lot of fallacies...if u say there are no absolute truth, what is the statemetn u are making, u are making a statement as true "there is no absolute truth". which means it is an absolute one. u see it only takes one example that is absolute true to make the point that truth is absolute.
"if u say there are no absolute truth, what is the statemetn u are making, u are making a statement as true "there is no absolute truth". which means it is an absolute one"
No, and if you paid attention even slightly, I explain why all truths are relative to a system of proof and need to be proven true and that "there are no absolute truths" is proven true via logic quite simply... and was not true before the earth existed.... dopey reply.
i told u, if u say ur statement is true, then u rejected ur own presupposition. truth reflects events occurance, if they do happen then the statement is true, u r confusing a truth as is, and some kind of ideas about morals or rule of conduct. truth is logic, logic isn't based on language, it is based on the tendency of our mind to select logic instead of fuzzy chaotic thinking pattern
It's the best way... just show 1 absolute truth. Oops you can't. There are none. It is an impossible and contradictory notion.
"i told u, if u say ur statement is true, then u rejected ur own presupposition"
Which is comical as a reply. I didn't say truth didn't exist, I said truth exists. I said truth is systemic, relative to a system of proof and the best you can muster is saying that I say there are no truths.
Only sometimes. 1+1=2 is not an event and is true.
", u r confusing a truth as is, and some kind of ideas about morals or rule of conduct"
Nowhere do I mention morals or conduct. It is theists like you who confuse the two, because relative means subjective in ethics when it means objective in logic and since you haven't taken up logic you sound nonsensical.
"truth is logic"
lol, holy shit. False. Look up Liebnizs Law, do yourself a favour.
"so wait a second u don't acknowledge absolute truth, yet u recognize truth. u'r an imbecile..."
Insults are not arguments. If it took you that long to understand I say truth exists, then you need to go learn how to read.... and that is me being polite.
Try watching the video, try learning what people are actually saying, try to grasp the very basics of formal logic... BEFORE you shoot your mouth off like some uninformed twit.
Being an ass is not an argument.
Shooting your mouth off when you don't even listen to what is being said is the surest sign of a complete buffoon. Thanks for sharing?
u r the one who is making the claim of truth is inexistent, show that there is no truth outside logic. it appears that it's not that u don't know the answer it's ur insecure to recognize that ur statement are all fallacious. if u are seeking my proof, then u are seeking truth, and if that proof is provided then it's truth, then it becomes that relative truth is not relative. do u recognize that language is only for information exchange, but it has nothing to do with flow and statements.
"u r the one who is making the claim of truth is inexistent"
An outright lie... I say truth is relative to a system of proof, not nonexistent. That you continue this lie while knowing full well I say no such thing proves you do not believe "thou shall not lie" is a commandment from a god anymore than I believe it.
"i'm a "applied" mathematician...u idiot, i've trying to keep the convesation respectful but ur abhorrant nonsense is can make a shit shit. "
This is the superior respect they teach in church? Listen you moron, if you had treated me with respect you would have had the same returned... you didn't and I responded in kind. I did unto others you goof.
so if i ask u "u gonna die", it's a belief ? if belief is not indisponsable to holding the truth, in another term, a belief is like memory to truth information given that belief is true. If u could provide me one single being that isn't dying then my statement isn't true. but it's true else u should be kept from youtube, and take few years off to ponder upon ur nonsense
No, that is a question. The answer is a belief. All future tense and all past tense statements are beliefs by logical necessity.... the past and the future do not exist. A truth about something proves it exists. This is yet another proof of why there are no absolute truths... there are many that prove why that is true.
In my opinion a lot of atheists are pseudo intellectuals because they cannot even understand what you are saying... T_T I believe you should try to "dumb" down what you say in future videos so more people can understand.
An analogy: The greatest mind wants to show the people how to make an unlimited energy source (which is simple in his mind). He explains in a very implicit, and complex way, (repeating this again:which is very explicitly simple he does not see how a fly could not understand) .
"In my opinion a lot of atheists are pseudo intellectuals because they cannot even understand what you are saying... T_T I believe you should try to "dumb" down what you say in future videos so more people can understand"
lol, interesting. I already consider them dumbed down...
I am going to be redoing these old videos as well as making some new ones, all updated and fresh with modern technology and everything. lol. Soon. So I will take what you said here to heart.
I agree with your standpoint on absolute truth because stating that there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth is easily refuted by the law of contradiction: "A thing cannot be both itself and not itself."
Besides, it would require proof that anything is an absolute truth, contradicting that there is any absolute truths. Needing proof means it was not true without that proof, and an absolute truth is true under all possible circumstances... and it is a possible circumstance that the word truth didn't exist in the past.
"Let the reader be warned. It must be evident that I am unable to enter into the smallest degree of imaginative sympathy with those who deny that there is such a thing as objective truth." -Peter van Inwagen, "Metaphysics," 96
@gklr With all due respect gklr, I did watch your video and I even had a long comment war with you about a year ago back when I used a different account, your whole argument is quite simply the stupidest thing I have ever heard and I simply cannot at this point even take you seriously, good day sir.
You simply have no argument to show anything I say here is wrong, instead you close your mind to formal logic and run off and pray to mysterious invisible men.
@gklr Out of curiosity, what does this even have to do with the existence of God anyway? Even If I granted your conclusion about Truth what on earth even follows from it that has to do with God? Also why do you assume that everybody who disagrees with your video is a Theist? I know Atheists that believe in absolute truth.
Absolute truth requires a god. If an alleged atheist suggests there is an absolute truth, then they either are not an atheist or they don't know a thing about the topic of absolute truths.
interesting, well then, I guess I would just refer you to all the Arguments for Gods existence then, I have video mirrored on my channel on the Modal Ontological Argument plus some videos of my own on the Kalam cosmological argument. I plan on doing a video on the Contingency argument sometime in the near future.
@gklr um...ok.... well, Im open to criticism so if you have any objections to them feel free to to comment on them and point out specifically where you think I'm in error.
@gklr Why are you alive? Whats your purpose? You think you just live just to die or is there something you exists for? Its true that you will die one day.
@gklr My diagnosis of you: You are out of touch with reality. You can only see things through your own eyes so therefore reality is only what you see. In your mind other people you see walking around in everyday life may not be real but a figures of your imagination. This shows that you are out of touch with reality. You may ba a narcisist. Self centered, selfish. You do have something in your life that you use for distraction....
@gklr , If you were to be put in jail for the rest of your life and you had a rope to hang yourself , you would do it. Because you would be faced with reality nothing to distract yourself of the truth of life so your own mind would torment you. I suggest you take a look at my list of favorite videos on my Channel my friend. Do not wait until the last mintute. When you are dieing the reality you face will be excrutiating. Look to God my friend.
@gklr What would you do if you were in a small jail cell for the rest of your life. Only walls to look at in the dark? They throw food at you from above. You would go crazy huh? I can tell. You intellectual mind is what keeps you hypnotized to the reality of life. Your a typecast atheist. Empty very empty. This life has a lot more to offer my friend.
@gklr , My friend, watch this youtube video. Its not religious because I know you are an atheist and you probably would not waste your time. You will probably want to see the next parts after you see this first part:
"Out of curiosity, what does this even have to do with the existence of God anyway?"
It doesn't. It shows problems for the existence of Abrahamic Gods. They are all alleged to have absolute truths. It shows problems for things like Buddhism as well, as they contend there are 4 Noble Truths that are always true.
Nothing IS true until proven so, nothing is true before then, thus no absolute truth is possible.
"Also why do you assume that everybody who disagrees with your video is a Theist? "
The only support of absolute truth is religious, and is misguided in that it is easily proven false.
This topic also underlines that it is not simply modern science that argues for evolution, or modern ethics that argues for subjective beliefs, but also that formal logic is violated seriously by religion today. It puts forth yet another instance of where modern society runs against old myth.
Actually it is demeaning to myth to describe absolute truth as a myth. Absolute truth is impossible, proven so logically... and myths are not impossible.
@gklr I've watched it. I want you to put it in proper argument form so I can show you clearly where it has gone wrong.
What imaginary truth? What the hell are you talking about? I've got some A's in philosophy courses, maybe you should get some before making the atheists look so bad.
