thoughts on absolute truth?

nutnspecial

nutnspecial

10 MW
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
3,753
Location
PA
I sometimes like to capitalize 'truth', in a way to convey it's potential for the absolute.

Dang, it'd be pretty nice if it existed I guess; wouldn't that be kinda like optimsim to its greatest limit?
*reader thinks* -no that would you be shutting the hell up :mrgreen:

On with it: truth seems very subjective, which validates the claims it doesn't exist Absolute. Religion, Politics, Morality all seem such polarized and confusing topics, don't they? And I don't just mean my country, I mean everywhere and everywhen to date. Symptoms seem to include limited general concensus among people and much division, or irrational/shallow debate, and/or purposeful avoidance and ultimately complacency. These are the 'G' rated examples of course.

I guess my opinion is that only the last one matters (morality), and other topics could be much further resolved with a more complete understanding of it. In other words, a truer understanding of ourselves could fix every 'problem' perceived from any vantage.

I won't play games- frankly in my opinion to claim 'absolutely' the existence of absolute truth or it's impossibility would require claimant to actually possess it. Example A) For a man to claim absolute existence of a God or that none exists would mean they themselves must be God to validate the claim. See the logic and how that pertains?

So imo we should resolve ourselves to admit we neither can confirm or deny Absolute Truth's existence, but should remain optimstic and in search of it, in order to bridge the division. I propose this to be applicable from the smallest to largest thing you are able to comprehend.

So this was kindof a challenge in openmindedness, yes? Or just stating the obvious?
Any corrections criticisms additions or thoughts? Thanks 4 reading :D
 
I see your point, and it's very valid, however my 'interpretation' is different :wink:.

Example A) For a man to claim absolute existence of a God or that none exists would mean they themselves must be God to validate the claim. See the logic and how that pertains?
Click to expand...

Unless you are the object of the truth, isn't everything but that object just an interpretation of the truth. As a living organism who's thought process is based on electrical impulses and influenced be the living world around it, no two people will have the exact same 'truth' so it, in itself is not a truth.

Trying to bridge that gap would mean one interpretation being 'more' truth than the other, but the only way to subjectively attain a bridge would be for the 'object of the truth' to choose which interpretation is the 'more correct'.

Imagine trying to sort out just one 'absolute truth' between just two people of the same age, education, langauge, social and environmental upbringing. Now try doing that for groups of multi ethnicity.

What I guess is currently employed is not the 'absolute truth', but an outcome that can be seen by all. Not focusing on the 'truth' or how you can get to the interpretation of that truth, but more how it is employed.

i.e.
Fire is hot = touch it, it burns - no matter how you translate it fire will burn you. Some may except, some may not and be burnt. 95% of the masses will come to this easily, 3% may choose to live without it, 2% may not be about to see or feel pain to understand the concept.

People who don't see or understand that outcome will have their own different truth, but for the masses to gain common ground I believe it's easier for an 'outcome' truth than an 'abridged' or 'absolute' truth.
 
I found absolute truth. All religions are based on Psychedelic mushrooms. Jesus was a mushroom. Moses discovered the mushroom at the burning bush. Adam and Eve were fed mushrooms by the serpent. The notion that there is no absolute truth creates faith- which is believing what you know ain't true. Once thy got you thinking there is no absolute truth, you are lost. That is the goal of Post modern theory- to render you helpless. You want truth- stick your hand in a fire.
 
Iron chariots on absolute certainty:
A theist who claims absolute certainty about an element of his or her religious beliefs is likely revealing more about the method by which they came to the belief (namely, uncritical acceptance or simple assumption) than the actual strength of the belief itself.
Click to expand...
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Absolute_certainty
 
Well I agree with 'hand in fire' and quote on theism/ religion, and mushrooms, but the idea isn't to fixate on just one of anything- that would be the antithesis yes? ccmdr's example of fire burning is an interesting angle I hadn't considered, and am not sure I understand. I have an inkling, maybe?

