Is There An Absolute Truth? (moral, America, experience, moral)

[PureX]

Originally Posted by gnostic

I believe in absolute truth. What I don't believe in, is ultimate truth.

What would be an example of an absolute truth?

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

Sure it does. The definition of an absolute truth requires that it not be dependent upon or conditioned by an external criteria (not relative). In the case of "2+2=4", un-applied, it's a meaningless presumption. But the moment we apply it to something real, it's truthfulness becomes dependent upon the criteria of the application. Two 20 pound sheep do not equal two 30 pound sheep. Two adult sheep don't equal two newborn sheep. Two sheared sheep don't equal two unsheared sheep. In fact, depending upon how refined the criteria, no sheep has ever or will ever equal any other sheep. So the truthfulness of 2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep" is relative to the criteria being applied to the sheep. If no criteria but that they are "sheep" is applied, then the equation remains true. But if almost any other criteria is added, the equation is no longer true. A proposition that's truthfulness depends upon such external criteria can't by definition be absolutely true.

Ok yeah, so we are talking about something like the non-uniformity of the world on a specific scale. This doesn't mean the metaphysical equation "2+2=4" can't be absolute. If you can apply it to something in the real world (which you can, since you can make the definition of "sheep" broad enough to definitely include the sheep you want to include), then it is a metaphysical absolute at work in the real world.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

Ok yeah, so we are talking about something like the non-uniformity of the world on a specific scale. This doesn't mean the metaphysical equation "2+2=4" can't be absolute. If you can apply it to something in the real world (which you can, since you can make the definition of "sheep" broad enough to definitely include the sheep you want to include), then it is a metaphysical absolute at work in the real world.

I guess what I'm pointing out is that absoluteness can exists for us as an ideal, but it can't exist as a condition of reality as we experience it because our experience of reality is relative.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

I guess what I'm pointing out is that absoluteness can exists for us as an ideal, but it can't exist as a condition of reality as we experience it because our experience of reality is relative.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks. The interesting thing, though, is that we can't rule out the existence of absolutes, either. Infinity, for example, may well be a real condition. But we just can't tell, because we're finite.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

Thanks. The interesting thing, though, is that we can't rule out the existence of absolutes, either. Infinity, for example, may well be a real condition. But we just can't tell, because we're finite.

Yeah I agree on this as well; I said in my original reply to the OP:

Originally Posted by Stephen Mann, Stephen Mann, does whatever a spider can

It exists, but by its nature we can't know it

I personally believe that absolutes exist, but by the nature of consciousness and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we can't know them.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by PureX

What would be an example of an absolute truth?

Well, 1+1=2 is an example of absolute truth, but it is also a fact.

Male and female is absolute truth and fact.

Christians believes in Jesus as Saviour and Muhammad is the Muslims' prophet, can be both considered as absolute truths. But whether they are really the Messiah or prophet, is a matter of faith, not fact. It is their respective religious truths, but not necessarily everyone's idea of the truth, so in that case they are not absolute truths.

To me, truth is often subjective and coloured by one's perspective or belief, regardless if it actually true or not. That's why it can be true in one case, but not true in a different circumstance.

There is however, no ultimate truth. No religion can prove that God is the ultimate truth or ultimate reality, by the simple fact that not everyone believe in the same god, or in one god, or the same scripture, or believe in the same teaching. A Christian or Muslim may think there is a ultimate truth, but I think this more of his or her biased than anything else.

[mr.guy]

"Infinity, for example, may well be a real condition. But we just can't tell, because we're finite."

I wonder, purex and stemann, how either of you condone or manage absolute concepts, what with how frequently infinity gets juggled around here.

Do either of you recognize or imagine a reasonable "buffer" of interaction where one can play with the infinite without crawling too far out on a limb?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by gnostic

Well, 1+1=2 is an example of absolute truth, but it is also a fact.

(from post #30) "The definition of an absolute truth requires that it not be dependent upon or conditioned by an external criteria (ie: not relative). In the case of "2+2=4", un-applied, it's a meaningless presumption. But the moment we apply it to something real, it's truthfulness becomes dependent upon the criteria of the application. Two 20 pound sheep do not equal two 30 pound sheep. Two adult sheep don't equal two newborn sheep. Two sheared sheep don't equal two unsheared sheep. In fact, depending upon how refined the criteria, no sheep has ever or will ever equal any other sheep. So the truthfulness of "2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep" is relative to the criteria being applied to the sheep. If no criteria but that they are "sheep" is applied, then the equation remains true. But if almost any other criteria is added, the equation is no longer true. A proposition that's truthfulness depends upon such external criteria can't by definition be absolutely true."

The mathmatical equasion "1+1=2" is a meaningless proposition until it's been applied to something. But the moment it's applied, it's truthfulness becomes relative to the criteria of the application. Since an absolute truth cannot also be relative, this mathmatical proposition is not an absolute truth.

Originally Posted by gnostic

Male and female is absolute truth and fact.

The designant "male" is an idea defined by it's not being female, and likewise, the designant "female" is an idea defined by it's not being male. Both concepts are being defined relative to each other, and relative to other concepts of sexuality, and thus they can't be absolute.

Originally Posted by gnostic

Christians believes in Jesus as Saviour and Muhammad is the Muslims' prophet, can be both considered as absolute truths. But whether they are really the Messiah or prophet, is a matter of faith, not fact. It is their respective religious truths, but not necessarily everyone's idea of the truth, so in that case they are not absolute truths.

I agree. These are absolute ideals, as defined by those who hold them. They are absolute as ideals, but they cannot be applied to reality in any way that would verify their absolute truthfulness. So they remain absolutes in idea, only, and even then only to those who choose to accept them as such.

Originally Posted by gnostic

To me, truth is often subjective and coloured by one's perspective or belief, regardless if it actually true or not. That's why it can be true in one case, but not true in a different circumstance.

Yes. These are examples of subjective truths.

Originally Posted by gnostic

There is however, no ultimate truth.

If this were so, then it would be the "ultimate truth" itself, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by gnostic

No religion can prove that God is the ultimate truth or ultimate reality, by the simple fact that not everyone believe in the same god, or in one god, or the same scripture, or believe in the same teaching. A Christian or Muslim may think there is a ultimate truth, but I think this more of his or her biased than anything else.

The fact that what the religions claim to be the ultimate truth cannot be substantiated objectively doesn't make their claims untrue. It only makes their claims unprovable. "I don't know if it's so" does not equal "I know that it's not so"