This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- Non-Cognitive statements
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- Can Christian couples disagree on evolution/age of the Earth?
- "The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever", how hard is it exactly?
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- motivation for a levels
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Finding myself.
- Truth or Dare? 😈
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- can someone help me answer this a level rs question??
- religious crisis
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- Could it be possible that you are everyone that has ever lived, and that will live
If God doesn't exist, how do you know that truth exists?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ThePricklyOne
It's just a definition and a set of rules we can use until something better comes along.
It will serve as the truth, as far as we're capable of knowing, at this time.
It will be different tomorrow.
It will serve as the truth, as far as we're capable of knowing, at this time.
It will be different tomorrow.
What makes one truth 'better' than the other?
Original post by Zephrom
OAnd yes you are correct. My argument (which is by the way the foundation for an entire school of thought within philosophy) is that we cannot 'know' anything, we can only know that we think that we know. Thus the only 'real' truth is we as thoughts if nothing else exist.
Ok whether or not we can know the truth, do you still believe in the truth?
In philosophy they say that there are basic assumptions that we have to make in order to start any discussion, these are discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws
So basically we can't be sure, as we have to make these assumptions to start any rational discussion about truth. However, if you accept these assumptions (which have face validity at least) then this gives us rules governing our thoughts, making it possible to say that something is in fact true. For example, saying that I have a brother and I am an only child breaks the law of non-contradiction and therefore cannot be true, as long as you accept the law.
These are also the basic assumptions of science and math. For example, the equation 7-5=2 relies on Aristotle's A=A assumption that the meaning of these two arguments is the same and there is no difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws
So basically we can't be sure, as we have to make these assumptions to start any rational discussion about truth. However, if you accept these assumptions (which have face validity at least) then this gives us rules governing our thoughts, making it possible to say that something is in fact true. For example, saying that I have a brother and I am an only child breaks the law of non-contradiction and therefore cannot be true, as long as you accept the law.
These are also the basic assumptions of science and math. For example, the equation 7-5=2 relies on Aristotle's A=A assumption that the meaning of these two arguments is the same and there is no difference.
Original post by xylas
Ok whether or not we can know the truth, do you still believe in the truth?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm a proponent of rational thinking and logical debate, which means that all my arguments follow the 3 laws of logic. Therefore I do strongly believe that truth can be found because as long as it satisfies those three laws, then it is very much possible and believable. Of course, truth depends on how you define it. IF you'd like to delve deeper into this topic then look into the debate as to whether numbers are real or not as it is a brilliant starting point into classical philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
https://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/17/do-numbers-exist/
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zephrom
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm a proponent of rational thinking and logical debate, which means that all my arguments follow the 3 laws of logic. Therefore I do strongly believe that truth can be found because as long as it satisfies those three laws, then it is very much possible and believable. Of course, truth depends on how you define it. IF you'd like to delve deeper into this topic then look into the debate as to whether numbers are real or not as it is a brilliant starting point into classical philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
https://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/17/do-numbers-exist/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
https://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/17/do-numbers-exist/
Do you believe that truth exists or that it is abstract/manmade?
Original post by xylas
What makes one truth 'better' than the other?
I think you're missing the point, by trying reach towards an absolute truth.
There is no 'better' or absolute truth, it's what's true for a particular situation, at a particular time.
Your mind is either fixed and therefore incapable of change. Or it is open and capable of changing for the better. Truth is the same.
I don't think anybody can name me a single truth. I'm persuaded by Richard Rorty's characterisation of truth in his "Mirror of Nature", whereby "truth" is a word that has evolved in our language as practical species to aid us in our everyday communication and achievement of personal goals. I "know" X to be "true" because there is "good" "reason" to believe in X, based on believing X will help us achieve a goal based on empirical experience. I'm also supportive of Skorupski's claim that all epistemic claims are normative, defined in terms of irreducible reason relations.
Original post by asdfg323
These are also the basic assumptions of science and math. For example, the equation 7-5=2 relies on Aristotle's A=A assumption that the meaning of these two arguments is the same and there is no difference.
These are also the basic assumptions of science and math. For example, the equation 7-5=2 relies on Aristotle's A=A assumption that the meaning of these two arguments is the same and there is no difference.
Not Aristotle. Euclid.
& its not an assumption, it is proven to be the same.
Original post by ThePricklyOne
Not Aristotle. Euclid.
& its not an assumption, it is proven to be the same.
& its not an assumption, it is proven to be the same.
The law of noncontradiction is an assumption
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
Tell me where in Euclid it says this.
Original post by ThePricklyOne
Tell me where in Euclid it says this.
Euclid assumed the laws of thought laid down by Aristotle, including the laws of noncontradiction. Aristotle showed that, at best, you could only give an indirect argument for the law of noncontradiction. It is almost taken for granted now that it cannot be proved or disproved.