It's a philosophic idea- that's a safe speculation for now right?
These were the lines I was rolling anyway, if it wasn't obvious.

Oh, and imo the reason to ponder is one of positivety and hope for all the potential that is unrealized.
 
All you really need to know is, truth is true, absolute truth is true absolutely. See, no need to make this any harder for yourself.

For example: Is Obama a bad man? Absolutely. Stop there and your fine. But if you continue; So everything he does is absolutely bad? Does everything he does have to be absolutely bad? Does it really affect the truth of his badness for you?

It's like you have a small object that you decide is absolutely yellow and a large one that is absolutely blue. That means you have an absolute truth in their colors. But someone else may not believe in the yellowness or blueness of an object: Does that mean it's no longer true? Perhaps you think the smaller object cannot be so absolutely yellows as the larger one can be absolutely blue. Is the truth affected?

So perhaps it's no longer a question of truth, but of absolute. Once something is true, isn't it automatically absolute? Undiminished? Uncircumspect? Otherwise, it's not REALLY true. Once there are no absolutes, do we suddenly not know anything? (Boy, I sure hope you're reading this just before you go to bed.) An if absolute is a noun and an adjective, but absolutely is an adverb, does that create an absolute uncertainly in it having its' place in the parts of speech? (Dang, I REALLY hope you're reading this just you're gonna try to sleep.)

Pascal's wager: Did you win or lose?

(Nighty night. Absolutely.)

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager
 
If there is a Creator of the Universe, than anything and everything connected to Him is absolute truth.

If He does not exist, then you, I and the guy over there all have relative truth. We can debate all day long, including if the tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a noise. When we then search for absolute truth, we find that might makes right and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I have been most comfortable in my journey to find Truth...
 
There are no absolute truths. It's a term that carries a lot of unfounded religious baggage. It's an attempt to smuggle the concept of intelligent design into your logical process and poison critical thinking with foundations of presupposition.

Truthiness is tested through attempted falsification. Truth is never 100%, but rather we have increasing levels of confidence that something is not false (this is what 'true' is), as we probe to falsify. When I use 'true', it means 'So far tested without falsification'.

We can prove the trueness of any claim in an infinite variety of ways (a la flat earth) and never touch on any actual essential falseness - testing for falseness only requires one falsification to debunk a 'truth' claim. This is what makes science a never ending process - as we refine our resolution on the universe at large and at small, we are able to retest and refine our ideas.

Continuously testing to falsify a claim and failing to falsify, increases the confidence in the claim (a la relativity). We use the sciences to make predictive hypothesis. We test the validity of a claim by continually deriving tests to try and falsify the prediction. A claim with a resultingly high confidence is said to be true, even though it may someday be shown false.

In the case of relativity, the predictions have continued to show proof positive against every test yet. So many different tests have been done and none have succeeded to falsify - that's what makes relativity an accepted theory. It does not make it absolutely true.
 
Just great Dauntless, a WEASEL word? :mrgreen:
We must get to the bottom of this. But meanwhile the plot thickens. . .

Why is everyone bringing up/ relying on religion as absolute truth?

And r3volved, well put on Relativity. But you must remember you have no more right to claim Truth doesn't exist than for someone to claim it does- it's just as illogical -You are declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.
 
To be fair bigmoose, you seem the most reasonable so far, and are wise to not attempt reasoning or proof.

I believe there's a logical base or bridge between all the stuff humans believe differently upon. If humanity can find it, maybe it's that much closer to Truth, should it exist, and whatever that may be. Personally I think Truth would be perfection from any angle we come at it.
 
Edited what? I'm asking you to define what you mean as absolute truth? In reference to what? One absolute truth for everything? Is there an absolute truth to cats or dogs? Bongs or particles?

When you say that I'm basically asserting that we absolutely can't know anything absolutely, you are correct - that's pretty much the only thing we know absolutely.

Socrates said:
I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Click to expand...

