Lets see who can give me an absolute truth.......

I'll give you mine... but I wanna see what ya'll got ! :D

You are tempting me.


-----------------
Howzat?

I think therefore I am.

I am therefore I think.

;)

Your thread is lame.

Ouch.

//Giggles.

I am

And, the ten character limit sucks

An absolute truth.


*chuckle*

My dog has no respect for furniture.

I am therefore I think.

;)

I love how your selection is the more atheistic reversal of Descartes' catch phrase.

Your thread is lame.

Stop your gonna make me cry.

I love how your selection is the more atheistic reversal of Descartes' catch phrase.

how the hell does that make it aetheistic?
btw, just because you are, doesnt mean you think.

a rock is, but it does not think, etc.


btw, "we're not"

...




...?




...

?

?

!

you only needed to make the first post.

you only needed to make the first post.You're right...I could have edited, my fault.

You win some, you lose some.

What comes around goes around.

The sun is hot.

I observe you, therefore--and only therefore-- you are.

I AM


*ouch* also you must have 10 charachters to post.

There are allways a bigger fish.


Sorry that's not absolute, but it seemed to be ok at the moment.

the planets circle the sun.
I observe you, therefore--and only therefore-- you are.
How do u figure? Thats like saying a tree doesnt make a sound unless someone hears it. :bugeye:

Lets see who can give me an absolute truth.......
The truth? You want the truth?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!



Sorry, couldn't resist...:D

Thought is occuring.

A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE.



(I just love this one.)

the planets circle the sun.

How do u figure? Thats like saying a tree doesnt make a sound unless someone hears it. :bugeye:

If a tree toppled in a forest but no one was around, would ya hear it? ;)

you wouldnt cause your NOT THERE

-Logic- good answer. lol! and yes i do think it would make a sound.

Too much ha-ha,
too soon boo-hoo.

Lets see who can give me an absolute truth.......
EVERYTHING'S RELATIVE.

;)

but then nothing IS

(oooo lets get metaphorical)

But then again, something must be :D

otherwise ITS NOT

If a tree toppled in a forest but no one was around, would ya hear it? ;)

Stupid me.. what I meant to say was:

If a tree toppled in a forest but no one was around, would it make a sound?

;)

YES it would, cause otherwise itd be breaking laws of nature.

Remember, "laws" of nature are observed.

Stupid me.. what I meant to say was:

If a tree toppled in a forest but no one was around, would it make a sound?

;)I guess it wouldn't make a sound, but it would create soundwaves though. Maybe we would hear the sound of it through any of it's consequences when they reaches us :) Just as we hear the soundwaves as a consequence of the tree falling.

Butterfly effect is pretty awsome!

I changed my mind...I actually changed my mind!! Hurray!!

what the hell are you on about? of course it makes a sound.
the whole basis of that argument is that its not observed, but mowadays (unless im heavily mistaken) 'observed' is defined by a particle interacting with the object, which stems from the many worlds theory (i believe) so therefore it must make a sound since it would be interacting with countless photons anyway so THERE.

There is no purpose or reason.

"Is"


how bout that?

About the tree...

Put a tape recorder in the forest. I am fairly confident it will record the sound though you are not there. 99.999...% confident of that :)

but then your observing it indirectly.
HAHA!!!!!

Another interesting question, does the light go off when you close the fridge? Does it? does it? And no observing here, answer through other means :D

yes, cause i know how it works, and i can turn the light off when its open :D.
also, i once saw a see-through fridge and it does so THERE. UP YOURS.
hehehehee i proved you wrong.

Tee heee hee

Another hijacked thread.. SCORE!

@ fadingCaptain

That's because something is there to record the sound. I'm talking about if no one were there to hear the sound, would there be a sound?

http://www.getodd.com/stuf/treefall.html

YES THERE WOULD (all in captitals)

There should be, because the tree moves the air, thus creating sound.

And Logically, you observed that the light went out, that´s notfair :(

but i cant prove anything without observing it. your cheating.

ah whatever. im going to bed.

If there was no darkness, would there be light? And vice versa.

;)

Dunno, I think, in that case, there is nothing. And Darkness and Light are just a matter of perception.

Let's get back on track..

I think, therefore I am.

I don't think, therefore I am... aware!

If the sound is not heard, or observed in some other way, then it cannot be said to have happened. The implication is that there is something very important about observation.

“ Originally Posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
I observe you, therefore--and only therefore-- you are. ”

How do u figure? Thats like saying a tree doesnt make a sound unless someone hears it.

A sound is only an air compression wave which hits the eardrum and is then recreated as "pitch" "amplitude" and "tone". So truly until the air compression hits a working eardrum, a sound will NOT be made. Though the potential is there, all that defines a sound is not.

Same goes with existence, until I observe something to be true, there is nothing that precludes it from simply not existing.

In short, you are NOT until the "now" at which you are observed.

... just like the planet 70 million light years from our sun. doesn't "exist" yet.

just like the planet 70 million light years from our sun. doesn't "exist" yet.

Agreed.. but then you can't say it does exist. The only available solution is "might". It's scary to admit you just don't know, but it's much more honest than using the "faith" word.

Uncertainty and surety are different things.

Example:
There might be a sun in our galaxy.
There is a sun in our galaxy.

Uncertainty and surety are different things.

Example:
There might be a sun in our galaxy.
There is a sun in our galaxy.

Yeah, so... there might be a god, there might not. Hell, there might be a giant fluorescent pink orang utan floating above lake plopadop on planet ooglepoop, or there might not. You can't say "there is.." to either of these because you don't have one remotely worthy piece of evidence to support the claim. Of course though, you have to employ the 'faith' word just on the off chance that there is - so you can end up in a land of gold once you become a rotting corpse. Good on you.

Yeah, so... there might be a god, there might not. Hell, there might be a giant fluorescent pink orang utan floating above lake plopadop on planet ooglepoop, or there might not. You can't say "there is.." to either of these because you don't have one remotely worthy piece of evidence to support the claim. Of course though, you have to employ the 'faith' word just on the off chance that there is - so you can end up in a land of gold once you become a rotting corpse. Good on you.

How can you say "there is" if you don't know?

I would assume, "Either you know or you don't".

Hey that can be one of the absolute truths!

There is no such thing as truth.

the earth is round..
...
and there is nothing absolute on earth

I thought the earth was elliptical :confused:

@ Enigma'07
Liarl, liar, pants on fire..

A flute with no hole is not a flute. A doughnut with no hole is a Danish.

Here's a brain teaser for you all.


A lie is a truth.

(Hurts your head just thinkin about it, doesnt it?)

truth is subjective.

