We Must ALL Agree (part 1)

[rossum]

All instances of truth are absolute truths.

I disagree with you here. If what you say is correct than “absolute” is redundant since all truths are absolute truths. Since I accept the existence of contingent truths, which are true, but not absolute, I cannot agree with you.

To be true, they must be absolutely true within the bounds of how they are true.

Being true within bounds make a truth contingent - the bounds are the contingency. An absolute truth has no bounds, being true in all times, places and circumstances.

An absolute truth is NOT an exhaustively described truth. It is merely a truth that can not be shown to be false.

A truth with bounds can be shown to be false outside those bounds. Hence the falsity of that truth is true within its own bounds (the inverse of the bounds of the original truth). By your definition that is also an absolute truth. Hence the same statement can be absolutely true and absolutely false at the same time. I do not like your definition of absolute truth.

The truth is that my statement that the sun was there for me to see (which I did see) is an absolute truth, because you can’t show it to be false, because the “bounds” of that truth are such that it is impossible for you to do so.

Undisprovability is not a criterion of truth: “the world was created last Thursday with the perfect appearance of age” is undisprovable. Does that make it either true or absolutely true? The same is true of the obviously heretical statement “the world was created last Tuesday with the perfect appearance of age”. Are you saying that both of these are true because neither can be disproved? I hope not.

rossum

 

[Mirdath]

The gods.

They are agreed to “symbols”, AND quite unknowable qua “gods” (as such, since “gods” don’t exist as they are really demons).

Gods aren’t symbols. They don’t represent, they are or are not – yours included.

Relative and unknowable things are symbols (agreements) which can’t be proved to be what they symbolize.

Hm. Good answer – I suppose language would fall into this category.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
All instances of truth are absolute truths.

I disagree with you here. If what you say is correct than “absolute” is redundant since all truths are absolute truths. Since I accept the existence of contingent truths, which are true, but not absolute, I cannot agree with you.

I agree with you that, using your definitions, there is only one absolute truth. (Being “all that is”.)

The “absolute” in “absolute truth” as I use it is indeed just a redundancy. A truth is either true, or not true, in reality.

“Contingent truths” I call “instantial descriptions”. An example would be, “trees are green”. That is “a description” which is true contingent on the type of tree being described.

But that trees are trees is a truth.

Quote:
To be true, they must be absolutely true within the bounds of how they are true.

Being true within bounds make a truth contingent - the bounds are the contingency. An absolute truth has no bounds, being true in all times, places and circumstances.

Here’s where we agree:

Symbolic language forces us to confine the scope (domain?) of what we are trying to communicate, to a particular “band width”, and since this makes it impossible to FULLY describe ANYTHING, regardless of that thing’s “truth value”, if one equates “full description of phenomenon” with “absolute truth” then there is no such thing as “absolute truth”.

Of course, that is a statement OF absolute truth, so I’ve just made a fool of myself, yet again!

Quote:
An absolute truth is NOT an exhaustively described truth. It is merely a truth that can not be shown to be false.

A truth with bounds can be shown to be false outside those bounds.

That is like saying that a horse is not a horse because I can also describe it as a mammal!

Hence the falsity of that truth is true within its own bounds (the inverse of the bounds of the original truth).

Which is an absolute truth! It is absolutely true that truths can be untrue when removed from their context. That is why specifying the context is important!

By your definition that is also an absolute truth. Hence the same statement can be absolutely true and absolutely false at the same time. I do not like your definition of absolute truth.

You seem to think that two truths claimed to be truths who are only truths within their individual contexts somehow NEGATE each other AS truths (within their individual contexts).

What is that “same statement” that I said which you claim to be simultaneously absolutely true and absolutely false?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The truth is that my statement that the sun was there for me to see (which I did see) is an absolute truth, because you can’t show it to be false, because the “bounds” of that truth are such that it is impossible for you to do so.

Undisprovability is not a criterion of truth: “the world was created last Thursday with the perfect appearance of age” is undisprovable.

Quite true! Truth is that which actually happens. Since the world was NOT creaed last Thursday with the perfect appearance of age", which we know ONLY because divine revelation says specifically that it wasn’t (there is NO other way to prove it), it is not a truth because it didn’t happen.

1+1=2 is a truth, because every time that equation is invoked, it HAPPENS.

Does that make it either true or absolutely true? The same is true of the obviously heretical statement “the world was created last Tuesday with the perfect appearance of age”. Are you saying that both of these are true because neither can be disproved? I hope not.

The statement is false (untrue) because it didn’t happen, though it IS falsifiable. How do we know, how is it falsifiable? See the above logic.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
The gods.

They are agreed to “symbols”, AND quite unknowable qua “gods” (as such, since “gods” don’t exist as they are really demons).

Gods aren’t symbols. They don’t represent, they are or are not – yours included.

Gods are created by humans as symbols, and then those symbols are “hijacked” by demons (and angels) who use them to lead humans around by “attraction” (concupiscence).