"I want you to put it in proper argument form so I can show you clearly where it has gone wrong."
I already have and you've displayed your ignorance well enough already. In written replies to my comments elsewhere on youtube you said truth is not systemic and truths are not propositions.
Fail and fail. And you think you have something to say on the topic? lol. I don't.
CHOKE. Religion is not philosophy. Philosophy is a verb, the act of questioning. Philosophy is the antithesis of religion. You preach nonsense and try to label it "philosophy" when you wouldn't know what philosophy even is.
"maybe you should get some before making the atheists look so bad."
This topic isn't "atheism" or even "atheist related". It talks about proven truth, like that there are no absolute truths. Atheism is a belief.
"If you can't even state your point in proper argument form then you seriously need to take a logic course."
This video presents arguments in argument form. Being ignorant of philosophy, truth, and logic isn't an argument. You wouldn't know what logic is if it bit you in the ass. Quite seriously. I don't take kindly to ignorant morons preaching to me about something they know zero about. Joker.
"I don't want to do it myself and misrepresent your argument in any way."
Then quote the video. Why is it theists need people to hold their hand every step of the way? Should you one day learn to think for yourself you might just look back at this conversation with some regret. I would.
@funglip You should learn about the law of contradiction, but I doubt you will since you are a fucking hypocrite. You tell people to educate themselves when you yourself are not willing to do so.
An analogy: I say 2+2=4, you tell me: "you do not know how to add, you should learn math." You are the one who needs to learn math.
question, what exactly is the difference between absolute truth and objective truth? it seems that most people interchange these two words frequently, making it mean the same thing...
If a truth is objective, and all truths are objective (and 2 of the 3 beliefs types are as well), then it cannot be absolute. An absolute truth must always be true, forever and ever amen. Empirical truths aren't, tautologous truths aren't.
This has always been my favorite video of yours. You explain things with a level of detail that almost make your concepts self-evident.
Are yo sure you don't have a few more controversies brewing that I could jump in on? Atheism as a belief is too easy and now it is boring. Make another video!
"Are yo sure you don't have a few more controversies brewing that I could jump in on? Atheism as a belief is too easy "
Are christians theists? If theists are those people who believe in a god and the christian god (omnipotent) can be shown and proven to not exist, then saying their god exists is not a belief statement. It is a false statement, and christians could not be theists. Ditto muslims and jews.
That'll be unpopular but I am sticking to it... and it's new. :)
"To believe existence didn't exist prior to a mind developing concepts.......is so stupid I can't believe you know how to paste a video."
To believe "exist" and "existence" are anything other than concepts is so stupid I can't believe you can find the E string. Show these things are nonconcepts.
Just insulting people who know more than you do is not an argument.
To say what is false or not real, is what terms like "without belief in god" or "lack belief" state. That is what is false about something and not what is true about it. We do not depict reality when we state what is not real. So what is false about something does not describe reality. It describes what reality is not.
"What is said(propositions) about reality is what can be proven true or false"
Just about ya. Excepting that what is false about an object is not what is real, it is what is not real about it. It is not the case that I am you, states what is not real rather than depict reality. In the context of this video that doesn't matter, in the context of defining atheism it does matter. What is not real never is the case, so it doesn't matter to absolute truth talk.
Reality, like truth, is a word we define with meaning and is synonymous with existence. ie: if something is real it exists and vice versa. Existence applies to those objects we can state truths about. Is existence or reality true? No, statements about them are true. All things that are real must have tuths about them or nothing makes them real.
This video deals with absolute truth. I really ought to make one on existence/reality.
Ok ok, listening to your video again.....you are not talking about Truth or Reality or what is Real or True. You are talking about some philosophy and some man made theory called "Absolute Truth". No, theories are nomy bag and I have no opinion on this constructed mind fuck
But, I do exist. Existence exist and there is a Reality. Just don't argue with me because I don't know if you exist. I know I don't know if you exist.
In philosophy, universalism is a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. In certain religions, Universality is the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe.
"To be unaware of absolute Truth does not prove there are no absolute truths."
Correct. What does prove there are no absolute truth is the universal truth about every tautologous and every empirical truth (all truths) is that they need to be proven true, they are propositions themselves (thus systemic).
"And this is Absolutely True"
How was it true prior to language existing? How was it true prior to mind existing?
@gklr The Truth is True. Even if all that is true is that the truth is true. Reality is true, even if there is nothing to witness it. Existence exists. Even is Reality changed...then change would be reality. Truth, Reality and Existence are all One and the same. Another Truth....just not your definition of truth...which is certainly not accurate.
For everything could not be false, therefore, something must be true. Even if that thing is change.
This says something to you? It is redundant at best. Yes.... the truth is true. Yay!
"Truth, Reality and Existence are all One and the same. "
False. Reality and existence are the same. Existence applies to those objects we have truths about. All truths must be proven. No truth is valid before it is proven true. Before a proposition is proven true it is possibly false, and thus a belief.
All alleged absolute truths are beliefs as none are proven.
What is your problem that you find it suitable to insult? You offer here nothing but propositions, none of which existed forever... and think you in anyway have posed a problem for these arguments and this video? Who are you kidding?
@gklr "You're really out there" is not meant to be insulting. I too am really out there. Not out where you are but certainly a distance away from sheep thinking as you are. I don't believe there is a physical universe for heaven's sake! Do you know how many people think I'm out there for believing such a thing? I'm proud to be out here. I'm an explorer going where few have dared to go before me. I don't want to be a sheep and think only inside a little space. So, no insult to you my friend.
Ok you don't believe there is a physical universe, you seem to realize you are "really out there" and I fail to see how explanations of formal logic and science are "really out there"... There is nothing "really out there" that I have said.
Who says people don't agree with me? There is no logician on the planet that would disagree. Logic is the topic that defines truth.
Show me a single disagreement from a single logic professor from the past 100 years, and I'll show him Godels Incompleteness Theorom, Wittgensteins tautologous truths (let alone truth tables).
Introduce yourself to western philosophy since DesCarte.
an argument by populism that is false. Irrelevent. This is no way to overcome the problem of having truth exist before truth exists, which is what you argue for.
Nothing exists before it exists and no truths existed prior to language existing. No meanings existed prior to then, but you think "truth" meant something then.
Ok.
I don't need a professor to agree. I have had this video up for some time and many logicians have agreed and none disagreed, and it doesn't matter.
@gklr How can you say nothing existed before language existed??? That's sounds so ridiculous to me. That's like saying there can be no egg until a chicken is hatched.
I did not say nothing existed. I said no truths existed. It was not true or false then that anything existed. Truths are propositions. Statements. No statements existed before language existed and all truths are statements... propositions.
Propositions are statements ABOUT things. "My pen is blue" is a proposition. The statement is true or false, not the pen.
"Truth....just not your definition of truth...which is certainly not accurate."
Go ahead and show that. I gave you 2 types of truth, both are systemic. Empirical truth is contingent on facts, tautologous truth is necessary per definition. We only have perception and conception and you want more truth types?
Magically, always existing, pretend truths. Your problem seems to be that truth needs to be proven true or it is possibly false, which would make them beliefs.
@gklr You gave me two types of truth I don't believe in. They don't make sense to me. For every truth there are a million false beliefs. (actually, all beliefs are false, but that is another story) So if one is to play the odds game....I would have to go with that most beliefs are false.
My "problem" is that I have no faith in higher education to locate reality. The incentive simply is not there plus they have so much baggage.
"You gave me two types of truth I don't believe in."
Well then your problem is with all of science and logic. Truth is a logical term, not a religious one. Formal logic defines what truth is.
" For every truth there are a million false beliefs."
Falsehoods must be proven, no belief is proven. Falsehoods are truth statements in that it must be true that they are false. It is true that "1+1=3 is false". There is no such thing as a "false belief".
@gklr You are proof formal logic is faulty. lol Math is a man made invention. All his inventions are flawed. To have faith that it isn't flawed is illogical. Besides, what man makes is not ultimate truth. Some one said 1+1 =2. I have just as much right to say 1+1=3. He has no authority over me. I can say 1+1= ice cream, and it is just as true. Just because many people agree that 1+1=2 does not make it true for everyone. Therefore it's subjective and not true at all but merely a shared idea.