Not if you're well-practiced in doublethink.

I personally wrote the definition for the Newspeak dictionary.

Oliver J, You think you exists.

Here's a brain teaser for you all.


A lie is a truth.

(Hurts your head just thinkin about it, doesnt it?)No, that certain lie is certainly not a truth...

YES THERE WOULD (all in captitals)Sorry...but that would be logically unsound!

Why couldn't I resist that?

No, that certain lie is certainly not a truth...

That would therefore be a lie by the truth I presented.

"give me an absolute truth."

2+2=4

Unless, of course, God has poor math then..

2+2= whatever the priests tell me.
Dee Cee

The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

By the way, Descartes never proclaimed "I think, therefore I am."
He said "I am; I exist"

how do you know?

how about:
""
hmmmmmm??????

I dare someone to refute my first proposition:

Thought exists.

Come on suckers. Double dare.

you dont think. you cant prove the exsistence of any thought outside of you own. and you cant obverse your own thought can you?

i can't observe my own thought? Thats a strange idea.

i do think. i could not deny "i think" without thinking. therefore i do. therefore thought exists and you are wrong.

how do I know your thinking?

You can look at his eyes, and wait for the change.

Seriously, try it in front of a mirror. Look into the mirror and then really think about something. Watch your eyes :)

Who cares if you know I am thinking. I don't even know if YOU or anyone else absolutely exists...remember?

What you can do is know that YOU are thinking. Thus arriving to the same conclusion as I.

Lets see who can give me an absolute truth.......

I'll give you mine... but I wanna see what ya'll got ! :D


Tautology

A or ~A

You guys arent any good at this.... :D

visible are you sure ? :bugeye:

Can you do better? Prove it!

Can you do better? Prove it!

Sure.

Truth table for A or ~A (read A or not A)

--------------------------------
A | A or ~A
--------------------------------
T | T T F
F | T T T

Conclusion, A or ~A is in fact a tautology.

I have no clue what you are talking about. :confused: What level of math?

I have no clue what you are talking about. :confused: What level of math?

It's just basic logic. I'll try and walk you through it.

So we start out with our statement, A or ~A.

For this statement to be true, either A or not A must be true, which is just how the logical or operator works.

So to create a truth table we generate a table with all the possible truth values for our variables. Since we only have one and our we have binary truths, we only have 2 values (true and false).

So we start with this:

A | A or ~A
------------
T
F

Now we apply those values to the statement. The controlling operator is the or. So to find the actual truth we need to figure out whether or not the or is true. The only other operator is the not. So first we figure out the values for the not (~).

A | A or ~A
------------
T | | | F
F | | | T


Now that that's done since we already know the value of A from the our left table we can assign a value to the or, knowing that for an or to be true only one of its members needs be true. So....

A | A or ~A
------------
T | | T | F
F | | T | T

And we have a finished truth table for (A or ~A). To be a tautology every statement must be true. Since this table meets that criteria, the premise is a tautology.

No matter what we put into the this phrase it will be true.

Examples:

It is raining here or it is not raining here.

I am a man or I am not a man.

There is a god or there is not a god.

In any event. I hope this helped some.

Hey Captian,

You're sure its really you doing the thinking? Perhaps a body snatcher has you, feeding you ideas that are really its own. Perhaps everyone out there has a different higher being, that shoots thoughts into our head all day, and makes us think that we're thinking. Or maybe you're just a big old brain, plugged into all the other brains in the world, and you don't know about it, so the only thinking you think you're doing is the thinking that your plugged in self does, but not the real you...

Ouch, I think that last one caused me to have an aneurism

Sure.

Truth table for A or ~A (read A or not A)

--------------------------------
A | A or ~A
--------------------------------
T | T T F
F | T T T



Hilariously enough, this isn't even correct. In fact, the table makes no sense. It should read:

A | (A or ~A)
---------------
T | T
F | T

Hilariously enough, this isn't even correct. In fact, the table makes no sense. It should read:

A | (A or ~A)
---------------
T | T
F | T

I always get a kick out of arrogant people like you. What you supplied is a pretty basic truth table, what I supplied was a complete truth table. I'll admit I added the first 2 Ts for clarity when they were in fact superfluous, however in the next post where it was explained (you didn't read this by chance) I took them out. really, learn a bit before you try and come off as all knowing.

^^ Ouch.

I always get a kick out of arrogant people like you. What you supplied is a pretty basic truth table, what I supplied was a complete truth table. I'll admit I added the first 2 Ts for clarity when they were in fact superfluous, however in the next post where it was explained (you didn't read this by chance) I took them out. really, learn a bit before you try and come off as all knowing.

Alright, please explain your truth table, because it is entirely unclear to me:

A | A or ~A
--------------------------------
T | T T F
F | T T T

There are three columns to the right of the pipe character. Please explain what each of these columns mean.

Correcting someone's error, especially on a public forum, is not arrogance.

Yo dj erock,
"You're sure its really you doing the thinking? Perhaps a body snatcher has you, feeding you ideas that are really its own. Perhaps everyone out there has a different higher being, that shoots thoughts into our head all day, and makes us think that we're thinking. Or maybe you're just a big old brain, plugged into all the other brains in the world, and you don't know about it, so the only thinking you think you're doing is the thinking that your plugged in self does, but not the real you..."

Regardless of all these fantastic possibilities...the fact remains that I CAN conclude that THOUGHT exists. Therefore, my assertion stands. Anyone else care to try?

Yo dj erock,
"You're sure its really you doing the thinking? Perhaps a body snatcher has you, feeding you ideas that are really its own. Perhaps everyone out there has a different higher being, that shoots thoughts into our head all day, and makes us think that we're thinking. Or maybe you're just a big old brain, plugged into all the other brains in the world, and you don't know about it, so the only thinking you think you're doing is the thinking that your plugged in self does, but not the real you..."

Regardless of all these fantastic possibilities...the fact remains that I CAN conclude that THOUGHT exists. Therefore, my assertion stands. Anyone else care to try?

If that was the case, the "body snatcher" would be the one "feeding" you the thoughts that made you think you were being controlled by the body snatcher. Highly unlikely in my opinion. Besides, there would be some other form of contemplation than thinking. :cool:

There is no purpose or reason.You observing it gives it purpose, otherwize why would you say that?

Define thought. If you can define it, someone can likely make you doubt it's existence.

- There are no square circles.
- There are no invisible pink unicorns.
- Absolute truth exists.

A lie is a truth.



Ok enough of this....... here is mine..... and Southstar hit pretty much...

Everything is truth. Think deep deep thinkers.

Ya'll have a nice day.

- There are no invisible pink unicorns.


