>Absolute truth doesn't exist
>Absolute truth statement claiming that absolute truth doesn't exist
>Contradictory
>Therefor it follows that, logically, absolute truth must exist
I'm not being a megamoron here right? Like missing something really obvious? In any case, I get the sense, a hunch if you will, that absolute truth would necessarily have to be God.
Discuss.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
this concept proves how fricking inane and pointless "philosophy" is
up there with the cat/buttered bread meme
The more I think about shit like this, the more I feel my sanity slipping. I should quit while I'm ahead.
>absolute truth would necessarily have to be God
If you define God that way
>I get the sense, a hunch if you will, that absolute truth would necessarily have to be God.
You are absolutely correct.
truth would necessarily have to be God
>If you define God that way
That's exactly the way Yeshuah (Jesus) described God. He made the statement, "I and my Father [God] are one" (John 10:30); and he described Himself, and therefore God, this way: "I am the Way, THE Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)
>the source of statements being truth-apt is some semitic desert demon who sends plagues on people who don't cut the tips of their wieners off
This is getting old.
It’s not that absolute truth doesn’t exist, but that “absolute truth” is an invalid concept in the first place, because truth is simply that which organisms use to survive. Truth is will to power. This is why different people have different beliefs, to cope in unique ways to give themselves the best chances of success. A weak person is more likely to be liberal, someone with an extreme fear of death (and low IQ) is more likely to be religious, etc. There is no actual way of verifying the truth. It is subject to a sort of selection process: beliefs that survive are true, and beliefs that die out are false. So how could a belief be absolutely true? It would necessarily be true for all organisms at all times, which makes no sense. Most organisms don’t even need conscious beliefs, and among organisms that have conscious beliefs, they contradict each other and are always being tested. Everything that I’m saying right now is MY truth, it is the way my brain analyzes the world so that I can make sense of it. You don’t need to accept my truth, you can have your own truth. That is because we are different organisms with slightly different needs and predispositions. I would only ever try to convince you of a truth being absolute if I wanted to make you believe it so that I could therefore manipulate your actions for my benefit. Truth is will to power.
>“absolute truth” is an invalid concept in the first place...
Nothing in your argument disproves the concept of absolute truth. In fact, at least part of your argument has nothing to do with truth, absolute or otherwise. Truth is not relative. A thing is either true or false; not somewhere in-between.
> A weak person is more likely to be liberal, someone with an extreme fear of death (and low IQ) is more likely to be religious, etc.
That isn't truth by any stretch of the imagination. It's "going along to get along"--survival instinct--even when the person knows that what he's going along with is false.
>There is no actual way of verifying the truth.
That's an asinine argument on several levels. In MANY cases, truth can absolutely be verified. In other cases, the preponderance of evidence proves a thing to be true.
For example: The truth of the book of Daniel in the Bible can be proven, particularly the chapter that describes Nebuchadnezzar's vision from God of the statue of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and iron mixed with clay. The statue symbolized the kingdom of Babylon and the world-dominant kingdoms that would come after Babylon all the way to the end of the world, namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Divided Rome, and the breaking up of the Roman Empire into smaller kingdoms (clay), but with Roman influence of the papacy (iron).
That vision came true to the letter, so far; and is still playing out today.
The Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, foretold by Daniel and other prophets have been proven to be truth by their fulfillment. Daniel foretold the exact year that Messiah would come into the world, begin His ministry, and be crucified and resurrected for the remission of sin and the redemption of those who recognized Him as the Messiah and followed Him.
Daniel's messianic prophecy proved to be absolutely true, as have the messianic prophecies of other Old Testament prophets.
Your argument does not hold up under scrutiny.
oh so this was a thinly veiled Christisraelite thread all along? Very droll.
What is truth?
>truth is not relative
"facts" are not relative, "truth" is most definitely relative. the concept that these two confer different ideas in and of themselves is not new
>Symbolism
>absolute truth
Christfriend...
The tao that can be written is not the true tao.
>>It’s not that absolute truth doesn’t exist, but that “absolute truth” is an invalid concept in the first place, because truth is simply that which organisms use to survive. Truth is will to power.
that's the judeoatheist dogma
Extremely unintelligent post.
Here's a truth that applies to all organisms at all times:
You're pulled to the ground by gravity
bacteria, worms, maybe various forms of fish, etc. don’t need to believe in gravity
They don't need to believe in it to be pulled to the ground. They will be pulled to the ground regardless of their belief. The truth and belief are not the same thing.
Your postmodernist ideas were stupid when they were first formalized several decades ago.
What is truth?
The set of statements and observations explained by the best scientific models
>best scientific models
what does it mean for a model to be better?
It has a greater R^2, a lower P, explains more phenomena, and requires the fewest assumptions. There are multiple tests to compute the robustness of a model.
Your beliefs don't change reality you coping moron, and we're able to learn about reality by testing it. Stop reverting to postmodernism to salvage your religious mythology
Then explain why people disagree on so many things. Why do we disagree right now? Show me that your model is best. How exactly do you plan to do that? My model is at least coherent: people adopt beliefs that they feel will benefit them. But you add an extra assumption: that beliefs can be “objectively” true or false, which to me sounds devoid of any real meaning.
>In any case, I get the sense, a hunch if you will, that absolute truth would necessarily have to be God.
Why?
If I could explain it it wouldn't be a hunch anon.
But I guess if I have to put it into words, I regard the universe springing into existence out of nothingness as an impossibility, which leaves God as the starting point of the universe.
> I regard the universe springing into existence out of nothingness as an impossibility, which leaves God as the starting point of the universe.