"That there is no such thing as a false belief..IS a false belief."
No belief can be false. All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false.
There are 3 belief types. Inductive logic gives us assumption. Then there is subjective belief or opinion like in taste and morals. Then there are myths. Each is resolved using different means of decision and is how they are identified.
3 belief types, 2 truth types. 5 propositional types exist and nothing else can be asserted.
Not when I can prove it no. It is simply irrelevent that it was not proven "to you". You also deny physical objects exist apparently, correct me if I am wrong.
So you disagree with all of modern logic and also science. All I can do is show you where both disagree with you and why what you say is impossible.
Good luck with a nonsystemic truth. You won't ever have one, it requires language, mind, logic etc....
A proposition that is a belief and is shown to be false, is a falsehood. It is only a belief if it is possibly true and possibly false at the same time. If it is proven false, then it is not possibly true and is not then a belief.
"The earth has water" is an empirical truth. It is not absolute truth, the earth did not always have water and nothing can be a truth statement when no statements existed. You never seem to want to deal with the reasons why there are no absolute truths.
@gklr There is no earth and there is no water. They are illusions. Just figments of a collective dream. You have no proof that they are real or true or exist as anything more than a fantasy.
False. Fantasy is myth. Myths are only storybook propostions, only the story verifies them. Physical reality is verified by the 5 senses. If it is the case that our 5 senses are in fact illusions, then it does not matter since that is the illusion we experience.
If I am a blob of green matter on another planet dreaming of being a human on earth is possible and it is, then there are still no absolute truths and that would help to underline that point.
We prove "there are no absolute truths" by showing that all truths are systemic, dependent on language and mind. We show truths need to be proven and nothing is true before being proved. We show no truths exist for yesterday or 1 second ago, so no truth is absolute. We show no truths exist for 1 second into the future, thus no absolute truths can exist.
Proof is a matter of showing why. Proving gods do not exist is a matter of showing them as logical contradictions.
The only opposition to there are no absolute truths comes from 2 segments, religious people and die in the wool materialists. Neither has a leg to stand on as they are arguing for the impossible.
I believe you didn't watch this video or you could not ask that question. It is not a matter of my beliefs, it is a matter of proven truth and since all truths require a system of proof they are systemic, relative to a system of proof. There are no absolute truth is systemically true, as all truths are. Absolute truth is impossible and violates logic itself.
At least watch and understand videos you comment to.
@gklr I did watch all of it. And your argument commits suicide. You said, "There are no absolute truth is systemically true," LOL! So in order for you to make a truth claim like you just did from your video, you are just using circular reasoning. Truth isn't relative, truth is what it is, the correct answer.
I sincerely doubt that, but if true the you have not grasped it.
"And your argument commits suicide."
Not a chance of that.
"You said, "There are no absolute truth is systemically true,"
Correct and that is true. All truths are systemic, relative to a system of proof. No proof, then no truth. If proof, then a relative to that system of proof "truth."
@gklrI "sincerely doubt that, but if true the you have not grasped it." LOL! Ya, I didn't watch it, cuz, according to your thinking, I then would have come to YOUR conclusions! LOL! All you're teaching is, truth is truth, when its good for you. And rejected when it is not. That is why you draw a ficticous line in the sand when it comes to defining what truth is, then you make truth claims that only agree with your presupposition.
"Ya, I didn't watch it, cuz, according to your thinking, I then would have come to YOUR conclusions! LOL!"
No.... I think you didn't watch it because what you try to argue is covered in the video and my replies merely duplicate what was done on video for the purpose of not having to say the same thing over and over. If you don't watch, you won't see that your concern is addressed in the video.
If you watched it, you did not grasp what was said.
@gklr Just because I reject your false philosophy doesn't mean that i DIDN'T watch your stupid video. I rejected it based on the fact that your just begging the question. There is no proof of what you are telling us other than the argument itself.
"Just because I reject your false philosophy doesn't mean that i DIDN'T watch your stupid video"
You haven't shown it is false and if you did you would counter your own position since it would require a system. You can't tell me you watched the video when you make the errors you do on describing relative truth as subjective. To do so means if you did watch, you could not have understood it.
" I rejected it based on the fact that your just begging the question. There is no proof of what you are telling us other than the argument itself."
That is what proof is. Science doesn't prove things, logic does. All proofs are logical and in argument form. That is why all truths are systemic too. Just more proof of why all truths are not absolute.
"All you're teaching is, truth is truth, when its good for you. And rejected when it is not"
Yet I say no such thing, and would laugh at anyone who did. Truth is true when it is proven to be true. All truths need to be proven true and are thus relative to that system of proof. 1+1=2, necessarily due to what 1 , +, 2, and = means. The earth exists is true, contingent on facts for the earth being true. Nowhere do I say "truth is truth when it is good for you". That is silly
@gklr You said no such thing? What is "The Absolute Truth about Absolute Truths?" Not all truths are meant to be proven true. You can't prove if I am wearing a red shirt or a blue one right now. Yet it is true that I am wearing one of the two.
"So if one is to play the odds game....I would have to go with that most beliefs are false."
You just said they all were. I disagree with you. I believe you exist, I cannot prove you do. I believe you have skin, blood and that you can see. It is possibly false, you might have died the moment you sent your last message. It is possibly true and possibly false that I have died since I sent this message or any message.
Nothing in this question involves whether or not you think you are a spirit being. The issue is truth. That cars exist, is resolved by a method, a means of decision. All truths about cars are contingent on those facts. We verify this through the 5 senses. That is the system of proof for physical things.
Tautologous truths are logical truths. 1+1=2 is true. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is not factual. It is true independant of the fact of it raining out or not
"If an object only exists in your mind...does it really exist?"
This is what language, mathematics, logic, objects like truth, reality, existence, words like equals etc.... are. They are mental concepts, not physical objects.
I have shown you what a nonphysical truth looks like. 1+1=2 is a good example. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is nonfactual, not contingent, not scientific. You pay no attention. On the defensive only.
All senses are physical. All 5. Not all object are physical. The number -67 is not a physical object and neither is truth. They are concepts, which require mind and language to exist. Either truth has to be shown.
@gklr Actually, there is a telepathic sense and it is our ONLY true sense. Unless you want to call emotions another sense. I have had many telepathic experiences.
The only things true... or false... are propositions.
You believe you have had telepathic experiences. The problem is you cannot prove they were real events. No truths exist about these events. That is why you feel the need to tell me about them.
Prove it, or admit it isn't true. It is believed to be true. By you.
And if you could prove it, you would have a systemic proof, a relative truth... something that is true relative to it's system of proof.... the same way all truths are. It wouldn't be true before it happened. It couldn't be true before the statement exists like prior to language existing.
Odd that you value proof now. Too bad it ends the notion of absolute truth.
@gklr Your cooperation is necessary to prove something to you. You will have to open your eyes for the test. You will have to listen for the evidence. You will need to read the test instructions and perform the test yoursalef to witness the proof.
"Your cooperation is necessary to prove something to you. You will have to open your eyes for the test. You will have to listen for the evidence. You will need to read the test instructions and perform the test yoursalef to witness the proof."
Obviously and you just showed why no truth is possibly absolute. All truths must be tested first, shown first, proven first or they are not truths. All truths are necessarily systemic, limited to logic.
@gklr The truth is that all truth is absolute. There is no nonabsolute truth, "Now is the time." It's always "Now". There for Now is an absolute truth. It's never not now.
To absolute truth is possible and this video explains why. "Now" is another concept and did not exist before language or mind existed. You have no offered a single bit of opposition to this, just your ignorance of the topic.
@gklr Now is a word, but it also describes a condition called eternity. Eternity has always existed as has God and mind. Time is an illusion. Absolute truth precludes that time is impossible. Eternity is undeniable and so time must be merely a concept.
@gklr No, 1+1=2 because it is the correct answer. If it is not true, and there is another truth other than that, then the burden of proof is not on me to give an alternative answer to 1+1=2. The burden of proof is on you! YOU must show that it can have an alternative answer that IS CORRECT!! Any idiot can say that 1+1 may not be 2. But it is you who is making the claim, so it is YOU who must give another answer that by the laws of Logic are true. If you can't it's because you couldn't.