Since they are invisible how would you know?

And before you answer, remember the arguments of atheists who say God can't be proved.

Ok enough of this....... here is mine..... and Southstar hit pretty much...

Everything is truth. Think deep deep thinkers.

Ya'll have a nice day.

Does "everything" include nothing, or is it the other way round?

Truth table for A or ~A (read A or not A)

--------------------------------
A | A or ~A
--------------------------------
T | T T F
F | T T T
What does the 1st T to the right of the line stand for?

What does the 1st T to the right of the line stand for?

That first truth table does have an error in it. The second one is right though, and the first one has a mistake but it's not so critical the table can't be understood. The table should read:

A | A or ~A
=========
T | T T F
F | F T T

Here is a breakdown of what those mean.

A | A or ~A
=========
T (one possibility of truth)
F (the other possibility)

A | A or ~A
=========
T | T (A is true, since it's true to begin with)
F | F (A is false, since it is false to begin with)

A | A or ~A
=========
T |T __ F (not A is false since A is true)
F | F __ T (not A is true since A is false)

A | A or ~A
=========
T | T T F (or is true since one of its connectives it true)
F | F T T (or is true since one of its connectives is true)

Once again, hope this helps.

Does "everything" include nothing, or is it the other way round?

both .........

Since they are invisible how would you know?Because the definition is self contradictory. It can't be invisible and have color at the same time. Color is merely reflected light at certain wavelengths. If it's invisible it's not reflecting light, and therefore has no color.
And before you answer, remember the arguments of atheists who say God can't be proved.What are you talking about? I happen to be an atheist.

Because the definition is self contradictory. It can't be invisible and have color at the same time. Color is merely reflected light at certain wavelengths. If it's invisible it's not reflecting light, and therefore has no color.
What are you talking about? I happen to be an atheist.

Well, you obviously haven't met Katazia..

oliver
Lets see who can give me an absolute truth

you will die, I will die, we will all die.

oliver
Lets see who can give me an absolute truth

you will die, I will die, we will all die.

Not everyone has died.

Not everyone has died.

Correct. People currently alive, such as you and myself, have not died.

However, his comment included "we will all die," which covers that base.

I would hardly call that absolute. I can think of many scenarios where I do not die. They may be extremely remote, but they are there.

Alpha,
Thought: To visualize; imagine

Can you refute that the process of thought occurs? In order to do so, you have to exercise the very thing you are refuting. I stick by my guns.

wouldn't an absolute truth have to be true for any given time? If I say "not everyone is dead", sure that might be true for the moment, but will it be true a moment from now? I dunno. I still think the only absolute truth is that truth is subjective. It will always be that way too. :p

Can you refute that the process of thought occurs? In order to do so, you have to exercise the very thing you are refuting. I stick by my guns. I thought that most people who studied philosophy pretty in-depth were aware that Descartes' argument was erroneous and no longer considered relevant. You can only assert that you are thinking by observing a thought as it occurs. I'm sure you can take it from there.

Every second, you grow older.

Correct. People currently alive, such as you and myself, have not died.

However, his comment included "we will all die," which covers that base.

I was referring to Elijah, who was swept up by a flaming chariot into the heavens. He did not die before going to heaven.

Not everyone has died.
you make no sense.
the truth stated by fahrenheit was you'll die, i'll die, we will all die.
this is an absolute truth.

I was referring to Elijah, who was swept up by a flaming chariot into the heavens. He did not die before going to heaven.
you quote from the bible, prove it's the truth thank you.
as this is an absolute truth thread.

This SHOULD be really easy to clear up. People are saying, "There is no absolute truth". I would like to aske them, "Are you ABSOULUTLEY sure? Even while you are saying that there is no absolute truth, you are making an absolute truth statement. And it does not work to say that "there is one absolute, and it is this: there are no absolutes" because that statement negates itself. Hope this helps.
-historian2be

Well, you obviously haven't met Katazia..Huh? Explain.
I still think the only absolute truth is that truth is subjective. It will always be that way too.Ok, the second sentence is obviously humor, but I'm not sure about the first. Seems obvious to me that subjective truth is not absolute (by definition). Objective truth is absolute.
This SHOULD be really easy to clear up. People are saying, "There is no absolute truth". I would like to aske them, "Are you ABSOULUTLEY sure? Even while you are saying that there is no absolute truth, you are making an absolute truth statement. And it does not work to say that "there is one absolute, and it is this: there are no absolutes" because that statement negates itself. Hope this helps.*Sigh* I hope it helps too. I would have thought this would be obvious to everyone. :/

By the way, Descartes never proclaimed "I think, therefore I am."
He said "I am; I exist"No, actually, he said "Cogito ergo sum", which means "I think therefore I am". "Ergo" means "therefore".

Halcyon,
"I thought that most people who studied philosophy pretty in-depth were aware that Descartes' argument was erroneous and no longer considered relevant. You can only assert that you are thinking by observing a thought as it occurs. I'm sure you can take it from there. "

Oh really? Most people who have studied philosophy do not consider Descartes' argument relevant? Are you one of those that has studied philosophy "pretty in-depth"? It doesn't matter because you are confusing Descartes argument with mine. I am not making a contention that I absolutely exist.

Anyway, my point is that "observing a thought" and "thinking" are the same. You do not "observe a thought as it occurs". You have self-reflection. The fact that "thought" is occuring is self-evident and undeniable. The argument itself would not be possible without thought. Take it from there...

you quote from the bible, prove it's the truth thank you.
as this is an absolute truth thread.

The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely.

@ Alpha

Kat, in another thread, says that if something cannot be detected, it does not exist. (Of course she was saying God cannot be 'detected', which is ultimately false)

In fact, I will state this as an absolute truth to see what the general response is.



If something cannot be detected, it does not exist.

You want an answer to that? How about: Everything exists!
For it does, everything exists somewhere, it may differ in form, but it is there. Even god exists in a way. He is in your mind, but not needfully outside of it. Fairies or dragons also exist, in books, in our fantasy. But you cannot detect them, can you? They are not real, but that does not keep them from existing.

If you think I am wrong, you should better go and define existence.

The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely.

Is it? Why? Can you tell me? Preferably without invoking God or Jesus?

Is it? Why? Can you tell me? Preferably without invoking God or Jesus?

Show the validity of the Bible without glorifying God? Are you mad? :bugeye:

You want an answer to that? How about: Everything exists!
For it does, everything exists somewhere, it may differ in form, but it is there. Even god exists in a way. He is in your mind, but not needfully outside of it. Fairies or dragons also exist, in books, in our fantasy. But you cannot detect them, can you? They are not real, but that does not keep them from existing.