Quote:
Relative and unknowable things are symbols (agreements) which can’t be proved to be what they symbolize.

Hm. Good answer – I suppose language would fall into this category.

Do you mean that the ambiguity of NATURAL language (being very fuzzy), as opposed to mathematical language (being VERY sharp), is an example of symbols which can’t be proved to be what they symbolize?

That I would agree with, with the proviso that it’s possible to continually narrow the meaning of words (or invent new words) so as to approach mathematical language, to the extent that teh subject matter allows.

(( For example, “God-stuff” tends to not allow a very narrow scope as compared to mathematics. ))

 

[Mirdath]

Gods are created by humans as symbols, and then those symbols are “hijacked” by demons (and angels) who use them to lead humans around by “attraction” (concupiscence).

That gods are created I do not disagree with, but they are created as explanations, not as representatives. They symbolize nothing: Thor does not mean lightning, he makes it. Shiva does not represent Death, he is that which turns out the lights and locks the doors.

Your own God I do not excuse from this as you do, although being that I do not believe in angels and demons either I highly doubt any are ‘behind the curtain’ speaking with the voices of Jehovah, Brahma, and Zeus.

Do you mean that the ambiguity of NATURAL language (being very fuzzy), as opposed to mathematical language (being VERY sharp), is an example of symbols which can’t be proved to be what they symbolize?

The ambiguity of, say, the English language, particularly in matters of grammar and style. I think it qualifies as ‘most unnatural’

That I would agree with, with the proviso that it’s possible to continually narrow the meaning of words (or invent new words) so as to approach mathematical language, to the extent that teh subject matter allows.

Yes, but it’s an asymptotic approach – anybody who’s taken a bit of calculus can tell you you can get really close but you’ll never really be there.

Of course, this moves us into territory that’s so far up the ivory tower as to be entirely useless

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Gods are created by humans as symbols, and then those symbols are “hijacked” by demons (and angels) who use them to lead humans around by “attraction” (concupiscence).

That gods are created I do not disagree with, but they are created as explanations, not as representatives. They symbolize nothing: Thor does not mean lightning, he makes it. Shiva does not represent Death, he is that which turns out the lights and locks the doors.

Thor was created to represent “Thor-like manliness”.

Shiva was created to represent the “Holy-**** (doo-doo) what a ***** (girl doggie)!” powers of destruction.

No. Gods are representations of whole collections of “aspects” of man which are echoed by various forces of nature.

Thor was not created to “explain” lightning and thunder and storms. He was created as a super-dude representation of manly wrath which was echoed by the powers of the storm.

Your own God I do not excuse from this as you do, although being that I do not believe in angels and demons either I highly doubt any are ‘behind the curtain’ speaking with the voices of Jehovah, Brahma, and Zeus.

That’s understandable, as you don’t know what “God” means.

God is not a representation of any human aspects. He is often poetically described that way, but the ineffable quality of God, and His utter omnipotence, should be a hint at the difference between gods and God.

Brahma is “the cursed creator”. Zeus is an egotistical bastard husband and father.

 

[Mirdath]

Thor was created to represent “Thor-like manliness”.

(snip)

Gods are representations of whole collections of “aspects” of man which are echoed by various forces of nature.

I see it oppositely: such, ah, manly virtues as displayed by Thor are his by right of being, as Old Thunder, the very spirit of the loud, the strong, and the obnoxious.

Why would the Norse come up with a whole new god to represent manliness when they had an entire pantheon of grim, frostbitten, mightily-bearded, mead-chugging, horned-hat-wearing paragons of virility already? You’re making this stuff up to fit your own preconceptions. Why do you think people need to worship symbols?

That’s understandable, as you don’t know what “God” means.

I have as good an understanding of what divinity means as an average human being can hope to – at least in Abrahamic, classical, animist, and some neopagan contexts. I’m less clear on some of the eastern religions.

Be careful who you accuse of ignorance. Of course, there’s a chance that nothing I say will stop you because I find all these ideas of divinity unacceptably deficient; but you seem reasonable enough to understand that knowledge doesn’t mean buy-in.

God is not a representation of any human aspects. He is often poetically described that way, but the ineffable quality of God, and His utter omnipotence, should be a hint at the difference between gods and God.

Brahma is “the cursed creator”. Zeus is an egotistical bastard husband and father.

I agree completely. And since you see fit to judge other ideas of the divine, allow me to dissect yours. The Christian God is terribly lacking when held up to your own standard: a self-admittedly jealous, bloodthirsty dictator with an accountability problem – what could be more representative of humanity? Later theologians have realized this and valiantly attempted to compensate for it but there is no hiding the ugliness of this being which is no God.

 

[Americanrevert]

Hello,

by cats n dogs

Huh!? Please show me how YOU’D pull off that clever bit of mathematics? Your definition of “can equal” seems just a BIT faulty, as far as I can tell.

**
Heard of algebra? **

 

[rossum]

1+1=2 is a truth, because every time that equation is invoked, it HAPPENS.