Your philosophy is great and all but you have to focus and read before presenting your ideas. I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again...the sooner you can drop your black and white perspective, the sooner you'll realize the reality of the universe is way more amazing and mysterious in colour.

We use philosophy to question, science to answer, and then we reassess the philosophy.. Read first so you know what to question second otherwise you never throw out the false. philosophy cannot provide answers..
 
I'm just encouraging openmindedness here. So far you seem the most rigid and almost religious actually.

absolutes.jpg


See if you can catch the jist of op, I think my reasoning is clear, and a definition is as clear as I can make for now. Try to define it yourself? I'd recommend beside: 'absolutes' are for trying to sneak creationism into your mind to poison you lol.
No one means you any harm, you're free to believe in whatever man. Do you hear yourself?

Anyway, I do understand science, and religion, and can recognize when either is trapping themselves in dogma. The point is to open your mind as much as you're able. Philosophy of absolutes and relativism should be pretty obviously the subject here- look into it and lets progress the thread, rather than finding ways to disagree. It could be fun and even enlightening!
 
How do you progress if all you do is circle jerk around floppy terms and reject critical thought in favor of up your own answers to legitimately complex and real questions?
It's not just this thread, I just got sucked into your trolling again. I'm stumped dude.
How do you use logic and reason to prove the importance of logic and reason to someone who doesn't believe in logic and reason?
 
Maybe you and I have hit a wall there. Whenever that happens obviously it's best to remember we are just trying to be good people living good lives.

Let me submit to you this reasoning. Has science disproven intelligent design? Has it disproven spirituality? Can you ever see science doing that? I submit to you, it is far more logical to keep an open mind until it does. I use those as examples, because I'm not even sure what a general concensus of absolute truth would look like. My opinion is like an infinite good, I feel the need to leave out noone that is good. But of course that's another can of worms yes?
 
This to me if anything is pure joy to read through, (sitting with a massive loon grin) :D.

My idea of 'Outcome Truth' is just a random collection of words, however all of us on this forum are electric vehicle minded. It doesn't matter your background your faith, whether one guy has a bigger e-bike than the other the 'Outcome' is we all partake in EV adventures. Be it a complete 'noob' dreaming of electric as a mear form of A2B (a loose term to generalise) or some of the electric wizards that dwell here who enjoy sharing their experiences with everyone.

Black is black, but no. Everyones eyes are slightly different, shades, perception we agree to disagree that the 'Outcome' although not absolute, is black. So absolute is a hard to define. Do you count how many particale reflect or absorb light? Do you measure the intensity of the light itself?

D-lo = You cracked me up :lol: , I'm very unbaised in everything, thinking on a Religious stance of 'Outcome' enough reaserch can an does debunk religion as basically some people trying to escape the issues of the 'real' world to live a fantasy and to achieve that fantasy they tried to get everyone an 'Outcome' of living in peace and harmony, do unto others etc... But that is again not an absolute, humans are a mash of every feeling. If your secure in your job after a while you become complacent and no longer feel secure.

Then there is Dauntless: Is Obama a bad man :lol:. If emphasises that only the owner of the word absolute can be truely absolute. Does Obama abuse children, well I guess not so in my perspective he isn't a bad man. Put into an 'Outcome' and generalize and thats how you get a human world view.

bigmoose- the slight problem here is that nothing is 'passing' this truth on. Belief can never be truth, it comes down to the Schrödinger's cat theory. God may or may not exist. If you choose to follow that belief that is your 'Outcome' if others choose differently that is thier 'Outcome'.

r3volved- brings up another concept. The Earth is flat/round debate. Scientifically it has been 'proven' the Earth is 'round'. But from right here where I'm sitting it looks pretty damn flat to me. I know someone has proved it is 'round' but does that make it the truth?

Also, I belive it's word play 'Absolute Truth', it's a way to get you thinking and to judge the environment and your own thought process' and how you percieve them.