If you think I am wrong, you should better go and define existence.

Well before you go and swallow me whole, you should read the WHOLE reply. :p

Show the validity of the Bible without glorifying God? Are you mad? :bugeye:

I am quite serious on this one. You see, the problem is, there are mulitple holy scriptures that supposedly wrote down the word of god(s). And all of them claim that they bear the absolute truth. That causes some problems, don´t you think? So, the truth can obviously only be determined without falling back on god as validation. If that is not possible, there is no truth, just faith.

Well before you go and swallow me whole, you should read the WHOLE reply.

Yeah, I know that you did only "reproduce" this question, the "you" was directed at anyone who felt addressed.

I am quite serious on this one. You see, the problem is, there are mulitple holy scriptures that supposedly wrote down the word of god(s). And all of them claim that they bear the absolute truth. That causes some problems, don´t you think? So, the truth can obviously only be determined without falling back on god as validation. If that is not possible, there is no truth, just faith.

Since the other so-called "holy" books do not acknowledge the Truth of the ONLY Triune Deity, they can be considered heretic. However, knowledge of the "existence" of God, does NOT come about from reading the Bible or talking to missionaries and such and therefore cannot be classified as "falling back on God."

I also note that you use 'god' instead of 'God'..

Since the other so-called "holy" books do not acknowledge the Truth of the ONLY Triune Deity, they can be considered heretic. However, knowledge of the "existence" of God, does NOT come about from reading the Bible or talking to missionaries and such and therefore cannot be classified as "falling back on God."

I also note that you use 'god' instead of 'God'..

But the "Triunity" is not necessary, it may well be, that those ,who do not have it, are right. And if you cannot fall back on god, on what is your religion founded? And if you do not gain knowledge of god´s existence from the bible, where else do you get it? And on what basis?

And I use "god" for the same reason I use "tree", there are lots of them, so why should I write one of them in capitals?

But the "Triunity" is not necessary, it may well be, that those ,who do not have it, are right. And if you cannot fall back on god, on what is your religion founded? And if you do not gain knowledge of god´s existence from the bible, where else do you get it? And on what basis?

And I use "god" for the same reason I use "tree", there are lots of them, so why should I write one of them in capitals?

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools


I don't think I need to explain it to you, but do note that it says God and not gods. Unless you have evidence, using the text, that there are gods.. It also shows that you dont need the Bible to know that there is God.

You just got served dreamwalker. How can you refute that? It says so right there in the bible. :)

Ps. I promise to never utter that horrible phrase about getting served again.

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools


I don't think I need to explain it to you, but do note that it says God and not gods. Unless you have evidence, using the text, that there are gods.. It also shows that you dont need the Bible to know that there is God.

You know, you should get this quote from the bible as signature. It seems that you always post it. Now, let me see, last time I looked, I saw no evidence for god, neither your god nor any other. For me, it is plain that God does not exist, I don´t know God, so I arrive at the conclusion that god does not exist.
I like that last sentence, nicely done so that everyone who does not believe in god thinks that he is a blind fool, attacking his selfconvidence. Designed to weaken the reader, making it easier to convert him. Nice retoric, but again, there is no proof for you God.
And you are right, it does not say "gods" but I do, because I don´t believe in a particular one.

You know, you should get this quote from the bible as signature. It seems that you always post it. Now, let me see, last time I looked, I saw no evidence for god, neither your god nor any other. For me, it is plain that God does not exist, I don´t know God, so I arrive at the conclusion that god does not exist.
I like that last sentence, nicely done so that everyone who does not believe in god thinks that he is a blind fool, attacking his selfconvidence. Designed to weaken the reader, making it easier to convert him. Nice retoric, but again, there is no proof for you God.
And you are right, it does not say "gods" but I do, because I don´t believe in a particular one.

John Gill's Exposition
-------------
here are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous
--------------

John Gill's Exposition
-------------
here are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous
--------------

And what exactly does that proof? The first people have personificated or idolized natural things linke fire, iron, stone and many more things. There are theories that such beliefs became more complex, alongside the human mind and civilization. Ending in the generalized and abstract single "GOD".
But tell me, what exactly does that text of yours proof anything? And if Adam and his descendants had knowledge of him, why were people believing in idols?
And now, stop glorifying your damn god and give me proof, evidence for I see none.

You want an answer to that? How about: Everything exists!
.

:) Everything is truth.

:) Everything is truth.

In fact, it is, yes. Everything is true, just like nothing is true.

And what exactly does that proof? The first people have personificated or idolized natural things linke fire, iron, stone and many more things. There are theories that such beliefs became more complex, alongside the human mind and civilization.

These were acts of idolatry and heinous insubordination to the Almighty. Certainly, you will note that their lot did not survive the "wrath of heaven", as described in the text.

Ending in the generalized and abstract single "GOD".
But tell me, what exactly does that text of yours proof anything? And if Adam and his descendants had knowledge of him, why were people believing in idols?
And now, stop glorifying your damn god and give me proof, evidence for I see none.

The evidence is you and in you. How can I show you what you don't want to see? Even if I showed you to your face this minute, do you think you would TRULY believe? I think not, but hope to be mistaken.

The evidence is you and in you. How can I show you what you don't want to see? Even if I showed you to your face this minute, do you think you would TRULY believe? I think not, but hope to be mistaken.

If this is your answer, there is no need to discuss. I have searched the answer in my, the only one I found was the fact that you cannot believe in anything because everything we perceive can very well be wrong.
Even if you would show me this very minute, I would look at it from all sides and then, I would decide if the thing I see is true, if it can be true.

These were acts of idolatry and heinous insubordination to the Almighty. Certainly, you will note that their lot did not survive the "wrath of heaven", as described in the text.

The wrath of heaven? No, sorry, but where is anything written about the wrath of heaven in that passage. I really cannot see it. :(

If this is your answer, there is no need to discuss. I have searched the answer in my, the only one I found was the fact that you cannot believe in anything because everything we perceive can very well be wrong.
Even if you would show me this very minute, I would look at it from all sides and then, I would decide if the thing I see is true, if it can be true.

Are you saying you don't have faith, or you don't need faith?

The wrath of heaven? No, sorry, but where is anything written about the wrath of heaven in that passage. I really cannot see it. :(

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who..

In fact, it is, yes. Everything is true, just like nothing is true.


Which means all is absolute truth......there you have it folks.... and dont give me "all what" crap...... just all. How about we end this topic and we all agree not to agree, thats almost the truth isnt it???? . lmaoooooo

Infinite all..........