Original post by Whitewell
Euclid assumed the laws of thought laid down by Aristotle, including the laws of noncontradiction. Aristotle showed that, at best, you could only give an indirect argument for the law of noncontradiction. It is almost taken for granted now that it cannot be proved or disproved.
I asked where in Euclid's book Elements does it say this (i.e. that's what I meant by 'in Euclid')
Where in Euclid that proves it (i.e. go back to primary source material)?
There is a thing known as proof by non-contradiction, which Euclid demonstrated for prime numbers in Elements.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ThePricklyOne
I asked where in Euclid's book Elements does it say this (i.e. that's what I meant by 'in Euclid')
Where in Euclid that proves it (i.e. go back to primary source material)?
There is a thing known as proof by non-contradiction, which Euclid demonstrated for prime numbers in Elements.
Where in Euclid that proves it (i.e. go back to primary source material)?
There is a thing known as proof by non-contradiction, which Euclid demonstrated for prime numbers in Elements.
I wasn't talking about Euclid. I just said that the law of non contradiction is an assumption that cannot be proved or disproved (but perhaps argued for). Though, concerning Euclid, he certainly relies on Aristotle's classical logic.
I'm not talking about proofs *using* the law of non contradiction I'm saying that there cannot be a proof *of* the law of non contradiction.
Original post by xylas
Do you believe that truth exists or that it is abstract/manmade?
Truth definitely exists.
There are 3 basic laws in logic theory:
A=A
A cannot = A and not = A
A has to = either A or not A
Thus, it is absolute truth to say that A=A.
There is no subjectivity about it, A MUST be A.
Following on from this, we can use these laws to get a real-world example. First, lets define a triangle. Triangle - a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles. By this definition, it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH to say that a triangle will ALWAYS have 3 sides. If the plane figure (shape) does not have 3 sides and 3 angles, it is NOT a triangle.
/thread
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zephrom
Truth definitely exists.
There are 3 basic laws in logic theory:
A=A
A cannot = A and not = A
A has to = either A or not A
Thus, it is absolute truth to say that A=A.
There is no subjectivity about it, A MUST be A.
Following on from this, we can use these laws to get a real-world example. First, lets define a triangle. Triangle - a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles. By this definition, it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH to say that a triangle will ALWAYS have 3 sides. If the plane figure (shape) does not have 3 sides and 3 angles, it is NOT a triangle.
/thread
There are 3 basic laws in logic theory:
A=A
A cannot = A and not = A
A has to = either A or not A
Thus, it is absolute truth to say that A=A.
There is no subjectivity about it, A MUST be A.
Following on from this, we can use these laws to get a real-world example. First, lets define a triangle. Triangle - a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles. By this definition, it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH to say that a triangle will ALWAYS have 3 sides. If the plane figure (shape) does not have 3 sides and 3 angles, it is NOT a triangle.
/thread
There's nothing absolute about that 'truth'. It is purely defined by language constructions i.e. what we mean by 'triangle'.
What I mean by 'truth' is an exact representation of reality. Pure knowledge.
Do you believe in this 'truth'. Or in your triangle argument, do you believe that there exists something in this world (not in your mind) with exactly 3 sides? When you speak of 'triangles' are you speaking of an exact representation of reality? Or are they just manmade abstraction?
Original post by xylas
There's nothing absolute about that 'truth'. It is purely defined by language constructions i.e. what we mean by 'triangle'.
What I mean by 'truth' is an exact representation of reality. Pure knowledge.
Do you believe in this 'truth'. Or in your triangle argument, do you believe that there exists something in this world (not in your mind) with exactly 3 sides? When you speak of 'triangles' are you speaking of an exact representation of reality? Or are they just manmade abstraction?
What I mean by 'truth' is an exact representation of reality. Pure knowledge.
Do you believe in this 'truth'. Or in your triangle argument, do you believe that there exists something in this world (not in your mind) with exactly 3 sides? When you speak of 'triangles' are you speaking of an exact representation of reality? Or are they just manmade abstraction?
You are missing my point. There is no functional difference between a 'manmade abstraction' and 'exact representation of reality'. They are one and the same. There is an object X in reality that has X number of sides and X number of angles. It is a absolute truth that this object is object X precisely because we have defined it. This is an absolute truth because we have defined it so.
Going even deeper into this avenue of thought, it can be argued that everything we experience or think is something totally abstract being rationalised (defined) by our poor 3D brains into something that we can understand. When you look at reality in this sense, then you can see why my argument about definition makes sense. In this reality, everything we can experience is just a label, a 'definition' slapped on reality by our minds.
You are reaching dangerously by asking for 'Pure Knowledge'. What do you mean by this? I assume you mean knowledge that is 100% true no matter your frame of reference. What you have to realise is that as I have said, there is no difference between 'pure knowledge' and our limited knowledge - in our frame of reference. Relative to us, our limited knowledge IS pure knowledge.
