You will reject this...

Originally posted by vistesd
I am a bit confused, too. But I think what you and Mephisto are getting at with “context” is good, and perhaps the best question is: What is a non-contextual truth versus a contextual one? (By contextual, I mean context-dependent for it’s truth-value.)

Under a correspondence theory of truth, as LJ and Starrman recently hammered into me, a statement S i ...[text shortened]... ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori. None of Grampy’s examples fall into this category.

Very nice post.
As a potential example of an absolute truth in all times and places, would "the simplest normal-matter atom is a single proton orbited by a single electron" qualify? This would as far as I can see qualify under absolutist terms as something which is true in all times and places and not context dependant, thoguh the terms for electron or proton or atom may changes=, the actual system described by those words would not. I do worry that it is self-referential though, due to the definition of atom referring to electrons and nucleons.

Originally posted by agryson
Actually I'd say "The person with their back to me walked from the room", but I'm not a grammarian. I was not so much making a point as defending the earlier point that grampy refers to god as a he, a father etc as it is put in the bible, yet rejects other parts. Simply as a further illustration of grampies picking and choosing of the parts he likes.
As to ough I would question whether this ambiguity is the reason grampy refers to god as a he.

I think "their back" is how modern speakers avoid the issue of awkward gender-based personal pronouns. But, "their" is plural as in "those people have their backs to me," rather than "that person has their bacl to me."

I think Grampy is right to call God a he. This is something that the Bible is very explicit about. The quote, "God hardened the Pharoah's heart," however, is not explicit and is open to a number of theological interpretations.

(I notice that I made a mistake in my previous post: demonstrative pronouns do not have gender.)

EDIT: Never mind. Wikipedia has this entry on the subject of "their":

Although grammarians and usage writers often condemn the use of the singular they when gender is unknown or unimportant, this is often used, both in speech and in writing. In fact, a consistent pattern of usage can be traced at least as far back as Shakespeare, and possibly even back to Middle English. It avoids awkward constructions like he or she. This usage is authorised and preferred by the Australian Government Manual of Style for official usage in government documents

Originally posted by agryson
Very nice post.
As a potential example of an absolute truth in all times and places, would "the simplest normal-matter atom is a single proton orbited by a single electron" qualify? This would as far as I can see qualify under absolutist terms as something which is true in all times and places and not context dependant, thoguh the terms for electron or pro ...[text shortened]... is self-referential though, due to the definition of atom referring to electrons and nucleons.

Thanks, Agryson.

For starters, I take your word about the general truth of the statement, since I’m not a scientist. 🙂

I might certainly call it a “nomological truth”: true according to the facts of the natural universe. With regard to the question of context-dependency, the definition given of “absolutism” in wiki is context-dependant vis-à-vis a “particular domain of thought”. So, it might be absolutely true within the domain of the physical universe? But is it necessarily true in all possible worlds, as would a logical truth such as A = A, or ~(A & ~A)?

Then, what we have is a statement that is absolutely true relative to the particular domain of thought?

For example, Grampy’s last offering in response to my post consist of statements that one might say are “absolutely” true—if (1) the God posited by Christianity exists, (2) that God is accurately revealed in the Biblical texts, and (3) Grampy’s theological reading of those texts is itself accurate [lots of debate among Christians on that last “if”, all of whom are at least trying to read the texts accurately].

Maybe I’m being too picky, but I’m thinking that I’d like to eschew all talk of “relative” truth and “absolute” truth in favor of something like: “S is true by definition” and “S is true under conditions C (such as the natural physical laws of the universe)”—or, “R is a logically necessary relationship” and “R is a nomologically necessary relationship”.

Those words “relative” and “absolute” just seem to cause confusion, and people need to be asked again and again what they mean when using them. Nevertheless, they are part of conventional discourse, and so maybe I just need to find ways to ask the question with greater specificty.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Let's cut to the quick. Three absolute truths: It is appointed unto man once to die, then to stand before judgement

and then to reside at one of two addresses for all eternity. To which of those destinations is your ticket punched?


🙂

I don’t mean to talk around you as if you’re not here, but I guess my response is included in my reply to Agryson above. 😳

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Let's cut to the quick. Three absolute truths: It is appointed unto man once to die, then to stand before judgement

and then to reside at one of two addresses for all eternity. To which of those destinations is your ticket punched?


🙂

Let me ask you this, Grampy:

If someone put a gun to your head and said 'Give me your wallet or I shoot,' does your answer
constitute totally free will or coercion?

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks, Agryson.