Oh really? Most people who have studied philosophy do not consider Descartes' argument relevant?
Yep. You got got it. To get the ball rolling on this, define "I," prove it exists. Then take the part "I think," and prove it. While you're working on that, I'm going through some old texts of mine to bring some concrete references and refutations to the table.

Are you one of those that has studied philosophy "pretty in-depth"?
ha! Nope. Never claimed to. But I do engage in intelligent conversation wherever I can, and I have spoken with several deeply educated philosophers who allow the statement: "I thought that most people who study philosophy indepth..." I was given references to support their claim, which I read, and found the arguments compelling and to have foundation, so it cannot be argued that I don't know what I'm saying here. No, not a philosopher, but I assumed you to be due to your statements, and thus the particular wording of my reply.

It doesn't matter because you are confusing Descartes argument with mine. I am not making a contention that I absolutely exist.
Yes you are:
Thought exists.

i do think. i could not deny "i think" without thinking. therefore i do.

That's where my argument started, with those statements. You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. The purpose of my bringing up Descartes was that the argument that refutes his claim does that same for yours. Without observation, nothing can be said to exist; to claim that thought exists, it must be observed. To claim that thought is being observed, you must prove the existance of an observer.

Ok Girls! This is what Descarte said:

Descartes begins Meditations with methodic doubt, rejecting as though false all types of knowledge by which he was ever deceived. His arguments derive from the Pyrrhonism of the Greek skeptic Sextus Empiricus as reflected in the skeptical writings of Michel de Montaigne and Pierre Charron. Thus knowledge based on authority is set aside because even experts are sometimes wrong. Knowledge from sensory experience is declared untrustworthy because people sometimes mistake one thing for another, as with mirages. Knowledge based on reasoning is rejected as unreliable because one often makes mistakes as, for example, when adding. Finally, knowledge may be illusory because it comes from dreams or insanity or from a demon able to deceive men by making them think that they are experiencing the real world when they are not. Descartes finds certainty in the intuition that when he is thinking, even if deceived, he exists: “Cogito, ergo sum” (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”). The cogito is a logically self-evident truth that gives certain knowledge of a particular thing's existence—that is, one's self—but the cogito justifies accepting as certain only the existence of the person who thinks it. If all one ever knew for certain was that one exists and if one adhered to Descartes's method of doubting all that is uncertain, then one would be reduced to solipsism, the view that nothing exists but one's individual self and thoughts. To escape this, Descartes argues that all ideas that are as clear and distinct as the cogito must be true, for, if they were not, the cogito also, as a member of the class of clear and distinct ideas, could be doubted. Since “I think, therefore I am” cannot be doubted, all clear and distinct ideas must be true.

On the basis of clear and distinct innate ideas, Descartes then establishes that each mind is a spiritual substance and each body a part of one material substance. The mind or soul is immortal because it is unextended and cannot be broken into parts, as can extended bodies. Descartes also advances proof for the existence of God. He begins with the statement that he has an innate idea of God as a perfect being and then intuits that God necessarily exists, because, if he did not, he would not be perfect. This ontological proof for the existence of God is at the heart of Descartes's rationalism, for it establishes certain knowledge about an existing thing solely on the basis of reasoning from innate ideas, with no help from sensory experience. Descartes then argues that, because God is perfect, he does not deceive human beings; therefore the world exists. Thus Descartes claims to have given metaphysical foundations for the existence of his own mind, of God, and of the world.
------------

From the Britannica Encyclopaedia

Yo SouthStar dude

Quote SouthStar:
"The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely."

The above statement is an absolute truth only to yourself, and only in your own reality. Unfortunately the statement can never be considered a universal truth. But I dig where you are at. Ultimate truth can ever only be subjective. I can never walk in your shoes SouthStar dude, so our individual truths can never merge. They can merely nudge each other tenderly.

"If something cannot be detected, it does not exist."

The voices in a schizophrenics head, although undetected by us, is a reality that exists in the mind of the schizophrenic. Do the voices exist?

Allcare.

Lets see who can give me an absolute truth.......

I'll give you mine... but I wanna see what ya'll got ! :D

"I smoke, therefore I think I am."

Are you saying you don't have faith, or you don't need faith?



18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who..


First, I think that I am saying both, I don´t have faith and I don´t need faith. And I think that it is not the first time I said this...


Ah, you were speaking about that text...I tried the whole time to find meaning in this one

John Gill's Exposition
-------------
here are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous
--------------

You see, I did not find anything about the wrath of god in there.

The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely.

ah but you cant prove it can you, go ahead and try. "pretty please"

get a life man."WOW"

Trying to understand the opposite sex IRL is bloody near to impossible.

OI, lets cut the theology stuff out. You guys know you'll NEVER come to an agreement, less an agreement to disagree.

I know, and I have said so somewhere... But it is somewhat entertaining. :p

The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely.Actually, it has been proven otherwise numerous times.
@ Alpha

Kat, in another thread, says that if something cannot be detected, it does not exist. (Of course she was saying God cannot be 'detected', which is ultimately false)

In fact, I will state this as an absolute truth to see what the general response is.



If something cannot be detected, it does not exist.I would agree with that.
You want an answer to that? How about: Everything exists!
For it does, everything exists somewhere, it may differ in form, but it is there. Even god exists in a way. He is in your mind, but not needfully outside of it. Fairies or dragons also exist, in books, in our fantasy. But you cannot detect them, can you? They are not real, but that does not keep them from existing.

If you think I am wrong, you should better go and define existence.There is actually a flaw in your reasoning. The claim, "everything exists" presumes the claim it's making. "Everything" presupposes existance, therefore it is not a logically valid claim.
And I use "god" for the same reason I use "tree", there are lots of them, so why should I write one of them in capitals? Because "god" is used to refer to any being considered worthy of worship. "God" refers to the supposed creator of the universe.
Everything is truth.Really? Even lies and falsehoods? Hardly.
That's where my argument started, with those statements. You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. The purpose of my bringing up Descartes was that the argument that refutes his claim does that same for yours. Without observation, nothing can be said to exist; to claim that thought exists, it must be observed. To claim that thought is being observed, you must prove the existance of an observer.This has the same flaw as the nihilist argument. You presume that in order for something to exist there must be observation of it. Do you have anything to support this claim? If so, does that mean Denmark doesn't exist, since I've never seen it?

"The Bible is absolutely true. Absolutely."

The above statement is an absolute truth only to yourself, and only in your own reality. Then by definition it is a subjective truth, and is not absolutely true.
"If something cannot be detected, it does not exist."

The voices in a schizophrenics head, although undetected by us, is a reality that exists in the mind of the schizophrenic. Do the voices exist?They exist as thoughts and/or perceptions in that person's mind, and yes they can be detected. Not only can they be detected by the influence they have over the person, but also through reading their brainwaves via an EEG.

