Absolute Truth

  • Thread starter raptix
  • Start date
  • #1
1
0
Truth

a fact that has been verified; reality - actuality

That's my definition. But how do you get past those who say that the truth is a statement merely accepted to be true. And is there absolute truth?

I am typing.

Is the above an absolute truth? I believe, it is at least true. Because I am.

But is the English language, or any other human language, or higher level thinking, incapable of describing the absolute truth on say, issues of abortion, and the like?

See I have a feeling that one day humans could be Gods in respect, making themselves higher thinkers through technological advancement, able to describe the absolute truth. A discussion would be fun about this..

Getting closer and closer to the truth, putting aside our emotions in debates, our ideologies, and looking at rock hard truths and describing them in the most accurate clause, that's what is my aim.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Icebreaker
There is no absolute truth, or any truth, in issues like abortion. In my opinion, ethical issues and choices are simply commands, not unlike "open the door"; they are not true or false, they are simply tools of persuasion.
 
  • #3
27
0
What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.
 
  • #4
81
0
It seems to me that any abstract idea like "abortion is wrong" can be broken down into more and more fundamental truths until only self-evident premises remain. Then those premises can be considered as factual or not, and thus, the truth of the statement can be determined.

Of course, one problem is agreeing on which truths are plainly self-evident. Some people would take "abortion is wrong" as axiomatic in itself. Another is arriving at a common set of self-evident premises, and agreement on how truths are to be constructed with them. Certainly logic would play a role, but applying logic to emotionally charged issues has proved problematic in the past.

:)

The Rev
 
  • #5
27
0
I used the statement "abortion is wrong" as an example because it's an opinion and not a truth. A truth would be wether or not the baby has conscience, wether or not the baby has a soul, etc. You then base your opinions on these truths. What is true and what people want to be true are two very different things. Regardless of what the truth is, people will twist it to better fit their opinions.
 
  • #6
aek
82
0
wow

the answer to all your questions is undefined, we are to weak to answer those questions, we do not know whats true and whats not. All we know is actually what we think and assume.
 
  • #7
Icebreaker
Something is true if we define it to be true. There may not be an intrisic truthfulness to everything.
 
  • #8
1,685
1
Flexor said:
What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.
I agree there are no absolute truths in philosophy or morality; but I am sorry, there are no absolute truths in mathematics either.
Any mathematical system must be constructed from axioms. Axioms are (for want of a better word) assumptions that we take to be true without being able to prove they are true. All of mathematics therefore rests on assumptions, not absolute truth.

MF :smile:
 
  • #9
Icebreaker
Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.
 
  • #10
27
0
Indeed.

As long as we exist in this reality, "1 + 1 = 2" will always be true. Try to prove otherwise.
 
  • #11
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,259
2
Icebreaker said:
Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.

I don't know about that. Isn't it (or, wasn't it) self-evident that, given a straight line L and a point P not lying on L, there is only one unique line that intersects P without intersecting L?
 
  • #12
Icebreaker
It still is. Each geometry uses its own parallel postulate, and in each geometry, they are self-evident.
 
  • #13
1,685
1
Icebreaker said:
Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.
If they are self-evident, why are there different versions of arithmetic, each legitimate and each with different axioms?

The only rule underlying mathematics is consistency. As long as my system of arithmetic is consistent then it is legitimate. There is more than one consistent arithmetical system.

The "truths" derived from each version of arithmetic rest on the axioms of that arithmetic. Change the axioms (which, since there is more than one version, are not self-evident) and the truths change too.

Flexor said:
As long as we exist in this reality, "1 + 1 = 2" will always be true. Try to prove otherwise.
Try to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without first defining 2 as the integer successor of 1. (for definition of "successor" see Peano arithmetic).

I doubt if you can do it.

Ergo, the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 rests on the prior assumption that 2 is defined as the integer successor of 1.

All we achieve is proving the truth of our prior definition. Which is circular.

MF :smile:
 
  • #14
Icebreaker
Ah, but just because some axioms may not be compatible with one another, doesn't mean they are not self-evident. Take the parallel postulate: all versions of it are true and self-evident under certain conditions, one of those conditions being the mutual-exclusivity of one another.

For example, if we assume that there's an unstoppable force, then there cannot be an unmovable object; if we assume that there's an unmovable object, then there cannot be an unstoppable force. Under the condition that the other assumption is false, either one is true and self-evident.
 
  • #15
1,685
1
Icebreaker said:
Ah, but just because some axioms may not be compatible with one another, doesn't mean they are not self-evident. Take the parallel postulate: all versions of it are true and self-evident under certain conditions, one of those conditions being the mutual-exclusivity of one another.