For starters, I take your word about the general truth of the statement, since I’m not a scientist. 🙂

I might certainly call it a “nomological truth”: true according to the facts of the natural universe. With regard to the question of context-dependency, the definition given of “absolutism” in wiki is context-dependant vis-à-vi ...[text shortened]... al discourse, and so maybe I just need to find ways to ask the question with greater specificty.

Hmm, well in that case I can't think of a single absolutist truth. Tweak a few things here and there and a lot of stuff would change, really you're only limited by your imagination.
If by universe, we mean the three spatial and one temporal such as we are currently in, then I could say the value of Pi is an absolute truth. Even in a 6 dimensional universe, that would be true, they'd just have to do the math to find its value in three spatial dimensions.
I can see how this absolute/relative can cause problems. Beyond mathematical facts, not a single absolutist truth occurs to me. Even considering the biblical god, it is clear that since it (sorry, but it's neither human nor real nor clear on its own gender so I'll keep using it for the moment) predates the universe, supposedly, it must exist outside of the universe, and thus can one reference it as an absolutist truth?

Originally posted by agryson
Hmm, well in that case I can't think of a single absolutist truth. Tweak a few things here and there and a lot of stuff would change, really you're only limited by your imagination.
If by universe, we mean the three spatial and one temporal such as we are currently in, then I could say the value of Pi is an absolute truth. Even in a 6 dimensional universe, t must exist outside of the universe, and thus can one reference it as an absolutist truth?

Well, I’m having the same thoughts. Some random comments (my brain is getting tired)—

I think that Wittgenstein said somewhere that the only absolutely true statements are tautologies—but I might remember that wrong. (Dottewell is the resident Wittgenstein expert.)

Logical truths, as twhitehead mentioned, may be the best candidates. If p, then q; p, therefore q (modus ponens). What could it possibly mean to say that does not hold in some domain? I assume that mathematical facts are similar.

Dr. Scribbles, in an essay at my request, defined an axiom as a standard of truth within a particular domain of discourse. I thought of that when I read the wiki definition of “absolutism”. For example, an axiom for theological discourse would be the assertion of a supernatural category; if I challenge that assertion, I am challenging the validity of that whole domain of discourse—on the other hand, I may accept that axiom “for the sake of argument,” in order to examine some specific claims within that domain.

Perhaps sometimes when people say something is absolutely true, they mean that it is true without exception in the domain of thought under consideration. That would be the case for Grampy’s chess queen example.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Crap. The first one is relative to the definition of 'man' (e.g. an individual homo sapiens, still living is more than likely to die one day in the future). The second and third are just statements of belief.

The worm of memory in your soul (the worm that dies not) will one

day recall the opportunity dismissed by your post relative to mine.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t mean to talk around you as if you’re not here, but I guess my response is included in my reply to Agryson above. 😳

Thank you for your courtesy, Vistesd. Perhaps I've over

stayed my welcome in this narrow forum. Perhaps not.



🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
Catholics and Orthodox Churches believe in the third option of purgatory. I am there right now.

Strictly false doctrine for the purpose of money grab and control.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Strictly false doctrine for the purpose of money grab and control.

Strictly Protestant revisionism for the purpose of self-indulgent sectarianism.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thank you for your courtesy, Vistesd. Perhaps I've over

stayed my welcome in this narrow forum. Perhaps not.



🙂

You’ll find that these threads seldom run on one track for very long—in addition to the theme of your opening post on this thread, we have entertained questions of what coercion means and the nature of truth statements. Good questions, good discussion.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks, Agryson.

For starters, I take your word about the general truth of the statement, since I’m not a scientist. 🙂

I might certainly call it a “nomological truth”: true according to the facts of the natural universe. With regard to the question of context-dependency, the definition given of “absolutism” in wiki is context-dependant vis-à-vi ...[text shortened]... al discourse, and so maybe I just need to find ways to ask the question with greater specificty.

There is no greater "specificity" than absolute... all else represents varying percents

of academic skim milk, ladled with the worn ladle of debaters' technique. 🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
Strictly Protestant revisionism for the purpose of self-indulgent sectarianism.

Just a quick note: I don't think the Orthodox churches have a doctrine of purgatory--and they view Rome as the first revisionists, leading to the Great Schism of 1054. The Protestant Reformation was revision of the revisionists. Sola scriptura was a brand-spanking new and innovative doctrine in the 16th century.

Although myself a former Protestant, I find Orthodoxy the most interesting, and I do think their claims to have preserved the original oral tradition of the church to have some merit.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Strictly Protestant revisionism for the purpose of self-indulgent sectarianism.

Once again you seem to miss the point, because of your cultural indoctrination and willful refusal to understand

God's Integrity and Plan of Grace. Horizontal viewpoint accepts denominations, purgatory notions, etc.