"That is why you draw a ficticous line in the sand when it comes to defining what truth is, then you make truth claims that only agree with your presupposition."
I have drawn no fictitious line, but please feel free to show one. I have shown absolute truth is impossible and via many ways. Truth did not exist at all prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute. Just another reason.... many exist.
@gklr " Truth did not exist at all prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute."
Again, If you are going to make that claim that truth did not exist before spoken language, then it is YOU who must give proof to what you are saying. Since you have never observed this in action, then you are making an assumption, and not proof. You hinge your theory based on assumptions, then you pin your assumptions against the Laws of Logic. the burden of proof is on you.
"So in order for you to make a truth claim like you just did from your video, you are just using circular reasoning."
That comment is proof you don't grasp what is being said.
"Truth isn't relative, truth is what it is, the correct answer."
That comment is proof you didn't watch the video. You are using "relative" to mean "subjective". All relative truths are objective, there are no subjective truths. Subjective statements are beliefs. The video covers that.
@gklr I like Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream. just because I like it, doesn't mean that that is true for everyone else. What if my claim was not about flavors, though, but about numbers? If I say that the sum of 2+2=4, I'm making a different sort of claim than stating my taste in ice cream. Mathematical equations are either true or false, having one right answer. They did not have a variety of "right" answers that vary according to individual tastes. Truth is, having the correct answer.
"I like Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream. just because I like it, doesn't mean that that is true for everyone else."
Personal preferences are subjective.... not truths at all, they are beliefs. You believe Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream tastes good. You cannot prove it does. To you it tastes good. That is what subjective means. Truth is always objective, a universal truth about "truths". There is no such thing as a subjective truth.
"What if my claim was not about flavors, though, but about numbers? If I say that the sum of 2+2=4, I'm making a different sort of claim than stating my taste in ice cream."
Yep, 2 different kind of propositions. 2+2=4 is tautologously true. Flavours of ice cream are subjective beliefs. One is necessarily true, the other is a matter of opinion or subjective. There are 5 propositional types. You mention 2.
@gklr " Flavours of ice cream are subjective beliefs." Not to person A. who likes it. To this person, it is true that he likes it. Just because someone else doesn't like it, (person B) does not in anyway disprove the fact that Person A. DOES like it.
Yes it is subjective "to that person". It is dependent on that person, the value statement is dependent on them alone. Dependent on the subject.
Facts are properties of material objects. Preferences are not factual. If my pen is blue, then blue is a fact about the pen. Concepts have no facts. Facts are properties of physical things.
Subjective beliefs are a different topic than absolute truth and is covered by me in a seperate video titled Subjective Morals.
@gklr "no answers existed prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute." Again, all you are doing is a fallacy called "begging the question". Since you have never observed this, There is not proof other than your agument itself. If it is infact true, then it was true the whole time. At no time, would it have not been true, we just didn't discover it yet.
@gklr Logic is just a theory. Your view of what is logical is merely your view. If your logic isn't perfect, it's worthless for detecting truth. And what in the world is perfect?
I like your answer to the self referential paradox. I can see you've given this a lot of thought.
CheekyVimto08 2 months ago
lot of fallacies...if u say there are no absolute truth, what is the statemetn u are making, u are making a statement as true "there is no absolute truth". which means it is an absolute one. u see it only takes one example that is absolute true to make the point that truth is absolute.
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"if u say there are no absolute truth, what is the statemetn u are making, u are making a statement as true "there is no absolute truth". which means it is an absolute one"
No, and if you paid attention even slightly, I explain why all truths are relative to a system of proof and need to be proven true and that "there are no absolute truths" is proven true via logic quite simply... and was not true before the earth existed.... dopey reply.
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"lot of fallacies"
Show 1.
Just as with truths, you must prove a fallacy exists.
"u see it only takes one example that is absolute true to make the point that truth is absolute."
Show any truth for when the earth did not exist. Show what was true when no language existed.
Pretending to be in a discussion does not mean you are.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
show one ? ha ha ha, u can't be serious ?
i told u, if u say ur statement is true, then u rejected ur own presupposition. truth reflects events occurance, if they do happen then the statement is true, u r confusing a truth as is, and some kind of ideas about morals or rule of conduct. truth is logic, logic isn't based on language, it is based on the tendency of our mind to select logic instead of fuzzy chaotic thinking pattern
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"show one ? ha ha ha, u can't be serious ?"
It's the best way... just show 1 absolute truth. Oops you can't. There are none. It is an impossible and contradictory notion.
"i told u, if u say ur statement is true, then u rejected ur own presupposition"
Which is comical as a reply. I didn't say truth didn't exist, I said truth exists. I said truth is systemic, relative to a system of proof and the best you can muster is saying that I say there are no truths.
Go back to bed.
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"truth reflects events occurance"
Only sometimes. 1+1=2 is not an event and is true.
", u r confusing a truth as is, and some kind of ideas about morals or rule of conduct"
Nowhere do I mention morals or conduct. It is theists like you who confuse the two, because relative means subjective in ethics when it means objective in logic and since you haven't taken up logic you sound nonsensical.
"truth is logic"
lol, holy shit. False. Look up Liebnizs Law, do yourself a favour.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
so wait a second u don't acknowledge absolute truth, yet u recognize truth. u'r an imbecile...
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"so wait a second u don't acknowledge absolute truth, yet u recognize truth. u'r an imbecile..."
Insults are not arguments. If it took you that long to understand I say truth exists, then you need to go learn how to read.... and that is me being polite.
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
Try watching the video, try learning what people are actually saying, try to grasp the very basics of formal logic... BEFORE you shoot your mouth off like some uninformed twit.
Being an ass is not an argument.
Shooting your mouth off when you don't even listen to what is being said is the surest sign of a complete buffoon. Thanks for sharing?
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"logic isn't based on language"
Proving you have no idea of formal logic. All of logic is done via language.
"it is based on the tendency of our mind to select logic instead of fuzzy chaotic thinking pattern"
Show "logic" outside of language. lol.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
u r the one who is making the claim of truth is inexistent, show that there is no truth outside logic. it appears that it's not that u don't know the answer it's ur insecure to recognize that ur statement are all fallacious. if u are seeking my proof, then u are seeking truth, and if that proof is provided then it's truth, then it becomes that relative truth is not relative. do u recognize that language is only for information exchange, but it has nothing to do with flow and statements.
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"u r the one who is making the claim of truth is inexistent"
An outright lie... I say truth is relative to a system of proof, not nonexistent. That you continue this lie while knowing full well I say no such thing proves you do not believe "thou shall not lie" is a commandment from a god anymore than I believe it.
Fool.
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"show that there is no truth outside logic"
Well there is your problem, not mine.
"it appears that it's not that u don't know the answer it's ur insecure to recognize that ur statement are all fallacious."
I suggest you have no clue what a fallacy even is.
"if u are seeking my proof, then u are seeking truth, and if that proof is provided then it's truth"
If you had proof it would show why there are no absolute truths.
gklr 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"and if that proof is provided then it's truth, then it becomes that relative truth is not relative"
All truths are relative to a system of proof.
"do u recognize that language is only for information exchange, but it has nothing to do with flow and statements"
Language has nothing to with statements? Amazing... is that what they tell you folks in church? Try a school.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
i'm a "applied" mathematician...u idiot, i've trying to keep the convesation respectful but ur abhorrant nonsense is can make a shit shit.
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"i'm a "applied" mathematician...u idiot, i've trying to keep the convesation respectful but ur abhorrant nonsense is can make a shit shit. "
This is the superior respect they teach in church? Listen you moron, if you had treated me with respect you would have had the same returned... you didn't and I responded in kind. I did unto others you goof.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
here is an example for you: u r gonna die. that's truth. the statement is true when u die, is that truth dependent on any frame of reference. no
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"here is an example for you: u r gonna die"
A belief, because it is future tense.
"that's truth"
That is belief. You need to prove truths.
"the statement is true when u die"
Yes and not before. Truths prove what exists and the future doesn't.
