Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Our concepts or ideas of truth are our perceptions. Our perceptions of truth may or may not be partally correct. We can seek truth and sometimes partially discover it making our perceptions more in line with reality.quatona said:And since truth and morality are but our concepts, ideas and terms, there isn´t much left to discuss but our perception.
I don't think so. Our perception of truth is subjectivity, but truth is not subject to our perceptions. Reality or truth is what it is and our perceptions of it may be wrong or correct and they are always I think a little of both.Received said:Morality may be absolute -- there may be a universal inherent sense of "oughtness" that individuals call morality, whether they feel up to following it or not -- but morals are not; truth may necessarily exist, but it is only such relative to our concepts. Without ourselves to name things on the basis of our own preference, truth does not exist. Truth is subjectivity.
First of all I don't believe in an after lilfe that involves torture and pain. I believe hell is death and heaven is life and the only after life is heaven. Therefore my perception of reality is that death is permanent for all people who are not loving to others. I see the metaphysical truth or my metaphysicaly view is, that life after physical death is available for the ones who are loving. This has nothing to do with their calling themselves Moslem or Christian.Received said:Non-Moslems and non-Christians both go to Hell because there are two metaphysical eschatological systems that advocate such without proof, based solely on theoretical conceptions. Logically, both cannot be true, but metaphysically, allowing a plurality of views neither of which can be proven superior and therefore more likely to be correct, both are. It depends on which metaphysic you uphold.
And I take it, you are the judge as to when that is the case with someone.elman said:Our concepts or ideas of truth are our perceptions. Our perceptions of truth may or may not be partally correct. We can seek truth and sometimes partially discover it making our perceptions more in line with reality.
'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death.'
'Hell exists and all non-Moslems will end up there after death.'
Imagine that one of these claims is true.
How do I tell which one it is?
And you. Who else can be?quatona said:And I take it, you are the judge as to when that is the case with someone.
I didn´t even know you were such an outspoken subjectivist.elman said:And you. Who else can be?
David Gould said:The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?
For example, imagine these two claims sitting side by side:
'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death.'
'Hell exists and all non-Moslems will end up there after death.'
Imagine that one of these claims is true.
How do I tell which one it is?
Are you looking for objective or absolute "TRUE?" If so, the answer is there is no such thing.
Which is not much of a problem as long as the two "absolute"´s in this sentence have not the same meaning.JBrian said:another absolute statement that there are no absolutes.
hybrid said:the belief in the existence of hell is contigent to the one who said there was. chrsitians believed in hell because jesus said so. it's a simple case of taking Jesus' words for it.
quatona said:Which is not much of a problem as long as the two "absolute"´s in this sentence have not the same meaning.
Hint: Every statement necessarily is an "absolute" if applying a certain meaning of the word.
So, technically, we would have to describe a state of no absolutes existing by "except for this one absolute (that there are no absolutes) there are none existing"?JBrian said:The word as was used by the person I quoted meant it the same way I did: truths that are true for everyone everywhere at all times. In other words, objective. At least this is the way that I understand the way it was used.
To make it simple, it is self-defeating to say there are no absolutes, since it is supposedly true for everyone everywhere at all times.
Telephone said:This fails to engage the orginal posters question, it simply replaces it with why take Jesus' word for it.
This thread does much to forward the suspicion that religious belief is little more than the wishful thinking of those wanting its claims to be so, this wishful thinking may be fueled by indoctrination or cultural pressures, but ultimately it is little more..
Pure metaphysical claims are those claims that do not have a grounding in the world we can detect.
The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?
The almost complete failure of those of a religious bent to engage honestly in the basic question speaks volumes
quatona said:So, technically, we would have to describe a state of no absolutes existing by "except for this one absolute (that there are no absolutes) there are none existing"?
It is just semantics: The absence of any laws, rules, objectives is thinkeable, and we need a way to express this notion. If you want to equivocate this notion to the assumption of positive rules, laws and objectives existing (and don´t want to acknowledge the difference), then feel free to call it an "absolute". This equivocation does not seem to do justice to the idea that´s meant to be expressed and the distinction that can be made and that is significant.
If you come to a holiday camp and ask for the rules, and you get the answer
"there are no rules here", would you start quibbling with semantics like "but this is a rule itself"?
Probably not. You know what´s meant by the statement, and despite the fact that this meant condition is thinkeable and possible there seems to be no way to express it which is not self-contradictory.
So we must conclude from all this, that there must be an absolute truth, for the mere reason that the absence of such cannot be put in words in a non-defeating way. Limitations of human language limiting reality.JBrian said:It's not just semantics; it's a truth claim. And I am not talking about rules when I say truth is absolute and objective. Just because rules hypothetically might not exist has nothing to do with the nature of truth.
To say that there are no absolutes is a truth claim, and a self-defeating one at that. It is not semantics, it's bad philosophy. Any time a claim destroys itself it is self-referentially incoherent.
quatona said:So we must conclude from all this, that there must be an absolute truth, for the mere reason that the absence of such cannot be put in words in a non-defeating way. Limitations of human language limiting reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?