There is actually a flaw in your reasoning. The claim, "everything exists" presumes the claim it's making. "Everything" presupposes existance, therefore it is not a logically valid claim.

I know that it is not logically valid, but I also don´t think that logic is absolute...

Ok Girls! This is what Descarte said:

Don't throw a fit. Insults are innappropriate. Your cut and paste doesn't change anything insofar as the present argument, maybe you can justify it for us?

halcyon,
"You cannot assert that thought absolutely exists without an observer which absolutely exists. "

That is a good point. I disagree because I consider thought itself to be the observer. I can think of any number of fantastical matrix-style scenarios where "I" do not exist. There could be a large intelligent entity that consists only of consciousness and we are only elements of its imagination, along with everything else in the universe. In this case, what is the observer? Merely another element. My point is that when I observe thought, I do it with thought. I am not sure this makes any sense...the function of thought absolutely exists, while an outside and separate observer does not necessarily. Eh, I am no philosopher. These are only mental gymnastics.

Don't throw a fit. Insults are innappropriate. Your cut and paste doesn't change anything insofar as the present argument, maybe you can justify it for us?

Are you mad? There was no insult in that at all. I cited the source just fine, unfortunately you ignored that in an attempt to accuse me falsely.

Eh well, good day. :)

I know that it is not logically valid, but I also don´t think that logic is absolute...Really? Odd. Show me one paradox that exists in reality then. If you can't, then what reason do you have to doubt... reason.
o.O

Really? Odd. Show me one paradox that exists in reality then. If you can't, then what reason do you have to doubt... reason.
o.O

Are my opinions or feelings real? If so, then I can name a thousand paradoxes for each person that exists.

I can like and dislike you simultaneously, for starters.

Are you mad? There was no insult in that at all. I cited the source just fine, unfortunately you ignored that in an attempt to accuse me falsely.

Eh well, good day. :)

I took the "OK GIRLS," remark as an attempt to be insulting. I didn't accuse you of anything; well cited or not, you still cut and pasted it. I guess I've already showed that we're free to apply our own meaning to these things, and we both have.

I did not ignore the post in any way. It didn't contribute anything to the exchange between fadingCaptain and I, and I only asked you clarify the point you were trying to make with it; justify it. The assumption I made that your post was directed as fadingCaptain and myself was because I did not recall anyone else discussing Descartes in this thread, though I may be wrong.

Are my opinions or feelings real? If so, then I can name a thousand paradoxes for each person that exists.

I can like and dislike you simultaneously, for starters.
Those are subjective. And I could still argue that there's no paradox.

You didn't say "objective reality", and even then it's arguable that your subjective state is part of "objective reality". I don't think you could argue that "there's no paradox" for every possible mental state (e.g., the possiblities with delusional schizophrenics, etc.).

halcyon,
That is a good point. I disagree because I consider thought itself to be the observer. I can think of any number of fantastical matrix-style scenarios where "I" do not exist. There could be a large intelligent entity that consists only of consciousness and we are only elements of its imagination, along with everything else in the universe. In this case, what is the observer? Merely another element. My point is that when I observe thought, I do it with thought. I am not sure this makes any sense...the function of thought absolutely exists, while an outside and separate observer does not necessarily. Eh, I am no philosopher. These are only mental gymnastics.
Got it. From my perspective; I've learned that in essence nothing can be said to exist unless it is observed, thus the necessity of an observer. I suppose this is where it'll stand. If your interested in taking a tour through a different perspective, try "Consciousness Explained," By Dan Dennet.

You didn't say "objective reality", and even then it's arguable that your subjective state is part of "objective reality". I don't think you could argue that "there's no paradox" for every possible mental state (e.g., the possiblities with delusional schizophrenics, etc.).You're right, I didn't. That's why I clarified my position. Of course your subjective state is part of objective reality. And, I believe I could argue that there's no paradoxes regardless of your mental state. Any apparent paradox is due to incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise erroneous information, logic errors, or faulty assumptions. A person with a mental disorder who prefesses contradictory claims does not create a paradox, as there's nothing contradictory in reality. They have abstract ideas that are contrary to each other, but the abstracts themselves are just that. Thus, no actual paradox exists.

"If your interested in taking a tour through a different perspective, try "Consciousness Explained," By Dan Dennet. "

Added to my list. Its getting rather large but hopefully I'll get to it. Thanks for the suggestion.

They have abstract ideas that are contrary to each other, but the abstracts themselves are just that. Thus, no actual paradox exists.

I think that abstracts are the only important aspect of reality.

It's through them that we understand what we see as "objective reality".

Abstract paradoxes are real and part of objective reality.

What is is. What is not may be. What cannot be will never be.

"The only absolute is there are no absolutes"

"The only absolute is there are no absolutes"

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. It contradicts itself.

I'd say one of the more solid absolute truths is "Something exists." There is no conceivable way for that to not be true.

Everything is true.

Everything is true.

Congratulations, you've rendered the concept 'true' meaningless. If everything were true, we wouldn't have words to describe truth and falsity. You are wrong.

Actually, TheERK, Bebelina isn't really that far off base. Truth value is most often accorded to propositions and ideas, and whether or not those propositions and ideas align with reality. Therefore, it may be proper to say that reality is truth. If all things make up reality (including propositions and ideas) then all things may be said to be true, though this doesn't say anything about the truth-value of propositions and ideas.

Actually, TheERK, Bebelina isn't really that far off base. Truth value is most often accorded to propositions and ideas, and whether or not those propositions and ideas align with reality. Therefore, it may be proper to say that reality is truth. If all things make up reality (including propositions and ideas) then all things may be said to be true, though this doesn't say anything about the truth-value of propositions and ideas.

The problem is you're confusing an actual proposition with the content of said proposition. For example, I present you with a false proposition:

P ^ ~P (this proposition means a proposition P is both true and false.)

This proposition can be said to be part of reality because it is a real idea, so it is 'true' in that sense. But the content of the proposition is false, and that's obviously what we mean when we say something is true or false. We're talking about the content of a proposition, not the fact that said proposition exists.

I would guess that Bebelina is simply trying to be mystical by saying that everything is true, and not really thinking the same way you are here. Her statement is probably one of the most fundamentally false statements possible, if you think about it.

Everything is true, I said, and meant it.

The effort of trying to grasp an idea that is not immediately comprehendable is a very valuable effort that I’m hesitant to spoil for you, so that is why my reply is seemingly late.
I wanted to give you time to think and discuss, before I offered MY readymade solution.

