red" is a term used to describe a color. The establishment of the word to describe the certain color which we've all agreed it describes ..................... DOES NOT IN ANY WAY dictate whether the color itself exists as a truth, it only is the naming of said color and our way to communicate that color to each other and know which color the word "red" refers to.

If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

 

[PratchettFan]

It makes it truth that "it is the established meaning," it does not make it true that "god exists." Big difference.

So I have been saying and you have been arguing against.

Incorrect. You have been arguing the meanings of the words that I used, but using their established meanings would mean that the sentence is infallible. The definition of God does not magically make the sentence "god exists" infallible even USING the terms you used as their established definitions.

Either established meaning constitutes proof of truth or it does not. You can't say it is evidence for your conclusion and not for another. One set of rules for all.

 

[G.T.]

...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"? ...

...If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

If "blue" were actually "red", then the notion formerly attributed with redness would have existed alright, but our descriptive language would not have comported to the "absolute truth" WRT the objective nature of that attribute. More plainly, the attribution would have been a falsehood, no matter how many people initially agreed to it.

That doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that certain statements happen to correspond to "absolute truth", because the ideal isn't limited to the so-called 'reality' we perceive empirically. The notion of truth itself is an abstract concept that may or may not apply to the things we perceive. Did David Blaine really penetrate the exterior window of some cafe with a standard playing card, as many people thought they witnessed on national television; or was 'the truth' derived from what escaped their perceptions (namely one of his cohorts inside the restaurant sticking the predetermined card to the interior side of the glass on cue)? The truth, in that case, is certainly not contingent on perceptions or the language we use to describe them.

That's where David Hume hit a wall, by the way.

So, how do we determine whether our statements on perceived reality correspond to the truths of objective reality? Maybe we can't.

When we agree upon what certain words mean, it has no bearing on reality except to create an established way to communicate it.

The object is neither red n'or blue, it simply has an attribute and red or blue is a term used to describe said attribute. The term we chose and what we chose to ascribe it to cannot be right or wrong, it is an abstract that we created ourselves in order to communicate.

Knowledge is a term we created to communicate something: all that is perceivable or learnable. Perceivable or learnable are also terms we created.

These terms cannot be right or wrong, they're simply descriptive terms we're using in order to advance the conversation. If we don't agree on their definitions, we can go from there - but if we do, then the statement that an all knowing being knows whether or not it is all knowing is absolute truth.

If truth and reality are abstracts and cannot even be established by human beings through reason, then there's no point in the conversation which gets back to the absurdity of having it.

 

[G.T.]

So I have been saying and you have been arguing against.

Incorrect. You have been arguing the meanings of the words that I used, but using their established meanings would mean that the sentence is infallible. The definition of God does not magically make the sentence "god exists" infallible even USING the terms you used as their established definitions.

Either established meaning constitutes proof of truth or it does not. You can't say it is evidence for your conclusion and not for another. One set of rules for all.

apples/oranges, I wouldn't waste any more time on this it's been answered. We are not using the same "rules," you are changing them with your statement of god. Figure it out.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yes, because all that words are is a tool of communication - so it's a starting point to describing reality if we can agree on what the sounds or hand signals we are using actually mean.

The color red, for instance.

(leaving our differing SHADES of red aside for the sake of example, let's just go with red).


"Red" is a term used to describe a color. The establishment of the word to describe the certain color which we've all agreed it describes ..................... DOES NOT IN ANY WAY dictate whether the color itself exists as a truth, it only is the naming of said color and our way to communicate that color to each other and know which color the word "red" refers to.

If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

thanks for proving my point

red does not exist, we created it to communicate that which exists

 

[PratchettFan]

...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"? ...

...If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

If "blue" were actually "red", then the notion formerly attributed with redness would have existed alright, but our descriptive language would not have comported to the "absolute truth" WRT the objective nature of that attribute. More plainly, the attribution would have been a falsehood, no matter how many people initially agreed to it.

That doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that certain statements happen to correspond to "absolute truth", because the ideal isn't limited to the so-called 'reality' we perceive empirically. The notion of truth itself is an abstract concept that may or may not apply to the things we perceive. Did David Blaine really penetrate the exterior window of some cafe with a standard playing card, as many people thought they witnessed on national television; or was 'the truth' derived from what escaped their perceptions (namely one of his cohorts inside the restaurant sticking the predetermined card to the interior side of the glass on cue)? The truth, in that case, is certainly not contingent on perceptions or the language we use to describe them.

That's where David Hume hit a wall, by the way.

So, how do we determine whether our statements on perceived reality correspond to the truths of objective reality? Maybe we can't.

Exactly. Which is why it is so dangerous to toss around phrases like "absolute truth". That is all fine and good when you are coming from a perspective of belief, where the insistence of knowledge is all that is required. But if you wish to claim your position is based upon logic and rational thought, then you need more than mere insistence. You need factual evidence.

 

[G.T.]

Factual evidence has been provided.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, because all that words are is a tool of communication - so it's a starting point to describing reality if we can agree on what the sounds or hand signals we are using actually mean.

The color red, for instance.

(leaving our differing SHADES of red aside for the sake of example, let's just go with red).


"Red" is a term used to describe a color. The establishment of the word to describe the certain color which we've all agreed it describes ..................... DOES NOT IN ANY WAY dictate whether the color itself exists as a truth, it only is the naming of said color and our way to communicate that color to each other and know which color the word "red" refers to.

If "blue" is actually "red," the color formerly described as red still existed and is true. The descriptive term is merely a tool but in no way changes the truth of the color.

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

thanks for proving my point

red does not exist, we created it to communicate that which exists

No. We created a word to give our environment meaning. But it in no way describe what actually exits. If anything, it describes an illusion.

 

[Capstone]

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

I suggest the wavelengths must objectively be there in order to be subjectively interpreted. The wavelengths compose the objective reality we describe as 'redness'. The existence of that objective reality is by no means contingent on our subjective interpretations of it. In other words: what the vast majority of humans would describe as red may well have objective autonomy outside of our perceptions of it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Factual evidence has been provided.

No. Just a definition and we have already established that a definition does not equate to truth.

 

[G.T.]

Factual evidence has been provided.

No. Just a definition and we have already established that a definition does not equate to truth.

Correct, the truth "just is" and the definitions of the words used merely described said truth, irrefutably in which case is in fact.