Not every time, in binary that equation is meaningless - the closest equivalent is 1 + 1 = 10. Yet another contringent truth.

The statement is false (untrue) because it didn’t happen, though it IS falsifiable. How do we know, how is it falsifiable? See the above logic.

Last Thursdayism in unfalsifiable because it requires the perfect appearance of age. Any tests we can do cannot distinguish between an old world and a world created last Thursday with the perfect appearance of being old. Unfalsifiability is not a good criterion. A better one is that the statement is testable and has passed all the tests.

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

WOuld you guys say that within a defined set of parameters, there can be absolute truth?

 

[tGette]

WOuld you guys say that within a defined set of parameters, there can be absolute truth?

Thanks be to God for this post!

And thank you ralphinal!

Remember the title of the thread:
“We Must ALL Agree (part 1)”

We’ll never get to part 2 if we cannot agree on something fundamental.
**
Let’s sum it up:**
Is there an absolute truth? (One…)
Are there absolute truths? (…or many?)

Either there is or there is not?
Which means, a “YES or NO” answer.
(Though I know answers will not be so straight forward)

 

[rossum]

WOuld you guys say that within a defined set of parameters, there can be absolute truth?

For me, no. The existence of the parameters make the truth contingent on the parameters and hence a contingent truth and not an absolute truth.

rossum

 

[tGette]

There may well be an absolute truth, but we can never absolutely know that we have reached it. I tend to think of absolute truth as someting like an asymptote - we can approach extremely close to it be we never quite reach it.

rossum

So you are saying there is absolute truth (or truths [plural]) we can just never find them?

 

[tGette]

Is it not an absolute truth that we are here discussing the topic of truth?

 

[ralphinal]

Then a single red apple plus a single red apple is not two red apples.

 

[rossum]

So you are saying there is absolute truth (or truths [plural]) we can just never find them?

We may possibly find it/them, but we may not be able to distinguish them from the contingent truths we also see. As well as an absolute truth, we also need an absolute method to determine that a proposed absolute truth is actually absolute and not just a very close contingent truth. I am not aware of any such method.

Before we can solve the question of existence, we need to solve the problem of recognition. If we cannot recognise something then we can never determine whether or not it exists.

rossum

 

[tGette]

We may possibly find it/them, but we may not be able to distinguish them from the contingent truths we also see. As well as an absolute truth, we also need an absolute method to determine that a proposed absolute truth is actually absolute and not just a very close contingent truth. I am not aware of any such method.

Before we can solve the question of existence, we need to solve the problem of recognition. If we cannot recognise something then we can never determine whether or not it exists.

rossum

The is dodging the question though:

Regardless of whether we can find it or not:

Is there absolute truth?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Thor was created to represent “Thor-like manliness”.

(snip)

Gods are representations of whole collections of “aspects” of man which are echoed by various forces of nature.

I see it oppositely: such, ah, manly virtues as displayed by Thor are his by right of being, as Old Thunder, the very spirit of the loud, the strong, and the obnoxious.

Why would the Norse come up with a whole new god to represent manliness when they had an entire pantheon of grim, frostbitten, mightily-bearded, mead-chugging, horned-hat-wearing paragons of virility already?

The reason they invented Thor was because none of the other gods represented what Thor represented! (D’uh!?)

They were ALL invented to be “Big Superpowerful” people representing some (narrowish) collection of human traits which seemed to “map” onto various natural forces.

You’re making this stuff up to fit your own preconceptions. Why do you think people need to worship symbols?

People need to worship God, and if God is not known, due to ignorance of the importance of listening to natural law, or ignorance of divine revelation via the People of God, they “fit” various symbolic things into their inherent “God shaped hole” (which never quite fit properly, obviously) and worship them.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
That’s understandable, as you don’t know what “God” means.

I have as good an understanding of what divinity means as an average human being can hope to – at least in Abrahamic, classical, animist, and some neopagan contexts. I’m less clear on some of the eastern religions.

I’m not talking about what “divinity” means. I’m talking about what “God” means!

Once one understands what “God” means, the Church makes perfect sense in it’s coherence and “utility” (for want of a better term).

Be careful who you accuse of ignorance. Of course, there’s a chance that nothing I say will stop you because I find all these ideas of divinity unacceptably deficient; but you seem reasonable enough to understand that knowledge doesn’t mean buy-in.

If I understand the axiomatic premises of any particular religion, or any other type of knowledge for that matter, I can see the internal coherence (or not) of that “system” and agree with it’s adherents that it makes sense. That doesn’t mean that I must agree WITH the axiomatic basis of that system, though.

So, we agree. “Buy-in” in not necessary once understanding is achieved.

The problem is that many people simply WON’T (have a WILL not to) understand the axiomatic principles of some religions.

I fully accept that Thor is what Thor is to one who worships Thor!

But the axioms that explain Thor’s existence are not the same as the axioms that explain God’s existence, and therefore Thor and God can’t be compared as two differing instances of a single type of “thing”.