True and false, right and wrong are concept that are created by the human mind to apply to the experienced reality, so that it may be easier to understand and interact with.
Outside of the human mind concepts like these do not apply, there one can say that everything is true or that everything is false, and both are true, so therefore…everything IS true.

Even the lie is true in its falseness.

Perhaps a simpler truth is that ” everything is”, since there is nothing that is not.
So denial of a presented concept is simply a negative perspective and not an elimination of the presented concept.
Since one can have a viewpoint at all then the subject being viewed definitely exists and is true in its existance, and how different viewpoints affect this, is by adding persona to the subject, by claiming it to be false, true, right or wrong etc.
This only validates the subject at hand and confirms its existance, it is being discussed, it is being viewed by many.

Everything is and everything is true.

True and false, right and wrong are concept that are created by the human mind to apply to the experienced reality, so that it may be easier to understand and interact with.
Outside of the human mind concepts like these do not apply, there one can say that everything is true or that everything is false, and both are true, so therefore…everything IS true.

It's almost funny how directly you contradict yourself here.

First you say that true and false are human concepts that apply to experienced reality. Fine, let's assume that that's true.

Then you say that outside of the mind, these concepts do not apply. You then go on to state that (outside of the mind), everything is true. That's funny, I thought those concepts did not apply.

Face the facts: to say that everything is true renders the words 'true' and 'false' totally meaningless.

I increasingly realise that when one gets down to arguments about truth and what exists outside of our experience everyone wins. It's just like 0/0 = [1, infinity] - all numbers. Beb, I suppose, refers to truth = something. We experience something so something exists and everything we experience is something so everthing is truth and truth is true. Of course there is the other concept of truth within our experiences themselves. This refers to our interpretation of what we experience. Is our interpretation of the something (truth, which is true) true? Is our interpretation of the something = the something? So once we get the definitions clear I guess there is no contradiction... we just need to refine our definitions... and reconcile them.

Truth is a noun. True is an adjective. Truth (any) is true. So everything (truth = something) is true (to itself). Our interpretations of truth aren't always 'true to truth'. Mind you, if our interpretations are 'things then they are truths and they are true (to themselves). So here you have some truths which are true to the truth and some which aren't true to the truth. Wow.:D A truth which is 'true to the truth' is true (naturally). A truth which is not is 'false'. Thus there are true truths and false truths but all truths are true (to themselves). If we weren't around to create the 'false truths' then all truths would be true. And that's the clincher isn't it? When Beb goes outside our interpretations everything becomes true... and so if we weren't here to make the false interpretations everything would be true and so the term false would have no meaning. Truth would still have a meaning (something). True would still have a meaning. You could still say truth is true... meaning something (truth) exists (is true). Everybody wins.

The corollary is that everything is true and whatever is false is really non-existent. Cause if everything is something and something is true then the links we make between our truths (interpretations) [and by this I mean false truths] and truths (the actual things) are really non-existent. If the links existed they'd be true, but they don't so they aren't true. In essence saying something is false is saying it doens't exist i.e. the link between the 'interpretation truth' and the actual truth is not there. Everybody wins.

Any objections?

Oh and for my truth: Truth is.

I increasingly realise that when one gets down to arguments about truth and what exists outside of our experience everyone wins. It's just like 0/0 = [1, infinity] - all numbers. Beb, I suppose, refers to truth = something.

... etc ...


Any objections?

Yes. I really hate to say this, because it doesn't really add to the debate, but that is 100% complete nonsense.

Truth does not equal something. By making that assumption, the rest of your post is hardly worth reading (I read it anyway, though.)

There is no such thing as a 'false truth'. This is one of the fundamental rules of logic and reasoning.

There's no truth, only what you have percieved to be true.
Perception is not always accurate. Illusions exist.

Truth can be twisted, to bring confort to your own notions.

Existence exists.*Ayn Rand Aor-A Saw this one, wont go into it again, however the orignator of this was Aristotle. expanded by Ayn R.

I awoke looked in the mirror and saw god, God is I.

the implication of the above, is that I know who I am, I have identity, that I have a consciousness, that indetifies my identity. That existence exists, and I have a consciousness that percieves it. Existence exists independent of my consciousness, I can only come to observe by looking outward, and introspecting inward.

Godless.

There is only one absolute... GOD IS!

but I liked the one which said - This thread is lame (while not absolute truth, it comes close).

God is I.

Wow MarkAC, that was wild ride.
It was a bit confusing to read though, perhaps you could simplify the idea and structure it down, because I think not many understood it.
But I think we are somewhat on the same track..lol.

Rational logic as it is now being "officaly" presented by scholars in the subject of logic, is perhaps offering a too narrow perspective to use as a tool to grasp some of the above presented ideas, and would need vast widening to apply.

I want to put emphasis however on the importance of the definitions of truth and false, they are not meaningless at all, they help us define our reality and what actions we perceive as proper in the interaction with the outer world and also help us to define an innner morality and much more.
We build our worldview very much on those definitions.

Godless, you are right, God is, not only you but everything else too.

Truth does not equal something. By making that assumption, the rest of your post is hardly worth reading (I read it anyway, though.)
"truth
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."

So if reality is something and truth is reality then all reality is truth. Everything is reality. Everything is truth. Everything is true.:p

So if reality is something and truth is reality then all reality is truth. Everything is reality. Everything is truth. Everything is true.:p

No, wrong again.

First of all, that syllogism makes no sense whatsoever. I imagine what you were trying to say is "...then all truth is something." Even so, there are flaws in the argument. Reality is not truth; reality just means that something exists. If the actual content of a statement does not correspond to reality or is logically impossible, it is false, by definition.

Instead of trying to be 'mystical' about this argument, please stop and think about it for just one minute. You are trying to argue that nothing is false. At the very least, a consequence of this is that the following statement:

"Your argument is false"

Is true. What do you make of that?

TheErk by his definition of truth, Superman exists, Wonder woman is flying in her invisible jet, and Bush is the greates leader this courntry has ever had!!.

Godless.

Reality is not truth; reality just means that something exists. If the actual content of a statement does not correspond to reality or is logically impossible, it is false, by definition.Yeah... but false relates to the correlation. The interpretation exists. It is a part of reality. So it is Truth by definition. But the correlation is non-existent.Instead of trying to be 'mystical' about this argument, please stop and think about it for just one minute. You are trying to argue that nothing is false. At the very least, a consequence of this is that the following statement:

"Your argument is false"

Is true. What do you make of that?Sorry. I know I'm being a bastard. But the statement exists. So it is a Truth according to the dictionary.:p But it is false according to the correlation - if my argument were true. But all truths are true right? The prob is in the definitions. So you say the dictionary is wrong in one definition then? The definitions are contradictory? Everybody wins(?)

