This one seemed to still have some life in it :)

Human wrote:

"So asserting something you often say, that "logic" and "reason" are only what matters in speech, is now an "insult"?
Huh."

Let's look at that, shall we?
First, notice the change: in Human's original statement, he wrote:

" sorry you only find "logic" and "reason" to matter."

Nothing about "in speech." So, another straw-man: never mind what was actually written, let's change it so it's an argument I can more easily defend, by adding "in speech."

Not that it's a defensible argument anyway, since I've never in my life (let alone "often") said that logic are reason are only what matter, in speech or anything else.

Human also wrote:
"According to you, all "truth" (sic) is made-up. So what are you going on about?"

Once again, a straw-man. Like the claim that I "often" say logic and reason are the only things that matter, I've never in my life said all truth is made up. In fact, if you look up above a bit in that very thread, I wrote:
"Either something is true or it isn't. If it is, evidence will show it is."
Which is, of course, nothing at all like Human is claiming I've stated.


Interesting, isn't it, that in a discussion about "truth," so many demonstrably false statements are made in an attempt to argue for "truth?"

Human, I didn't disagree with you because I didn't read your post, or didn't understand it. I disagreed with you because what was in your post wasn't "true." Demonstrably so. It's not a case of, "You'd agree with me if you'd just read my posts." Not at all. :)

To the bulk, Whatever.



Let me ask you specifically about this:

"I've never in my life said all truth is made up. In fact, if you look up above a bit in that very thread, I wrote:
'Either something is true or it isn't. If it is, evidence will show it is.'"

Question: According to you, is the concept "truth" itself is made up?

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question: According to you, is the concept "truth"
> itself is made up?


Before I answer, have you got a quote from me anywhere on this board where I said all truth was made up?
(hint: since I've never written that, the answer is no)

So is this some odd attempt to back-validate an invalid quote?

Now my answer:
The question was worded oddly ("is the concept "truth" itself is made up?"). At any rate...no. We humans made up words like truth to express concepts, but the concept of something being "true" (or false) I'd say was discovered -- not made up. We humans figured out that there are things that are "true" and "factual," and things that aren't. Sort of like discovering 1+1=2; we didn't make up the concept, just the language to express it.

> To the bulk, Whatever.

Yeah, let's not cover the parts where you made things up, used straw-men, etc. That's no fun. Whatever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2015 03:03PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> At any rate...no.
> We humans made up words like truth to express
> concepts, but the concept of something being
> "true" (or false) I'd say was discovered -- not
> made up. We humans figured out that there are
> things that are "true" and "factual," and things
> that aren't. Sort of like discovering 1+1=2; we
> didn't make up the concept, just the language to
> express it.


If you believe we "discover" truth *out there* and make up the word "truth " to denote a concept residing...where...*out there*; if you believe we "discovered" that 1+1=2, that the concept is true whether discovered or not, and that we simply made up the language two plus etc...then I'd say you agree with "absolute truth" as I defined it in the other post:

"I take the idea of 'absolute truth' to indicate things that are true even if there were no such things as people to perceive it. That this planet exists is said to be absolutely true. Should all people die tomorrow and therefore no one to perceive the planet we assume that the planet would still be there. It's absolutely true that the planet exists."

Seems that after all you *do* need to believe in the idea of absolute truth.

So why are you arguing?



A truth that is not absolute, for example, is that today is Wednesday. It's true up to a point, but certainly isn't true if there were no people on earth to say "Wednesday".

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you believe we "discover" truth *out there* and
> make up the word "truth " to denote a concept
> residing...where...*out there*; if you believe we
> "discovered" that 1+1=2, that the concept is true
> whether discovered or not, and that we simply made
> up the language two plus etc...then I'd say you
> agree with "absolute truth" as I defined it in the
> other post:

No, I don't agree with "absolute truth," as outlined in the other thread. "True" doesn't need the qualifier "absolute." And our concept of "true" and "false" are simply extensions of the concept of existing or not existing. Simple binary questions of fact, which are facts whether we observe them or not. Existing or not is a property of things in our universe; we didn't invent that property, we noticed it, and then came up with words to describe it in all its varieties.

> "I take the idea of 'absolute truth' to indicate
> things that are true even if there were no such
> things as people to perceive it. That this planet
> exists is said to be absolutely true. Should all
> people die tomorrow and therefore no one to
> perceive the planet we assume that the planet
> would still be there. It's absolutely true that
> the planet exists."

Why the qualifier "absolute?" And why does the perception of people matter? If a dolphin eats one fish, then eats another, it's eaten two fish -- people aren't needed to perceive that 1+1=2. Dolphins might even be able to "count" the fish they eat. Objects existing is a property of our universe. Those objects can be counted or tallied. That's "true," and it doesn't need any "absolutely." Our planet exists, that's true. It doesn't need "absolutely," and it would still be perceived if all people died tomorrow (just not by people).

> Seems that after all you *do* need to believe in
> the idea of absolute truth.
> So why are you arguing?

No, I don't, and please stop telling me what I believe, especially since you've been wrong every time.
I pointed out some things I disagreed with in your original post, at which point you went off with insults & straw-men -- that's what I was "arguing" about.

> A truth that is not absolute, for example, is that
> today is Wednesday. It's true up to a point, but
> certainly isn't true if there were no people on
> earth to say "Wednesday".

Again, why the qualifier? In countries that speak English and have agreed to use a particular calendar, it's true today is Wednesday. Other places, it's not. Your example takes a "fact" that you already know isn't "universal" and tries to use that to qualify "truth" -- when the "fact" itself is what's qualified, not "truth." Out of convenience or laziness or brevity, most of us wouldn't say, "It's Wednesday in English speaking countries in roughly similar time zones who have agreed to use the same calendar," but that's what's implied when you say, "Today is Wednesday."