"is that truth dependent on any frame of reference"
It wasn't true in 1776 therefore it is not an absolute truth.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
so if i ask u "u gonna die", it's a belief ? if belief is not indisponsable to holding the truth, in another term, a belief is like memory to truth information given that belief is true. If u could provide me one single being that isn't dying then my statement isn't true. but it's true else u should be kept from youtube, and take few years off to ponder upon ur nonsense
warrior4just 2 months ago
@warrior4just,
"so if i ask u "u gonna die", it's a belief ?"
No, that is a question. The answer is a belief. All future tense and all past tense statements are beliefs by logical necessity.... the past and the future do not exist. A truth about something proves it exists. This is yet another proof of why there are no absolute truths... there are many that prove why that is true.
gklr 2 months ago
In my opinion a lot of atheists are pseudo intellectuals because they cannot even understand what you are saying... T_T I believe you should try to "dumb" down what you say in future videos so more people can understand.
An analogy: The greatest mind wants to show the people how to make an unlimited energy source (which is simple in his mind). He explains in a very implicit, and complex way, (repeating this again:which is very explicitly simple he does not see how a fly could not understand) .
TheAceForce 7 months ago
@TheAceForce,
"In my opinion a lot of atheists are pseudo intellectuals because they cannot even understand what you are saying... T_T I believe you should try to "dumb" down what you say in future videos so more people can understand"
lol, interesting. I already consider them dumbed down...
I am going to be redoing these old videos as well as making some new ones, all updated and fresh with modern technology and everything. lol. Soon. So I will take what you said here to heart.
gklr 2 months ago
I agree with your standpoint on absolute truth because stating that there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth is easily refuted by the law of contradiction: "A thing cannot be both itself and not itself."
TheAceForce 7 months ago
@TheAceForce,
Besides, it would require proof that anything is an absolute truth, contradicting that there is any absolute truths. Needing proof means it was not true without that proof, and an absolute truth is true under all possible circumstances... and it is a possible circumstance that the word truth didn't exist in the past.
Poof for absolute truths.
gklr 2 months ago
"Let the reader be warned. It must be evident that I am unable to enter into the smallest degree of imaginative sympathy with those who deny that there is such a thing as objective truth." -Peter van Inwagen, "Metaphysics," 96
Truthseeker4815 7 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
Did you even watch this video? I say that truth is objective. What truth isn't, is absolute.
gklr 7 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
All truths are objective, and why they cannot be absolute. Learn the terms please. Learn what they mean and how they are being applied.
Ignorance is not an argument.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr With all due respect gklr, I did watch your video and I even had a long comment war with you about a year ago back when I used a different account, your whole argument is quite simply the stupidest thing I have ever heard and I simply cannot at this point even take you seriously, good day sir.
Truthseeker4815 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
You simply have no argument to show anything I say here is wrong, instead you close your mind to formal logic and run off and pray to mysterious invisible men.
And you say I can't be taken seriously?
lol
Education is not your enemy.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr Out of curiosity, what does this even have to do with the existence of God anyway? Even If I granted your conclusion about Truth what on earth even follows from it that has to do with God? Also why do you assume that everybody who disagrees with your video is a Theist? I know Atheists that believe in absolute truth.
Truthseeker4815 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
"I know Atheists that believe in absolute truth"
Absolute truth requires a god. If an alleged atheist suggests there is an absolute truth, then they either are not an atheist or they don't know a thing about the topic of absolute truths.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "Absolute truth requires a god"
interesting, well then, I guess I would just refer you to all the Arguments for Gods existence then, I have video mirrored on my channel on the Modal Ontological Argument plus some videos of my own on the Kalam cosmological argument. I plan on doing a video on the Contingency argument sometime in the near future.
Truthseeker4815 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
Be my guest. Together your videos simply won't hold any water. Make 'em all you can.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr um...ok.... well, Im open to criticism so if you have any objections to them feel free to to comment on them and point out specifically where you think I'm in error.
Truthseeker4815 2 months ago
@gklr No wonder you sound so dellusional on the other page you were duscussing absolute truth. Your an atheist you are afraid of reality.
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@gklr Why are you alive? Whats your purpose? You think you just live just to die or is there something you exists for? Its true that you will die one day.
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@gklr My diagnosis of you: You are out of touch with reality. You can only see things through your own eyes so therefore reality is only what you see. In your mind other people you see walking around in everyday life may not be real but a figures of your imagination. This shows that you are out of touch with reality. You may ba a narcisist. Self centered, selfish. You do have something in your life that you use for distraction....
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@gklr , If you were to be put in jail for the rest of your life and you had a rope to hang yourself , you would do it. Because you would be faced with reality nothing to distract yourself of the truth of life so your own mind would torment you. I suggest you take a look at my list of favorite videos on my Channel my friend. Do not wait until the last mintute. When you are dieing the reality you face will be excrutiating. Look to God my friend.
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@gklr What would you do if you were in a small jail cell for the rest of your life. Only walls to look at in the dark? They throw food at you from above. You would go crazy huh? I can tell. You intellectual mind is what keeps you hypnotized to the reality of life. Your a typecast atheist. Empty very empty. This life has a lot more to offer my friend.
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@gklr , My friend, watch this youtube video. Its not religious because I know you are an atheist and you probably would not waste your time. You will probably want to see the next parts after you see this first part:
"ROY MASTERS PERSONAL TESTIMONY 1 "
Truth77Absolute 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
"Out of curiosity, what does this even have to do with the existence of God anyway?"
It doesn't. It shows problems for the existence of Abrahamic Gods. They are all alleged to have absolute truths. It shows problems for things like Buddhism as well, as they contend there are 4 Noble Truths that are always true.
Nothing IS true until proven so, nothing is true before then, thus no absolute truth is possible.
gklr 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
"Also why do you assume that everybody who disagrees with your video is a Theist? "
The only support of absolute truth is religious, and is misguided in that it is easily proven false.
This topic also underlines that it is not simply modern science that argues for evolution, or modern ethics that argues for subjective beliefs, but also that formal logic is violated seriously by religion today. It puts forth yet another instance of where modern society runs against old myth.
gklr 2 months ago
@Truthseeker4815,
Actually it is demeaning to myth to describe absolute truth as a myth. Absolute truth is impossible, proven so logically... and myths are not impossible.
gklr 2 months ago
You've committed the use-mention error and the argument is self-refuting.
You should learn how to form a good philosophic argument. Any 'intro to logic' book will do; good luck.
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
"You've committed the use-mention error"
then you didn't watch the video.
"and the argument is self-refuting"
Only in the mind of a logical buffoon.
"Any 'intro to logic' book will do; good luck."
joker. You are a religious zeolot without a hope of naming a single logic book.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Put your rant in argument form and I'll show you how it's invalid and unsound.
BTW, define exactly what you mean when you say "truth", "systemic truth", "absolute truth".
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
Watch the video. You have no hope at all of showing any part of this video unsound. Go to it.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr If you can't even state your point in proper argument form then you seriously need to take a logic course.
I don't want to do it myself and misrepresent your argument in any way.
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
The arguments are in the video. Why do you comment on videos you have not watched?
You and logic simply do not mix. You want logicless truth. Imaginary truth is not true.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr I've watched it. I want you to put it in proper argument form so I can show you clearly where it has gone wrong.
What imaginary truth? What the hell are you talking about? I've got some A's in philosophy courses, maybe you should get some before making the atheists look so bad.
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
"I've watched it."
Then don't raise objections that were adressed in the video. Thanks.
gklr 9 months ago
@funglip,
"I want you to put it in proper argument form so I can show you clearly where it has gone wrong."
I already have and you've displayed your ignorance well enough already. In written replies to my comments elsewhere on youtube you said truth is not systemic and truths are not propositions.
Fail and fail. And you think you have something to say on the topic? lol. I don't.
gklr 9 months ago
@funglip,
"What imaginary truth?"
Absolute truth is imaginary. Too bad that truth needs to be proven. If a truth is proven it uses a system to do so. No system, no truth.
Pretend truths aren't true. Fantasy is not truth.
gklr 9 months ago
@funglip,
"got some A's in philosophy courses,"
CHOKE. Religion is not philosophy. Philosophy is a verb, the act of questioning. Philosophy is the antithesis of religion. You preach nonsense and try to label it "philosophy" when you wouldn't know what philosophy even is.