TheErk by his definition of truth, Superman exists, Wonder woman is flying in her invisible jet, and Bush is the greates leader this courntry has ever had!!.

Godless.Of course Superman exists and wonderwoman. But in no way does my definition advocate that their existence translates them into being actual living beings like humans and birds. If they didn't exist then we wouldn't be typing about them now would we? About Bush... that's another thread.

Sorry. I know I'm being a bastard. But the statement exists. So it is a Truth according to the dictionary.:p But it is false according to the correlation - if my argument were true. But all truths are true right? The prob is in the definitions. So you say the dictionary is wrong in one definition then? The definitions are contradictory? Everybody wins(?)

(I'm not quoting the first part, because I am basically replying to both statements by replying to this one.)

You're right about it being false by correlation. However, this is always what we're referring to when we're talking about the truth value of a statement.

For example: "The moon is made of green cheese."

When we describe the truth value of this statement, we are not talking about this statement, which you seem to be confusing it with:

"There exists the idea that the moon is made of green cheese."

Yes, that statement happens to be true, and the modifier "There exists the idea that..." is probably going to make any statement true. However, we aren't talking about the modified statement; we're talking about the content of the original statement. And I don't think you would argue that the content of the original statement is false!

Of course Superman exists and wonderwoman. But in no way does my definition advocate that their existence translates them into being actual living beings like humans and birds. If they didn't exist then we wouldn't be typing about them now would we? About Bush... that's another thread.

On the contrary! To say that 'Superman and Wonderwoman exist' is saying that they exist, physically, like actual living beings. What you're claiming is true is that the idea of those two superheroes exist, which, of course, is true--like you said, we wouldn't be talking about them if they the ideas did not exist.

However, to claim something exists is not the same as claiming the idea of that thing exists. Once again, we're talking about the content of the idea, not the idea itself. See my previous post.

Forgive me, but, I just like to go to the limits of my thinking... and beyond now and then.;)You're right about it being false by correlation. However, this is always what we're referring to when we're talking about the truth value of a statement.Sure.
For example: "The moon is made of green cheese."

When we describe the truth value of this statement, we are not talking about this statement, which you seem to be confusing it with:

"There exists the idea that the moon is made of green cheese."Actually, I'm exploring an idea that - with regards to us, humans, and according to the dictionary definition - encompasses them all. Everybody wins. I like when everybody wins. Just bear with me and take my idea below apart... and tell me what's wrong with it... you'll have to kind of allow for some traversement outside your bounds.Yes, that statement happens to be true, and the modifier "There exists the idea that..." is probably going to make any statement true. However, we aren't talking about the modified statement; we're talking about the content of the original statement. And I don't think you would argue that the content of the original statement is false!I try to look at it this way: There are at least three "types" of truths (or maybe subtruths) with regards to humans:

The actual reality
Our interpretation (idea in a sense)
The correlation

For the interpretation to be true then all these three must exist in a "set".
If the interpretation is false, then less than three exist. It could be that the correlation doesn't exist. Maybe the actual reality isn't there. But the interpretation (or idea in a sense) always exists.

So with "The Moon is made of Green Cheese".
I'd say it's false with regards to my idea. The Moon exists sure. But with regards to Green Cheese... I don't know if that exists. So at least one truth exists in this set but less than three exist, because the correlation isn't there. So it's false.On the contrary! To say that 'Superman and Wonderwoman exist' is saying that they exist, physically, like actual living beings. What you're claiming is true is that the idea of those two superheroes exist, which, of course, is true--like you said, we wouldn't be talking about them if they the ideas did not exist.Well with regards to my idea above, again. Damn, I'm really carefree today.:P To say Supeman exists as a cartoon character is true (which is what I meant when I said he and Wonder Woman exist). To say that Superman exists as a living being (with all the qualities the cartoon character possesses) is false. But yeah, saying Superman exists(full stop) is conveying the the idea of him existing as a living being according to everyday language standards, but maybe we need to be more precise in our communication.However, to claim something exists is not the same as claiming the idea of that thing exists. Once again, we're talking about the content of the idea, not the idea itself. See my previous post.I want to agree, and in a sense I do, but in a sense I don't. Even my agnostic g.f. seems to agree with you, crap. But she agreed with me when I said that the problem lies within the definitions of reality and existence. We honestly don't know what the limits on them are. For example that statement; I exist. Doesn't divulge much info does it (existence is pretty obvious)? The question is in what context do I exist? Am I some sophisticated computer programme (yeah... matrix again... great movie) or am I the conventional human? So, in my opinion, just saying "'Something' exists" isnt' a very proper or precise statement. I do it anyway. It's like eating a whole lot of fatty chocolate (bad for your health) cause it tastes so damned good.

So, in my opinion, just saying "'Something' exists" isnt' a very proper or precise statement. I do it anyway. It's like eating a whole lot of fatty chocolate (bad for your health) cause it tastes so damned good.

Not True! because "something" is a word with many identities, hense soemthing! can be any number of things, to be specific. However; (Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists and that one possessing cosnsciousness, cosnsciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.) Ayn Rand.

In order to refute the above, you would have to claim that nothing exists, and that one does not possess consciousness to perceive existence. Me.

So truth is: I exists, existence exists, and that I possess a consciousness that perceives that which exists.

Wether I'd be plugged into a mainframe Matrix (movie) fact is that I exist even in a virtual reality that one can't possibly prove that it exists or not. However by having perception I exist somewhere.

Weird movie, I just got through watching the whole saga again.. ;)

Godless.

(Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists and that one possessing cosnsciousness, cosnsciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.) Ayn Rand.Saying; "Existence exists" is like saying; "The ball kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a ball". Does not compute.;) Saying; "I exist" makes a lot more sense (contains more info). It also implies all the corollaries indicated by Rand. There's nothing wrong with it. It's like saying; "The ball was kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a spherical object." Hopefully not all her/his writing is reminiscent of such informational voids. That's basically bad English.:p

Saying; "Existence exists" is like saying; "The ball kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a ball". Does not compute.;) Saying; "I exist" makes a lot more sense (contains more info). It also implies all the corollaries indicated by Rand. There's nothing wrong with it. It's like saying; "The ball was kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a spherical object." Hopefully not all her/his writing is reminiscent of such informational voids. That's basically bad English.:p

Actually, 'existence exists' is widely regarded as a fundamental axiom of science.

Actually, 'existence exists' is widely regarded as a fundamental axio of science.So I see. I stick to my post though.
-
And I'd replace science with philosophy.