Things that are true are true. They don't need "absolutely." If there are cases where they're only conditionally true (like Wednesday), you can say that or explain it or consider it "understood," but that doesn't mean things that are always true need a qualifier.

But, I would disagree that it is possible to know said absolute truth absolutely.

Yep.

There's a "leap" as I called it on the other thread.

Is truth relative?

Absolutely.

Absolut is true.

Absolute (Not limited by law) truth exists in Mormonism.

Some people seem confused by the difference between absolute/relative and unconditional/conditional. The second is far more easily applied to "truth" than the first.

It's six I tell you.

No, dammit, it's half a dozen.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.



BTW, hie, I already pointed this out and I get that it isn't super important to understanding the idea, but again, the word absolute removes the qualifications to truth. It doesn't add any qualifications.

Absolute truth could also be said truth without any qualifications. So when you say why qualify truth with the word absolute it just doesn't make sense to me.

Great point!

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, hie, I already pointed this out and I get
> that it isn't super important to understanding the
> idea, but again, the word absolute removes the
> qualifications to truth. It doesn't add any
> qualifications.
>
> Absolute truth could also be said truth without
> any qualifications. So when you say why qualify
> truth with the word absolute it just doesn't make
> sense to me.

Yeah, I noticed that before. I don't agree. :)

Take Human's "examples:"
"Today is Wednesday" is true, conditionally, if you speak English, use a certain calendar, live in a particular time zone, etc. But when it's true, it's true. In a few hours it won't be true, but that doesn't change it being true when it's true.
His "counterpoint" was "the earth exists" being ABSOLUTELY true. But 5 billion years ago that wasn't true. In about 5 billion years or so, it won't be true again. We humans gave it the label "Earth" (just like we gave a certain day the label "Wednesday"). So it's just as time-dependent, subjective, and human-based as the Wednesday example.

When either statement is true, they're true. You don't need "absolutely," and it's not an accurate qualifier anyway (because Earth existing is just as time-dependent and human-labeled as Wednesday -- there would be a "day" at a certain time on our planet whether we humans existed or not, whether we called it Wednesday or not).

At least in the universe we know, EVERYTHING is conditionally true (if it's true at all). Time-wise at least. 14 billion years ago, it wasn't true our universe existed, so nothing in our universe even CAN be "absolutely" true, it's all at the very least time-conditional.

The "absolutely" label attempts to qualify "true" by setting some "truth" apart as "always and forever true." Yet nothing is, as far as we can tell. If you don't want to bother to spell out the conditions upon which the "truth" you claim rests, fine -- but don't call it "absolute."

"True" is simple, and doesn't need "absolute." Yes or no. Exists or doesn't. True or false.

The big problem I personally see is people claiming "truth" for things that aren't even a matter of "true or false." Things that are opinions or emotions or beliefs. And, oddly enough, they're usually the ones who want to qualify their truth claim as being "absolute." Ironic, yes? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2015 11:27AM by ificouldhietokolob.

I think humans can't handle the truth. Nothing is unqualifiedly true. The best we got is thinking we are.

But then again there I believe are things in math which have no hook into measurable and testable reality. They are absolutely true.

I would contend that existence isn't an unqualified truth. Whether it be a concept or physical existence. I am not absolutely true because I have not always been true.

I also feel that given the spurious nature of truth, which from my philosophical view is purely expositional, it isn't any more helpful than knowing math or language. Sort of like Spider Man annoyingly telling me what happened in the last movie as if I didn't already see it.

Keeping on the movie theme absolute truth may well exist, (I define absolute truth at unconditional truth, or unqualified truth) but it is really just a mcguffin for various people or organizations to support an un-evidenced view.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keeping on the movie theme absolute truth may well
> exist, (I define absolute truth at unconditional
> truth, or unqualified truth) but it is really just
> a mcguffin for various people or organizations to
> support an un-evidenced view.

Bingo -- "unevidenced view." Just the other day I had an evangelical christian tell me it's "absolutely true" that the god she believes in exists. Guess what? It's not.

It may be "unconditionally true" that, for example, what we call "hydrogen" is one proton and one electron -- that may be the case before our universe existed. But we don't know if that's the case or not. So calling it "absolutely true" isn't justified. It's true now, it has been for around 14 billion years, it very likely will continue to be true as long as our universe exists. "True" is good enough to describe that fact (and many others). :)

this has been an interesting thread and especially how a post can takes on a life of itself. I originally posted thinking along the lines of:
Can Humans manufacture the feelings of the spirit and god tell people two different opposite truths? (that thought was never explicitly tackled by anyone).

I've enjoyed this thread :)

Indeed can "the spirit" testify of opposing ideas. It's the very reason I started to seriously doubt mormonism in my teens. When an old couple were 'touched' by what may have looked like 'the spirit' but I knew it to be a panic attack that was my first real eye-opener to what a bunch of baloney "the holy ghost" is. And once I had my eyes opened it wasn't difficult to start noticing the contradictions and misunderstandings and nonsense caused by warm fuzzies in my own life aswell as in people around me.

Not only can the spirit "testify" to opposing ideas, it can appearantly do it in the same person at the same time and make that person oblivious to the contradiction. When feelings override reason consistency is no longer a primary concern.

You really answered your own question. "feeling the spirit" is a psychological/physiological phenomena created by several things. Why can other faiths claim that they felt the same "spirit" when they ask if their differing holy texts are true?

One we can be conditioned like pavlov's dogs to a certain stimuli to "feel the spirit".

Two we can manufacture spiritual experiences by connecting certain emotions and experiences.

This is a long two part video but well worth watching. Derren Brown gives someone a manufactured spiritual experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfDlfhHVvTY