Bad example. Withholding information is not the same as changing the facts.
What IS Truth?
- Thread starter tiger9110
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,076
So you want to debate what truth is? Ie you want to have a discussion to find the truth -- a debate -- with respect to what truth is.
This is impossible and contradictory. You already assume a standard of truth in order to begin a rational discourse. In fact truth is axiomatic / tied into the laws of nature and the universe and cannot be debated for exactly this reason.
It's like trying to prove the validity of mathematics using mathematics.
dragonfire455
Forum Addict
Subjective, unless referenced in an absolute fashion.
It, in no way, is irrelevant. It shows a perfect solution to the concept of subjective facts.
Is has the same basis, does it not?
To change the fact, though it is still fact, and to only state part of the fact, so that it is still fact, are essentially the same.
There is no such thing.
How do you change a fact without making it false? It is not the same. Not even essentially, it's completely different. That's why your example has no relevance.
Let me put it this way. I'm not a scientist, but red is red in a scientific sense. It is completely objective. The word red is just a semantic term, and therefore could be considered ambiguous. The bottom line still remains that the colour red is the colour red. (Don't criticize my spelling of color - I'm from canada
)
xi momo xi
Grand Master
This is a pretty pointless thread..
And damn this is way too much thinking for my brain at this time on the day
And damn this is way too much thinking for my brain at this time on the day
You state a solution to my claim, but you don't back it up. This makes it irrational, and therefore, invalid.
"I was out."
"I was at a carnival."
Speaking of one occurrence, with the same essential fact. However, it's changed. Nonetheless, they are both truth, and therefore, valid, and relevant.
Re-read the thread, there's my backup.
It is not changed. "I was out" implies you were not at home. "I was at a carnival" implies you were at a carnival. These two are not contradictory, so both can be true without ruling out the other.
in the bible in john 14:6 jesus says"i am the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the father except through me."
so if you believe in the bible jesus is truth. kind of hard to think of a person being truth but then again we are simple minded humans =)
so if you believe in the bible jesus is truth. kind of hard to think of a person being truth but then again we are simple minded humans =)
You are a simple minded human.
Two individual debaters may have the same view, but different reasons for that view. One may be rational, the other may not be. If you have 'backup', you must present it with your argument, or it is invalid. Thus far, it is invalid.
Both are true, and are based on the same fact that you were indeed at the carnival. "I was out," could mean that you were anywhere, but referring to the fact that you were at a carnival, both statements share the same basis of truth, while not exactly being stated the same way. Therefore, and in shorter terms, they are the same fact, simply changed.
Your representation is changed, the facts stay the same.
Joseg1320
Forum Addict
It's basically a fact that has been verified.
Which is what I'm trying to reach. The fact is clearly not objective, as the representation of the fact has been (or in other words, is able to be) changed. Nonetheless, they are both the same fact.
Fact is objective, interpretation and presentation is subjective.
You are the one saying that truth is universal, yet you're saying that he is wrong? According to you everyone is right about what they think truth is.
Bolded is wrong, refer to my previous post.
Similar threads