…according to the rules OF the universe? Absolute nothingness means absence of laws including causality and logic. So what if the universe exists for no reason? Where is the contradiction? This only offends your brain, which has evolved in an environment that apparently operates through causality. You seek to understand causes for your benefit, so the idea of a universe without cause is deeply disturbing to you.
>…according to the rules OF the universe?
Yes. According to the rules of the universe it couldn't spring into existence out of nothingness.
How can a thing legislate itself? How can the universe be beyond itself? Just because the universe has causal patterns doesn’t mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause (and the existence of causal patterns doesn’t even indicate that causes actually exist: theoretically, an infinite multiverse with random variation would lead to infinite universes that coincidentally produce “causal” patterns, which would be interpreted by advanced primates as a sign of an abstract “law” of causality which in actuality does not exist). Again, there is no contradiction here. You have no deductive proof that there exists a law that says “the universe must have a cause.” Even IF everything within the universe has a cause, and the universe can be imagined as a chain of causes, this does not mean the chain itself is the link of a chain of chains. The chain simply exists.
>The chain simply exists.
God simply exists.
Wrong. God is also the result of evolution through random mutation and selection. God will be created by humans as AGI.
If God simply exists, then you admit that God’s existence is beyond logic. God doesn’t even know why he exists.
This is wrong, you just made that up in order to to forcefully insert that God is necessary.
It doesn't need to come from anywhere. Again you just made that up
>This is wrong
Nah, he’s right. Everything has a cause, that is a rule of the universe.
>Nah, he’s right.
No, he's not
>Everything has a cause, that is a rule of the universe.
Nope. As another example: the decay of a proton is random and without cause
>the decay of a proton is random and without cause
Argument from ignorance.
Nope. It's the way protons actually work. You just don't like it because you want determinism or causality to be true but it's not.
It is possible for the universe to come from nothing. It is possible for the universe to be eternal and well find out that the big bang is an incomplete model. It's completely possible for mathematics to be platonically real but for there to be no God. It's possible that there is a God.
The point is, god is not a necessary explanation for anything. You just want to be. It could be the case that God is real but it is NOT the case that God HAS to be real. You Christians have to get this through your stupid fricking heads, God is not a necessary a priori.
>Nope. It's the way protons actually work.
You’re arguing from ignorance again. Also, I’m not Christian.
The current model predicts that proton decay is random so it's not an argument from ignorance. Again, you are simply claiming that determinism or causality is true a priori and then saying that because there is a non causal system it must be ignorance because a priori everything must have a cause.
Well, nope. It is not the case that a priori everything must have a cause. Now what?
>The current model predicts that proton decay is random so it's not an argument from ignorance.
Claiming it is a fact that it is random and without cause, and that future models will never observe there to be a causality, is arguing from ignorance.
Quantum spin is also random.
Until you have a model where they are not random, you are just arguing from personal incredulity ("it can't be the case that randomness exist things must be deterministic")
I think I get why he calls it an argument from ignorance, it kind of is actually, isn't it?
Well I think I can disprove that hunch easily by pointing out that "2+2=4" is an absolute truth that isn't God.
Where does 2+2=4 come from?
>that absolute truth would necessarily have to be God
Why do people assume the universe or metaphysics operates based on logic?
Hierarchy.
Logic exists above the material. What you're asking is like asking
>Why do people assume that the physics in a video game operates on programming
>Logic exists above the material.
Prove it
>Why do people assume that the physics in a video game operates on programming
No it's more like assuming a computer program exists independently of the hardware it's executing on because of some platonic idea of the computer program exists as an abstraction in your mind.
>Prove it
In a universe where the material doesn't exist the laws of logic would still apply.
You were only able to derive the laws of logic from empirical observation of the material world. And that was through induction, not deduction
>Logic exists because of empiricism
>Logic can't be proven empirically
Wanna try again?
You derived them inductively, as I said. It’s not proof that they actually exist. How the frick does a “law” of causality “exist”? Where is the “law” written, exactly?
>How the frick does a “law” of causality “exist”? Where is the “law” written, exactly?
You're the materialist, you tell me.
I will tell you, then. The law only exists in human brains, and not in some transcendent realm
>The law only exists in human brains
If you can't prove it empirically, it doesn't exist.
humans believe in causality, beliefs are the function of neural processes. Ergo the laws of causality have only been proven to exist as mental processes in the brain.
It doesn't matter if immaterial things are the result of matter. Every time someone objects to the existence of God on empirical grounds they have to, in order to stay consistent, object to the existence of math, logic and beliefs, among many other things, on the same grounds.
Otherwise it's just an inconsistent worldview.
ChatGPT can do math and logic to an extent. And it is still evolving, in the same way that our primate ancestors needed to evolve to produce us. Is the logic employed by ChatGPT material or immaterial?
Truth being absolute doesn't seem possible when multiple people can disagree with it (unless you assume that anyone who disagrees with whatever you think absolute truth is are just liars and schemers).
So the refutation would be for you to prove why multiple truths can coexist in the same space. Or otherwise, why it's even possible to go against an ABSOLUTE truth (which goes beyond even being objective, into the realm of inviolation)
> In any case, I get the sense, a hunch if you will, that absolute truth would necessarily have to be God.
Why would absolute truth existing mean it would be 1 singular being with a mind?
>Absolute truth statement claiming that absolute truth doesn't exist
It's not absolute truth that it doesn't exist. It's the "truth" (the expression of power) of a relatively more perceptive mind which exists only in a certain time and place.
Do people unironically believe that absolute truths don’t exist?
The absolute truth is simply everything. A falsehood is derived from arbitrary axioms, which define a subset of truth. The set of all axioms is the absolute truth.