"maybe you should get some before making the atheists look so bad."
This topic isn't "atheism" or even "atheist related". It talks about proven truth, like that there are no absolute truths. Atheism is a belief.
gklr 9 months ago
@funglip,
"If you can't even state your point in proper argument form then you seriously need to take a logic course."
This video presents arguments in argument form. Being ignorant of philosophy, truth, and logic isn't an argument. You wouldn't know what logic is if it bit you in the ass. Quite seriously. I don't take kindly to ignorant morons preaching to me about something they know zero about. Joker.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr It's hard for me to put nonsense into proper argument form. lol
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
"I don't want to do it myself and misrepresent your argument in any way."
Then quote the video. Why is it theists need people to hold their hand every step of the way? Should you one day learn to think for yourself you might just look back at this conversation with some regret. I would.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Just tell me what's an absolute truth.
funglip 9 months ago
@funglip,
" Just tell me what's an absolute truth"
Blocked for repeatedly asking what is explained in the video. Die ignorant for all I care.
gklr 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip You should learn about the law of contradiction, but I doubt you will since you are a fucking hypocrite. You tell people to educate themselves when you yourself are not willing to do so.
An analogy: I say 2+2=4, you tell me: "you do not know how to add, you should learn math." You are the one who needs to learn math.
TheAceForce 7 months ago
question, what exactly is the difference between absolute truth and objective truth? it seems that most people interchange these two words frequently, making it mean the same thing...
SuperNerd707 11 months ago
@SuperNerd707 ,
If a truth is objective, and all truths are objective (and 2 of the 3 beliefs types are as well), then it cannot be absolute. An absolute truth must always be true, forever and ever amen. Empirical truths aren't, tautologous truths aren't.
This video covers your question.
gklr 9 months ago
This has always been my favorite video of yours. You explain things with a level of detail that almost make your concepts self-evident.
Are yo sure you don't have a few more controversies brewing that I could jump in on? Atheism as a belief is too easy and now it is boring. Make another video!
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2,
"Are yo sure you don't have a few more controversies brewing that I could jump in on? Atheism as a belief is too easy "
Are christians theists? If theists are those people who believe in a god and the christian god (omnipotent) can be shown and proven to not exist, then saying their god exists is not a belief statement. It is a false statement, and christians could not be theists. Ditto muslims and jews.
That'll be unpopular but I am sticking to it... and it's new. :)
gklr 1 year ago
Existence exists. There is your absolute truth.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Existence is a word that man defines with meaning, a concept. No concepts existed prior to mind.
You wish absolute truth existed so your fairytales would make some sense, but they don't. They violate logic at every step.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr To believe existence didn't exist prior to a mind developing concepts.......is so stupid I can't believe you know how to paste a video.
How can existence not exist? rotflmfao!
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Existence is a term. It did not exist prior to language existing.
New to this topic I see....
You think concepts existed when no concepts existed?
Show this object "exist" or "existence" and all you can show is a word with meaning, a concept. There is no physical item called "exist".
Show these eternal languages, eternal concepts. No such thing.
Prior to language or mind existing, nothing could be true. Truth is a concept about language.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"To believe existence didn't exist prior to a mind developing concepts.......is so stupid I can't believe you know how to paste a video."
To believe "exist" and "existence" are anything other than concepts is so stupid I can't believe you can find the E string. Show these things are nonconcepts.
Just insulting people who know more than you do is not an argument.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr What would reality be without concepts? Well........there you have it.....reality without concepts!
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Reality is not a physical object, it is a concept. Prior to language or mind existing there were no concepts and no such thing as reality.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr What makes you believe the mind is subject to time?
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@majoratheist11,
To say what is false or not real, is what terms like "without belief in god" or "lack belief" state. That is what is false about something and not what is true about it. We do not depict reality when we state what is not real. So what is false about something does not describe reality. It describes what reality is not.
gklr 1 year ago
@majoratheist11,
"What is said(propositions) about reality is what can be proven true or false"
Just about ya. Excepting that what is false about an object is not what is real, it is what is not real about it. It is not the case that I am you, states what is not real rather than depict reality. In the context of this video that doesn't matter, in the context of defining atheism it does matter. What is not real never is the case, so it doesn't matter to absolute truth talk.
gklr 1 year ago
@majoratheist11,
Reality, like truth, is a word we define with meaning and is synonymous with existence. ie: if something is real it exists and vice versa. Existence applies to those objects we can state truths about. Is existence or reality true? No, statements about them are true. All things that are real must have tuths about them or nothing makes them real.
This video deals with absolute truth. I really ought to make one on existence/reality.
gklr 1 year ago
It seems like bedtime and so i seem to be logging off now.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
Ok ok, listening to your video again.....you are not talking about Truth or Reality or what is Real or True. You are talking about some philosophy and some man made theory called "Absolute Truth". No, theories are nomy bag and I have no opinion on this constructed mind fuck
But, I do exist. Existence exist and there is a Reality. Just don't argue with me because I don't know if you exist. I know I don't know if you exist.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
Reality exist! Another absolute truth!
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
In philosophy, universalism is a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. In certain religions, Universality is the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To be unaware of absolute Truth does not prove there are no absolute truths. And this is Absolutely True.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"To be unaware of absolute Truth does not prove there are no absolute truths."
Correct. What does prove there are no absolute truth is the universal truth about every tautologous and every empirical truth (all truths) is that they need to be proven true, they are propositions themselves (thus systemic).
"And this is Absolutely True"
How was it true prior to language existing? How was it true prior to mind existing?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr The Truth is True. Even if all that is true is that the truth is true. Reality is true, even if there is nothing to witness it. Existence exists. Even is Reality changed...then change would be reality. Truth, Reality and Existence are all One and the same. Another Truth....just not your definition of truth...which is certainly not accurate.
For everything could not be false, therefore, something must be true. Even if that thing is change.
Your really out here. Hope you find something .
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971Super
"The Truth is True"
This says something to you? It is redundant at best. Yes.... the truth is true. Yay!
"Truth, Reality and Existence are all One and the same. "
False. Reality and existence are the same. Existence applies to those objects we have truths about. All truths must be proven. No truth is valid before it is proven true. Before a proposition is proven true it is possibly false, and thus a belief.
All alleged absolute truths are beliefs as none are proven.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"For everything could not be false, therefore, something must be true."
Holy. again, you think this says anything to me?
Even if that thing is change.
Your really out here. Hope you find something "
You just wrote, "For everything could not be false, therefore, something must be true." and think I am really out there?
Cue the Twiight Zone music.
Show me the truth that does not require a system of proof, or admit all truths are systemic.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
What is your problem that you find it suitable to insult? You offer here nothing but propositions, none of which existed forever... and think you in anyway have posed a problem for these arguments and this video? Who are you kidding?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr "You're really out there" is not meant to be insulting. I too am really out there. Not out where you are but certainly a distance away from sheep thinking as you are. I don't believe there is a physical universe for heaven's sake! Do you know how many people think I'm out there for believing such a thing? I'm proud to be out here. I'm an explorer going where few have dared to go before me. I don't want to be a sheep and think only inside a little space. So, no insult to you my friend.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Ok you don't believe there is a physical universe, you seem to realize you are "really out there" and I fail to see how explanations of formal logic and science are "really out there"... There is nothing "really out there" that I have said.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Then why does no one agree with you?
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Who says people don't agree with me? There is no logician on the planet that would disagree. Logic is the topic that defines truth.
Show me a single disagreement from a single logic professor from the past 100 years, and I'll show him Godels Incompleteness Theorom, Wittgensteins tautologous truths (let alone truth tables).
Introduce yourself to western philosophy since DesCarte.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr No one responding to your video agrees with you. Your professors aren't here to agree with you. Therefore, noone is agreeing with you.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971Super
an argument by populism that is false. Irrelevent. This is no way to overcome the problem of having truth exist before truth exists, which is what you argue for.
Nothing exists before it exists and no truths existed prior to language existing. No meanings existed prior to then, but you think "truth" meant something then.
Ok.