Original post by Zephrom
You are missing my point. There is no functional difference between a 'manmade abstraction' and 'exact representation of reality'. They are one and the same. There is an object X in reality that has X number of sides and X number of angles. It is a absolute truth that this object is object X precisely because we have defined it. This is an absolute truth because we have defined it so.
Going even deeper into this avenue of thought, it can be argued that everything we experience or think is something totally abstract being rationalised (defined) by our poor 3D brains into something that we can understand. When you look at reality in this sense, then you can see why my argument about definition makes sense. In this reality, everything we can experience is just a label, a 'definition' slapped on reality by our minds.
You are reaching dangerously by asking for 'Pure Knowledge'. What do you mean by this? I assume you mean knowledge that is 100% true no matter your frame of reference. What you have to realise is that as I have said, there is no difference between 'pure knowledge' and our limited knowledge - in our frame of reference. Relative to us, our limited knowledge IS pure knowledge.
Going even deeper into this avenue of thought, it can be argued that everything we experience or think is something totally abstract being rationalised (defined) by our poor 3D brains into something that we can understand. When you look at reality in this sense, then you can see why my argument about definition makes sense. In this reality, everything we can experience is just a label, a 'definition' slapped on reality by our minds.
You are reaching dangerously by asking for 'Pure Knowledge'. What do you mean by this? I assume you mean knowledge that is 100% true no matter your frame of reference. What you have to realise is that as I have said, there is no difference between 'pure knowledge' and our limited knowledge - in our frame of reference. Relative to us, our limited knowledge IS pure knowledge.
If one does not believe in an absolute truth he would not be able to claim "There is an object in reality that has X number of sides and X number of angles". Whether or not we define it as object X does not change the fact that it has to exist first according to this claim. So to me it does seem you see triangles as an exact representation of a real thing which has exactly 3 sides.
I would disagree with your knowledge argument. We would not be able to agree on any knowledge being pure unless it represented an absolute entity. I can think what I like and so can you in each of our individual minds. But when we communicate this knowledge to the wider world, it can only be pure if there existed an absolute truth.
Do you know that truth exists? Truth being 'an exact representation of reality; pure knowledge'.
If so, how do you know that truth exists? Now answer this question assuming God doesn't exist.
I made this thread seeing if someone could counter the idea that belief in truth only makes sense if you also believe in God.
If so, how do you know that truth exists? Now answer this question assuming God doesn't exist.
I made this thread seeing if someone could counter the idea that belief in truth only makes sense if you also believe in God.
How about Jesus who backed up his claims (to being God in the flesh ie Son of God) with actual healings and miracles? And before you say 'but how do I know the Bible is true - the only way to verify is to read the eye-witness acounts (Mathew, Mark, and John - not Luke as he was a historian who wrote down the stories with as much background as he could) - which are evidence (and not truth) but then decide whether Jesus was good, bad or mad as there is no other option. If he was good then decide is he worth me putting my faith in him, and asking the Holy Spirit into my life - which should bring me a personal experience of him which would then be personal truth ( but not empirical ). Actually science has nothing to do with 'truth' or religion - science is based on repeating an experiment to see whether the results are the same or different and why - truth is a matter of philosophy only. There is historical truth - but how can you prove that you got up this morning or that you had cornflakes for breakfast? A really good TV programme which shows students asking a philosopher - Cliff Knechtle - many questions like these in a lively and honest debate is 'Give me an answer' on TBN channel (on Freeview ch 65 - dk if it's on Sky) at 5pm on a wednesday. Its held outside on student campuses in USA and has really got me thinking.....I probably won't comment again but good luck guys......of course there is no such thing as good luck.....or bad luck......
Original post by xylas
Do you know that truth exists? Truth being 'an exact representation of reality; pure knowledge'.
If so, how do you know that truth exists? Now answer this question assuming God doesn't exist.
I made this thread seeing if someone could counter the idea that belief in truth only makes sense if you also believe in God.
If so, how do you know that truth exists? Now answer this question assuming God doesn't exist.
I made this thread seeing if someone could counter the idea that belief in truth only makes sense if you also believe in God.
There is no such thing as 'pure knowledge'. I'd like to see an objective proof of this.
Truth does not make sense if you believe in God, only fanaticism.
Belief in God result in blindness to everything else (except fanaticism).
Original post by Zephrom
You are reaching dangerously by asking for 'Pure Knowledge'. What do you mean by this? I assume you mean knowledge that is 100% true no matter your frame of reference. What you have to realise is that as I have said, there is no difference between 'pure knowledge' and our limited knowledge - in our frame of reference. Relative to us, our limited knowledge IS pure knowledge.
This is true.
Related discussions
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- Non-Cognitive statements
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- Can Christian couples disagree on evolution/age of the Earth?
- "The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever", how hard is it exactly?
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- motivation for a levels
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Finding myself.
- Truth or Dare? 😈
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- can someone help me answer this a level rs question??
- religious crisis
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- Could it be possible that you are everyone that has ever lived, and that will live
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