For example, if we assume that there's an unstoppable force, then there cannot be an unmovable object; if we assume that there's an unmovable object, then there cannot be an unstoppable force. Under the condition that the other assumption is false, either one is true and self-evident.
Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.
The "truths" of Euclidean geometry are only true given the a priori assumptions (axioms) of Euclidean geometry - at the basis of which is a Euclidean "flat" space. The same is true of any other geometry.

MF :smile:
 
  • #16
aek
82
0
hehe

ignorance is bliss
 
  • #17
Icebreaker
moving finger said:
Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.

The truth is based on axioms and these "conditions", but it does not mean that the latter two aren't self-evident.
 
  • #18
1,685
1
Icebreaker said:
The truth is based on axioms and these "conditions", but it does not mean that the latter two aren't self-evident.
Can you give some examples of what you consider to be "self-evident" axioms or conditions?

Take geometry for example. It is not "self-evident" that geometry-space is necessarily Euclidean. This is a subjective condition/axiom/assumption, and there are perfectly acceptable alternative geometries which are based on non-Euclidean spaces.

MF :smile:
 
  • #19
78
0
does the fact that I live and exist qualify as a self evident axiom and condition which predicates truth if only on a personal level
 
  • #20
1,685
1
spicerack said:
does the fact that I live and exist qualify as a self evident axiom and condition which predicates truth if only on a personal level
That's a good example - of a subjective (but not an absolute) truth

MF :smile:
 
  • #21
raptix said:
Truth

a fact that has been verified; reality - actuality

That's my definition. But how do you get past those who say that the truth is a statement merely accepted to be true. And is there absolute truth?

I am typing.

Is the above an absolute truth? I believe, it is at least true. Because I am.

But is the English language, or any other human language, or higher level thinking, incapable of describing the absolute truth on say, issues of abortion, and the like?

See I have a feeling that one day humans could be Gods in respect, making themselves higher thinkers through technological advancement, able to describe the absolute truth. A discussion would be fun about this..

Getting closer and closer to the truth, putting aside our emotions in debates, our ideologies, and looking at rock hard truths and describing them in the most accurate clause, that's what is my aim.

There is no sense to the concept "the truth".
By what decision method, can you decide 'the truth'?
Truth is not unique, it is dependent on the system used.

Watch out for the dictator "Herkl", If he does not agree with your remarks he will 'lock the whole thread', Heil Herkl!

Of course, his opinion is correct an all others are not ?!?!?!
 
  • #22
moving finger said:
Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.
The "truths" of Euclidean geometry are only true given the a priori assumptions (axioms) of Euclidean geometry - at the basis of which is a Euclidean "flat" space. The same is true of any other geometry.

MF :smile:

Truth is that which is the case, relative to this or that method of decision.
 
  • #23
Icebreaker
moving finger said:
Can you give some examples of what you consider to be "self-evident" axioms or conditions?

Take geometry for example. It is not "self-evident" that geometry-space is necessarily Euclidean. This is a subjective condition/axiom/assumption, and there are perfectly acceptable alternative geometries which are based on non-Euclidean spaces.

In Euclidean space, parallel lines never meet. That is self-evident.
In elliptic space, parallel lines always meet. That is also self-evident.
 
  • #24
516
0
No one can ever certainly say that something is true or not. If there is an undiscoverable flaw in their reason for saying that, then they are wrong. And the situation of there being an undiscoverable flaw is by definition indistinguishable from the situation of there being no such thing.
 
  • #25
1,605
2
Flexor said:
What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.

I agree. Additionally, the nature of truth in mathematics is that it is based on conventions and definitions. Things are that are true are true because of something that is true because of something that is true because of something that is true because of something that is true ... because of something that is true by definition; in short, things that are true are true by definition.

Words are to truth as (words describing a cup) are to a cup. In other words, words are not truth though they may describe it. The description may or may not be accurate. No matter how accurate the description is, words are still not truth.

I believe that my brain is not capable of discerning, by itself, how accurate a description of truth is, i.e., how true a statement is, in almost all cases.

Truth is silent, without words. Therefore, a being can only access truth when that being is him/her/itself is silent. As soon as one opens one's mouth, what comes out is not truth but a description of truth.

It is one thing to describe something. By absorbing a description of something, you can know about it. To truly know something, and not just know about something, one must be that something. Same applies to truth. You can know about it from a description. You only know it when you are it.

silence is silence

Truth is source

the source is God.
 

Related Threads on Absolute Truth

  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
93
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Top