I don't need a professor to agree. I have had this video up for some time and many logicians have agreed and none disagreed, and it doesn't matter.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr How can you say nothing existed before language existed??? That's sounds so ridiculous to me. That's like saying there can be no egg until a chicken is hatched.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
I did not say nothing existed. I said no truths existed. It was not true or false then that anything existed. Truths are propositions. Statements. No statements existed before language existed and all truths are statements... propositions.
Propositions are statements ABOUT things. "My pen is blue" is a proposition. The statement is true or false, not the pen.
No statements existed then, no truths could have.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"Truth....just not your definition of truth...which is certainly not accurate."
Go ahead and show that. I gave you 2 types of truth, both are systemic. Empirical truth is contingent on facts, tautologous truth is necessary per definition. We only have perception and conception and you want more truth types?
Magically, always existing, pretend truths. Your problem seems to be that truth needs to be proven true or it is possibly false, which would make them beliefs.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You gave me two types of truth I don't believe in. They don't make sense to me. For every truth there are a million false beliefs. (actually, all beliefs are false, but that is another story) So if one is to play the odds game....I would have to go with that most beliefs are false.
My "problem" is that I have no faith in higher education to locate reality. The incentive simply is not there plus they have so much baggage.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"You gave me two types of truth I don't believe in."
Well then your problem is with all of science and logic. Truth is a logical term, not a religious one. Formal logic defines what truth is.
" For every truth there are a million false beliefs."
Falsehoods must be proven, no belief is proven. Falsehoods are truth statements in that it must be true that they are false. It is true that "1+1=3 is false". There is no such thing as a "false belief".
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Formal logic is wrong to think it can prove anything.
You only think falsehoods must be proven.
1+1=3 is false is subjective truth and not undeniable truth.
That there is no such thing as a false belief..IS a false belief.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"Formal logic is wrong to think it can prove anything."
All proofs are logical in form. Show a single exception. Prove what you say.
"You only think falsehoods must be proven."
Then what makes them false? Nothing makes them false?
"1+1=3 is false is subjective truth"
False. It is tautologous truth. Logical truth, analytical only.
"and not undeniable truth."
It is a necessary truth, as per the definition of what is meant by 1, +, = and 3.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You are proof formal logic is faulty. lol Math is a man made invention. All his inventions are flawed. To have faith that it isn't flawed is illogical. Besides, what man makes is not ultimate truth. Some one said 1+1 =2. I have just as much right to say 1+1=3. He has no authority over me. I can say 1+1= ice cream, and it is just as true. Just because many people agree that 1+1=2 does not make it true for everyone. Therefore it's subjective and not true at all but merely a shared idea.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"That there is no such thing as a false belief..IS a false belief."
No belief can be false. All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false.
There are 3 belief types. Inductive logic gives us assumption. Then there is subjective belief or opinion like in taste and morals. Then there are myths. Each is resolved using different means of decision and is how they are identified.
3 belief types, 2 truth types. 5 propositional types exist and nothing else can be asserted.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Your mind is obviously filled with ideas you learned in school/ Have you considered that it might be all worthless bullshit?
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
Not when I can prove it no. It is simply irrelevent that it was not proven "to you". You also deny physical objects exist apparently, correct me if I am wrong.
So you disagree with all of modern logic and also science. All I can do is show you where both disagree with you and why what you say is impossible.
Good luck with a nonsystemic truth. You won't ever have one, it requires language, mind, logic etc....
Truth did not exist until mind and language did.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
" there are a million false beliefs"
A proposition that is a belief and is shown to be false, is a falsehood. It is only a belief if it is possibly true and possibly false at the same time. If it is proven false, then it is not possibly true and is not then a belief.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr But what can you possibly prove?
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
We prove a lot of things.
"The earth has water" is an empirical truth. It is not absolute truth, the earth did not always have water and nothing can be a truth statement when no statements existed. You never seem to want to deal with the reasons why there are no absolute truths.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr There is no earth and there is no water. They are illusions. Just figments of a collective dream. You have no proof that they are real or true or exist as anything more than a fantasy.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
False. Fantasy is myth. Myths are only storybook propostions, only the story verifies them. Physical reality is verified by the 5 senses. If it is the case that our 5 senses are in fact illusions, then it does not matter since that is the illusion we experience.
If I am a blob of green matter on another planet dreaming of being a human on earth is possible and it is, then there are still no absolute truths and that would help to underline that point.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
We prove "there are no absolute truths" by showing that all truths are systemic, dependent on language and mind. We show truths need to be proven and nothing is true before being proved. We show no truths exist for yesterday or 1 second ago, so no truth is absolute. We show no truths exist for 1 second into the future, thus no absolute truths can exist.
Proof is a matter of showing why. Proving gods do not exist is a matter of showing them as logical contradictions.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You didn't prove it to me. You haven't proven anything to me except that people can have some pretty bizarre beliefs.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
The only strange beliefs I see are those that say truth is eternal/absolute. In complete defiance of modern logic. Impossible truths, ya ok.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"actually, all beliefs are false, but that is another story"
No belief is false. All beliefs are possibly false and possibly true.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr I knew you wouldn't believe me. lol
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"I knew you wouldn't believe me. lol"
It doesn't matter if I believe you.This video has nothing to do with believing you or not.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Good, so i hope you aren't offended for us not believing you.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
The only opposition to there are no absolute truths comes from 2 segments, religious people and die in the wool materialists. Neither has a leg to stand on as they are arguing for the impossible.
gklr 1 year ago
Do you believe that the statements that you made in this video regarding that fact that there is no absolute truth...true? or not true?
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
I believe you didn't watch this video or you could not ask that question. It is not a matter of my beliefs, it is a matter of proven truth and since all truths require a system of proof they are systemic, relative to a system of proof. There are no absolute truth is systemically true, as all truths are. Absolute truth is impossible and violates logic itself.
At least watch and understand videos you comment to.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I did watch all of it. And your argument commits suicide. You said, "There are no absolute truth is systemically true," LOL! So in order for you to make a truth claim like you just did from your video, you are just using circular reasoning. Truth isn't relative, truth is what it is, the correct answer.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"I did watch all of it."
I sincerely doubt that, but if true the you have not grasped it.
"And your argument commits suicide."
Not a chance of that.
"You said, "There are no absolute truth is systemically true,"
Correct and that is true. All truths are systemic, relative to a system of proof. No proof, then no truth. If proof, then a relative to that system of proof "truth."
gklr 1 year ago
@gklrI "sincerely doubt that, but if true the you have not grasped it." LOL! Ya, I didn't watch it, cuz, according to your thinking, I then would have come to YOUR conclusions! LOL! All you're teaching is, truth is truth, when its good for you. And rejected when it is not. That is why you draw a ficticous line in the sand when it comes to defining what truth is, then you make truth claims that only agree with your presupposition.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"Ya, I didn't watch it, cuz, according to your thinking, I then would have come to YOUR conclusions! LOL!"
No.... I think you didn't watch it because what you try to argue is covered in the video and my replies merely duplicate what was done on video for the purpose of not having to say the same thing over and over. If you don't watch, you won't see that your concern is addressed in the video.
If you watched it, you did not grasp what was said.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Just because I reject your false philosophy doesn't mean that i DIDN'T watch your stupid video. I rejected it based on the fact that your just begging the question. There is no proof of what you are telling us other than the argument itself.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"Just because I reject your false philosophy doesn't mean that i DIDN'T watch your stupid video"
You haven't shown it is false and if you did you would counter your own position since it would require a system. You can't tell me you watched the video when you make the errors you do on describing relative truth as subjective. To do so means if you did watch, you could not have understood it.
gklr 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
" I rejected it based on the fact that your just begging the question. There is no proof of what you are telling us other than the argument itself."
That is what proof is. Science doesn't prove things, logic does. All proofs are logical and in argument form. That is why all truths are systemic too. Just more proof of why all truths are not absolute.
gklr 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"All you're teaching is, truth is truth, when its good for you. And rejected when it is not"
Yet I say no such thing, and would laugh at anyone who did. Truth is true when it is proven to be true. All truths need to be proven true and are thus relative to that system of proof. 1+1=2, necessarily due to what 1 , +, 2, and = means. The earth exists is true, contingent on facts for the earth being true. Nowhere do I say "truth is truth when it is good for you". That is silly
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You said no such thing? What is "The Absolute Truth about Absolute Truths?" Not all truths are meant to be proven true. You can't prove if I am wearing a red shirt or a blue one right now. Yet it is true that I am wearing one of the two.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"So if one is to play the odds game....I would have to go with that most beliefs are false."