Science in itself is semi flawed. Only the people contucting experients gets their 98% truth (not going too deep because even science is stumped on strings etc..). They then have to present their 98% truths to others, who have their own ways of coming to the same conclusion, but it is highly likely it isn't the 'Absolute Truth' again just 'Outcome truth'.
 
I thank people for commenting. I'm thinking your 'outcome' ccmdr fit's closest with relativism? This is a huge topic imo.

I think when given a choice between A and B (absolutes and relativism) there must be more. And I think for either to be true both must be- this is how I look on the whole of humanity. We are like a field of wheat that has sprung from one seed that sprung from nothing. Like a mysterious disease, or love even- list goes on. . . maybe this is more what you mean with 'outcome'?

So, basically, it's an important topic imo (philosophy and these things), and important to be positive and openminded with fellow man's beliefs. A great one to study if one doesn't use knowledge to close off oneself.

That said, if people think moral good/bad is wholly relative this is a hugely dangerous imho.
I will agree only it is just as absolute truth, which is unable to be proven or disproven.
 
Further thoughts on absolute truth as it may pertain to science or religion, likely summed in a few words, but I'll walk thru my reasoning.

What is the point of science? What is it working towards? Something absolute? Truth?
Why wouldn't that be the most optimistic outcome? Besides or in addition to perfection, how about infinite? Is this not also the logical outcome of successful science on the grand scale?

Now, as a firm believer in science and in progress, and hopefully as many other subjects I can get my mind around: Since science hasn't proven Infinite and Absolute yet, I will not discount others'
beliefs and pursuit of it, considering it is by 'moral' means (obviously the mistreatment of other humans is not an acceptable means to an end).
Personally I feel there is plenty of evidence to a spiritual side also. There is not incontrovertable proof either way exactly when or how existence began, but this is exactly opposite what we see on the large scale from (leaders of) science and religion. There is no reason for the division between religion and science when both parties are realistic and drop all dogma.

Imo strict followers of either are led astray and into unnecessary division.
I was worried of upsetting nearly everyone, but I think many already know this to some degree.
 
nutspecial said:
Why is everyone bringing up/ relying on religion as absolute truth?
Click to expand...

By "Everyone," do you mean ABSOLUTELY everyone? Afterall, I didn't. And ". . . .Just playing with words?" if you'd just said "Playing with words" that would be true, but when you'd said "Just playing with words" it was untrue. By virtue of moving one word. Face it, my mind can play harder than yours can work. Absolutely. You hope to use a STRICTNESS of your own as an ABSOLUTE bypass. But I can absolutely short circuit your absolutes, you absolutely cannot short circuit mine. So ccmdr would point out to own the word.

And speaking of which, SOMEONE is able to see it's not "Play," but an incredible simulation:

ccmdr said:
This to me if anything is pure joy to read through, (sitting with a massive loon grin) :D.

Then there is Dauntless: Is Obama a bad man :lol:. If emphasises that only the owner of the word absolute can be truely absolute. Does Obama abuse children, well I guess not so in my perspective he isn't a bad man. Put into an 'Outcome' and generalize and thats how you get a human world view.
Click to expand...

You see, if someone launches into this big tirade of supporting everything Obama does ((No matter how BAD) he loses, because tirades are the tools of those who know they're wrong. Instead he just makes his own adjustments. . . .

. . . . I belive it's word play 'Absolute Truth', it's a way to get you thinking and to judge the environment and your own thought process' and how you percieve them.
Click to expand...

So the thread we need now would be 'Is Nutspecial an ABSOLUTE troll?' It would begin with 'Trolls troll, absolute trolls troll, absolutely. . . .'

nutspecial said:
Anyway, I do understand science, and religion
Click to expand...

You understand they're out there, but understand THEM? Would you have even used the word "Strict" if you did?

You can watch the whole scene here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j3adcbEwSM but maybe just the clip will be enough for the moment.

[youtube]XTBZr5NnAh0[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top