Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOr you could cut open the apple and examine the evidence.
I didn't say both were right. I said we each had our own understanding of truth.
There may be a worm in the apple, there might not be, but unless the worm shows itself who knows.
You might even have eaten the worm!!!
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat I find naive is the assumption that anything is undecidable.
It never ceases to amaze how that the truth is so easily dissimulated.
Truth is a known quantity or value of a thing or an idea, and since things and ideas exist they can be measured according to their value or quantity. Truth is unassailable. An opposing idea to the truth is in and of itself undefinable since it has no quantity or value with which it can be measured because without the truth an opposing idea is without substance or meaning.
Truth is truth. If it is not, it's not truth.
Originally posted by josephwThe term "truth" is very often simply used as an item of vocabulary that is applied by religionists like yourself to assertions you make, based on your beliefs, that you sincerely think then absolves you from the burden of providing evidence to support what you have asserted.
Truth is truth. If it is not, it's not truth.
Originally posted by josephw
What I find naive is the assumption that anything is undecidable.
It never ceases to amaze how that the truth is so easily dissimulated.
Truth is a known quantity or value of a thing or an idea, and since things and ideas exist they can be measured according to their value or quantity. Truth is unassailable. An opposing idea to the truth is in and of ...[text shortened]... opposing idea is without substance or meaning.
Truth is truth. If it is not, it's not truth.
What I find naive is the assumption that anything is undecidable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems
Don't you have Google on your computer?
I think just one of your problems is the use ot the word "undecidable" which has specific connotations. As usual, people without any knowledge of a topic throw around terms without regard for their appropriate application. In any debate, your own private language is not useful - you need to use a shared language to coommunicate.
Originally posted by josephwPerfectly logical, yes. The wiggle-room that people see may be true too, though.
...
Either truth is truth or it's not. Perfectly logical. No?[/b]
I had a boss who was a perfectionist (we worked maintenance). So I did a job and found my work to be good enough. My boss complained that "'good enough' is not good enough!". Ha-ha! But we know what he meant, right?
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwQuantum mechanics would disagree with you.
Truth is a known quantity or value of a thing or an idea, and since things and ideas exist they can be measured according to their value or quantity.
In addition, how do you know when a quantity is known? Science has found reliable methods, but I get the feeling you don't accept them, suggesting you either have no clue, or you have other methods?
Truth is unassailable.
Unless it isn't the truth, or so your OP says. Something that sometimes isn't even what it is, seems rather assailable to me.
An opposing idea to the truth is in and of itself undefinable since it has no quantity or value with which it can be measured because without the truth an opposing idea is without substance or meaning.
I disagree. Even lies can have definable substance and meaning, as can fiction. Ever read a book?
Truth is truth. If it is not, it's not truth.
So can we take it that your OP was a lie?