You just said they all were. I disagree with you. I believe you exist, I cannot prove you do. I believe you have skin, blood and that you can see. It is possibly false, you might have died the moment you sent your last message. It is possibly true and possibly false that I have died since I sent this message or any message.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Well see, I don't believe I am a body. Just like I don't believe I am my car when I'm driving it around.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLea
Nothing in this question involves whether or not you think you are a spirit being. The issue is truth. That cars exist, is resolved by a method, a means of decision. All truths about cars are contingent on those facts. We verify this through the 5 senses. That is the system of proof for physical things.
Tautologous truths are logical truths. 1+1=2 is true. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is not factual. It is true independant of the fact of it raining out or not
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You only believe the car exists. You have no proof.
The 5 senses can prove nothing accept that they are not perfect and therefore not worthy tools for determining what exists.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
A truth about an object proves that object exists. That is how we prove existence. Existence applies only to those objects we have truths about.
The 5 senses are the only means to verify the existence of physical things.
Logic, language, mathematics, these things are not sensed by the 5 senses, they are concepts and not perceptions.
No truth is eternal because there is no eternal system, no eternal language, no eternal mind. No truth existed at all when no logic did.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr If an object only exists in your mind...does it really exist?
The 5 senses are worthless and there are more senses to the mind but they are not physical. Try tapping into your non physical senses.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"If an object only exists in your mind...does it really exist?"
This is what language, mathematics, logic, objects like truth, reality, existence, words like equals etc.... are. They are mental concepts, not physical objects.
gklr 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"Try tapping into your non physical senses."
I have shown you what a nonphysical truth looks like. 1+1=2 is a good example. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is nonfactual, not contingent, not scientific. You pay no attention. On the defensive only.
All senses are physical. All 5. Not all object are physical. The number -67 is not a physical object and neither is truth. They are concepts, which require mind and language to exist. Either truth has to be shown.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Actually, there is a telepathic sense and it is our ONLY true sense. Unless you want to call emotions another sense. I have had many telepathic experiences.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
The only things true... or false... are propositions.
You believe you have had telepathic experiences. The problem is you cannot prove they were real events. No truths exist about these events. That is why you feel the need to tell me about them.
Prove it, or admit it isn't true. It is believed to be true. By you.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I have proof. I need not prove it to you. If you want proof, you need to meditate.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
If you have proof, then provide it.
You have belief, which proves nothing.
And if you could prove it, you would have a systemic proof, a relative truth... something that is true relative to it's system of proof.... the same way all truths are. It wouldn't be true before it happened. It couldn't be true before the statement exists like prior to language existing.
Odd that you value proof now. Too bad it ends the notion of absolute truth.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I have provided the proof but you fail to follow the instructions for proof. You can lead a horse to water but I can't make you drink.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
If you had provided proof (you didn't) then that truth would be relative to that proof.
That you have value in proof shows why absolute truth does not exist and cannot.
Just claiming I will find proof via meditation is not proof of anything. Truth is not so flimsy as giving advice on what to do.
Either prove it or admit it is not true.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Your cooperation is necessary to prove something to you. You will have to open your eyes for the test. You will have to listen for the evidence. You will need to read the test instructions and perform the test yoursalef to witness the proof.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"Your cooperation is necessary to prove something to you. You will have to open your eyes for the test. You will have to listen for the evidence. You will need to read the test instructions and perform the test yoursalef to witness the proof."
Obviously and you just showed why no truth is possibly absolute. All truths must be tested first, shown first, proven first or they are not truths. All truths are necessarily systemic, limited to logic.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr The truth is that all truth is absolute. There is no nonabsolute truth, "Now is the time." It's always "Now". There for Now is an absolute truth. It's never not now.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
To absolute truth is possible and this video explains why. "Now" is another concept and did not exist before language or mind existed. You have no offered a single bit of opposition to this, just your ignorance of the topic.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Now is a word, but it also describes a condition called eternity. Eternity has always existed as has God and mind. Time is an illusion. Absolute truth precludes that time is impossible. Eternity is undeniable and so time must be merely a concept.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@gklr No, 1+1=2 because it is the correct answer. If it is not true, and there is another truth other than that, then the burden of proof is not on me to give an alternative answer to 1+1=2. The burden of proof is on you! YOU must show that it can have an alternative answer that IS CORRECT!! Any idiot can say that 1+1 may not be 2. But it is you who is making the claim, so it is YOU who must give another answer that by the laws of Logic are true. If you can't it's because you couldn't.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"That is why you draw a ficticous line in the sand when it comes to defining what truth is, then you make truth claims that only agree with your presupposition."
I have drawn no fictitious line, but please feel free to show one. I have shown absolute truth is impossible and via many ways. Truth did not exist at all prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute. Just another reason.... many exist.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr " Truth did not exist at all prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute."
Again, If you are going to make that claim that truth did not exist before spoken language, then it is YOU who must give proof to what you are saying. Since you have never observed this in action, then you are making an assumption, and not proof. You hinge your theory based on assumptions, then you pin your assumptions against the Laws of Logic. the burden of proof is on you.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"So in order for you to make a truth claim like you just did from your video, you are just using circular reasoning."
That comment is proof you don't grasp what is being said.
"Truth isn't relative, truth is what it is, the correct answer."
That comment is proof you didn't watch the video. You are using "relative" to mean "subjective". All relative truths are objective, there are no subjective truths. Subjective statements are beliefs. The video covers that.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I like Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream. just because I like it, doesn't mean that that is true for everyone else. What if my claim was not about flavors, though, but about numbers? If I say that the sum of 2+2=4, I'm making a different sort of claim than stating my taste in ice cream. Mathematical equations are either true or false, having one right answer. They did not have a variety of "right" answers that vary according to individual tastes. Truth is, having the correct answer.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"I like Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream. just because I like it, doesn't mean that that is true for everyone else."
Personal preferences are subjective.... not truths at all, they are beliefs. You believe Haagen-Daze butter pecan icecream tastes good. You cannot prove it does. To you it tastes good. That is what subjective means. Truth is always objective, a universal truth about "truths". There is no such thing as a subjective truth.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr No, but it IS true that you like Haagen-Daze pecan icecream. How do I know this? Cuz you just told me.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"What if my claim was not about flavors, though, but about numbers? If I say that the sum of 2+2=4, I'm making a different sort of claim than stating my taste in ice cream."
Yep, 2 different kind of propositions. 2+2=4 is tautologously true. Flavours of ice cream are subjective beliefs. One is necessarily true, the other is a matter of opinion or subjective. There are 5 propositional types. You mention 2.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr " Flavours of ice cream are subjective beliefs." Not to person A. who likes it. To this person, it is true that he likes it. Just because someone else doesn't like it, (person B) does not in anyway disprove the fact that Person A. DOES like it.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
Yes it is subjective "to that person". It is dependent on that person, the value statement is dependent on them alone. Dependent on the subject.
Facts are properties of material objects. Preferences are not factual. If my pen is blue, then blue is a fact about the pen. Concepts have no facts. Facts are properties of physical things.
Subjective beliefs are a different topic than absolute truth and is covered by me in a seperate video titled Subjective Morals.
gklr 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc,
"They did not have a variety of "right" answers that vary according to individual tastes. Truth is, having the correct answer."
And no answers existed prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "no answers existed prior to language existing, therefore no truth is absolute." Again, all you are doing is a fallacy called "begging the question". Since you have never observed this, There is not proof other than your agument itself. If it is infact true, then it was true the whole time. At no time, would it have not been true, we just didn't discover it yet.
pretoshohmoofc 1 year ago
@pretoshohmoofc You make perfect logical sense to me. But that proves nothing, I'm sure.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead,
"You make perfect logical sense to me. But that proves nothing, I'm sure."
that is for sure. You violate logic and then call it logical. There are no truths before logic existed and so there are no absolute truths.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Logic is just a theory. Your view of what is logical is merely your view. If your logic isn't perfect, it's worthless for detecting truth. And what in the world is perfect?