27 Oct 07
Some people just don't care about arguments and take as a starting point (could say as an axiom) the Truth in the Bible.
In my viewpoint of the world, there can't be ultimate or absolute truths. So, where do believers in the Bible get the guarantee that what is in there is the Truth?
Couldn't it just be possible that some men many centuries ago manipulated some information and exaggerated some facts to write it? I believe Christ existed. Couldn't he just be a genial speaker with an outstanding message that moved crowds? Would that make Christ less valuable? I believe not. I think it's quite possible some people wanted so much that message to endure the test of time they simply turned Christ to be the something more then he really was. Isn't this possible??
Many of the things said in the Bible simply don't make sense nowadays. Anthropocentrism was left only 500 yrs ago when evidence against it was overwhelming, as an example.
What makes you believe the Bible is unquestionable???
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoIn my viewpoint of the world, there can't be ultimate or absolute truths.
Some people just don't care about arguments and take as a starting point (could say as an axiom) the Truth in the Bible.
In my viewpoint of the world, there can't be ultimate or absolute truths. So, where do believers in the Bible get the guarantee that what is in there is the Truth?
Couldn't it just be possible that some men many centuries ago manipu ...[text shortened]... t was overwhelming, as an example.
What makes you believe the Bible is unquestionable???
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a truth statement.
27 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's like saying "Never say never".
[b]In my viewpoint of the world, there can't be ultimate or absolute truths.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a truth statement.[/b]
The veracity of the affirmation doesn't include the affirmation itself but only applies in the scope I imply by default (the real world). You can't include the sentence in that scope, or else you could never make the assertion.
But either way, saying "there are no absolute truths" is not an absolute truth. It is just the way I believe things are.
But imagine, by absurd, that the sentence is wrong. Then the opposite would be false, and absolute truths could exist, corroborating the initial statement. So, the sentence makes sense.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoMaking a statement about anything is a truth statement. Making a truth statement about the lack of truth is an absurdity, therefore, truth exists.
It's like saying "Never say never".
The veracity of the affirmation doesn't include the affirmation itself but only applies in the scope I imply by default (the real world). You can't include the sentence in that scope, or else you could never make the assertion.
But either way, saying "there are no absolute truths" is not an absolute truth. It is just th ...[text shortened]... te truths could exist, corroborating the initial statement. So, the sentence makes sense.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI won't go that way, don't have the patience.
Making a statement about anything is a truth statement. Making a truth statement about the lack of truth is an absurdity, therefore, truth exists.
I alter my phrase to:
"We can't know nothing for absolute sure", is this better?
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI daresay I think I'm with you on this.
[b]In my viewpoint of the world, there can't be ultimate or absolute truths.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a truth statement.[/b]
Maybe it would be better to say:
The only ultimate truth is that there are no other ultimate truths.
Somehow, that's less sexy, I suppose.
That having been said, there are plenty of ultimate truths, so it's a silly statement anyway.
Nemesio
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioMaybe it would be better to say:
I daresay I think I'm with you on this.
Maybe it would be better to say:
The only ultimate truth is that there are no other ultimate truths.
Somehow, that's less sexy, I suppose.
That having been said, there are plenty of ultimate truths, so it's a silly statement anyway.
Nemesio[/b]
The only ultimate truth is that there are no other ultimate truths.
It'd be a shame for that one truth to be so damn lonely. Fortunately for it, however, we have the capability to break down even the so-called irreducibles into simpler forms. Each word, every letter is based upon another form of truth, let alone the concept itself's dependence thereof.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigado[This got off topic, so I changed the non-consensual sentence to "we can't know for sure...", instead of "there are no absolute truths"]
Some people just don't care about arguments and take as a starting point (could say as an axiom) the Truth in the Bible.
In my viewpoint of the world, we can't know if anything is the ultimate or absolute truth. So, where do believers in the Bible get the guarantee that what is in there is the Truth?
Couldn't it just be possible that some men many centuries ago manipulated some information and exaggerated some facts to write it? I believe Christ existed. Couldn't he just be a genial speaker with an outstanding message that moved crowds? Would that make Christ less valuable? I believe not. I think it's quite possible some people wanted so much that message to endure the test of time they simply turned Christ to be the something more then he really was. Isn't this possible??
Many of the things said in the Bible simply don't make sense nowadays. Anthropocentrism was left only 500 yrs ago when evidence against it was overwhelming, as an example.
What makes you believe the Bible is unquestionable???
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioHow about a truth from the Bible such as you shall reap what you sow? Is this an absolute truth or am I missing something here?
I daresay I think I'm with you on this.
Maybe it would be better to say:
The only ultimate truth is that there are no other ultimate truths.
Somehow, that's less sexy, I suppose.
That having been said, there are plenty of ultimate truths, so it's a silly statement anyway.
Nemesio
27 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNo. The selfish jerks I know are pretty miserable people. They then are treated as they treat other people. Relationships they are involved in are usurally narcasisstic and last only as long as the other person is fun to be around. In the end they will wind up with shallow relationships and a wasted life.
Don't you know plenty of people who are very happy, have everything the need, and are selfish
jerks?
Nemesio
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioThat is not knowledge. That is a fact, consequence of the concept we have of triangles. Nothing in the world can change that, it's inherent to a right triangle. And it's based on axioms. From axioms, we can take necessary truths. The same way with syllogisms. The logic that comes from a syllogism is not knowledge.
Do you think we can know that the sum of the square of the sides is equal to the square of the
hypotenuse in a right triangle?
Nemesio
That's why mathematics is not a science. It's only a tool, a language.
I don't know if I made myself clear... I guess not...