Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

@pocaracas
"I take it you agree with everything else I wrote, then..."

Mmmm... There was alot of unnecary filler that all ammounted to the same point(s) so i found it irrelevent. Then there was the obvious contradiction so i kind of discredited the rest anyways..

I'm also not sure if you say what i said earlier in reply to somebody else on the topic of solipsism. And i would agree with you! It is a rabbit hole i refuse to go down.

I'll get back to all your guys comments later gtg

[I_am_not_mafia]

Just because we gave a name to describe what we observe in the natural world, doesn't mean we invented the observation. The golden rule exists wether or not we are here to observe it.

We didn't give a name to something we observed, Mathematics is invented. It's wholly artificial.

What about complex numbers (described using so-called "imaginary numbers")?

Or zero to the power of zero


https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles....3-5.shtml

It is commonly taught that any number to the zero power is 1, and zero to any power is 0. But if that is the case, what is zero to the zero power?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12...-disagree/

Mathematician: Zero raised to the zero power is one. Why? Because mathematicians said so. No really, it’s true.

[robvalue]

Depends how you define it, huh.

Lim x->0 (x^x) = 1

Lim x->0 (0^x) = 0

Lim x->0 (x^0) = 1

[pocaracas]

@pocaracas
"I take it you agree with everything else I wrote, then..."

Mmmm... There was alot of unnecary filler that all ammounted to the same point(s) so i found it irrelevent. Then there was the obvious contradiction so i kind of discredited the rest anyways..

I'm also not sure if you say what i said earlier in reply to somebody else on the topic of solipsism. And i would agree with you! It is a rabbit hole i refuse to go down.

I'll get back to all your guys comments later gtg

unnecary? what that heck is an "unnecary filler"?!

If what I said before is an obvious contradiction, then you should have no problem to expose it in simple terms, huh? Because, in case you missed it, I don't see any contradiction.

[Kingpin]

@OP.

If you state there is no objective truth, you are essentially saying the truth is relative. If you make the statement "truth is relative", that is a self-defeating statement. If that statement is true, then not all truth is relative since that statement would be an objective truth. However, if all truth is relative then that statement is not always true.

In short, yes objective truths exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How could I know there's objective Truth, when I'm a purely subjective being?

I think that is where something like the Principle of Non-Contradiction comes in. It is self-evident that the PNC was true before people appeared to think about it and that it would be true even if there never was anyone to think about it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Google the following:

definition:objective

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

definitionubjective

"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

In both cases objective or subjective is used to describe how we describe or act on some thing, not whether that thing exists.

Now google the following:

definition:truth

the quality or state of being true.
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Truth can be objective or subjective depending on what you are talking about. This is because 'Truth' is a mere description, a part of a language, in the same way that Maths and Logic are ways to describe something. Do not confuse the language used to describe something as being the same thing that it is describing.

The context that the description appears in is used to determine whether it can be considered an objective or subjective truth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Whateverist, do you not believe that non material things exist? For example gravity? Mathematics? Laws of logic? Truth is fact, by definition. Do you not believe in facts? These are all in fact immaterial.

They are not immaterial. Maths and Logic wouldn't exist without the human population. You are essentially arguing that language itself is immaterial but it requires material for it to exist. Whether it's written down, spoken or stored, it requires material.

Same with facts. Facts relate to material.

In fact anything relevant to the world and our lives is relevant to something material.

@Soldat, you may not have noticed but Mathilda is saying that artifacts cannot qualify as objects. Let's suppose he is correct - mathematical entities are invented rather than discovered. What does that say about physical artifacts, like thermostats. People invented thermostats. Does that mean that a thermostat is not an object? An object is simply something that has independent existence from the subject that is aware of it. Because he conflates the terms real, object, and material, he begs continually begs the question. Mathilda also doesn't realize that the existence of something can be distinct from the material in which it is embodied. To use language as an example, the meaning of a phrase can be identical in both verbally expressed English and written French. The meaning is distinct from the material that carries it and will be recognized independently by different people fluent with the languages.

[Soldat Du Christ]

If somebody says no, then yes it would be an objective answer, a self defeating one. See where i'm going with this?

You're not trying to do a Sye Ten Bruggencate on us are you? We've heard all these arguments before. They ultimately depend upon binary religious thinking and equivocation.

Binary religious thinking because it relies on there being either a conclusion of True or False and does not take into account something inbetween.

Equivocation because it relies on being vague with definitions, picking either laymen definitions and scientific definitions depending on which is most useful at the time. For example your definition of Truth. Truth is a concept. There is no True or False, these are part of the language of Logic. And fuzzy logic gets rid of it altogether. No theists ever mentions fuzzy logic when referring to the 'Laws of Logic'. This is because of binary religious thinking mentioned above.

Oooo thank you for sharing that, i'll have to dig into that some more. This isn't neccecarily a mental process tied to religion however. It is in fact a more sane way to live life. I'm convinced that the universe is designed from the ground up from a sort of binary code.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cultu...puter.html

This explains the objectivity we observe in nature, objective morality, immaterial laws. While any attempt at a departure from this idea reduces your world view to madness.


I believe Sam Harris (Truly a shame he is an athiest) is one step closer than the rest of these nut jobs, he recognises objective morality. But just can't justify it in a godless universe, 1 step forward two steps back!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk

P.S. social constructs are subjective and not justification

[Soldat Du Christ]

"... which were previously invented and are still evolving."

Are you saying it's okay to make up your own definitions for things? I can't understand why anyone would choose to abide in insanity. Or is that the neccecary result of a godless universe?