NationStates Jolt Archive

Russell's Paradox is obviously not what I'm thinking of. What I am thinking of is something that he came up with, but I can't remember off-hand what it's called. Do you know much about relativism?
Basically, let's take class nominalism. This says that things look the same because we class them as the same thing and both resemble a paradigm of that thing - a red apple and a red car can be identified as similar because we class them both as red and both resemble a paradigm of red. The problem is, however that if they resemble each other, there is a relationship there. You cannot argue that what makes this relationship resemble other relationships is that it resembles an ideal relationship, because what identifies the next set of relationships as resembling each other? It becomes an infinte loop.

Really? Only the opinions of rational people count for AT? That's more elitist than I would have expected from you. Even so, do you think that Thomas Aquinas and I would agree on what constitutes AT? How about Adolph Hitler? Or Idi Amin? Or Charles Manson? Are they not rational? What about Plato? What about my poli sci professors? Even only accounting for "rational" people, you need to define rational for me.
Here, by rational people I mean those that can think rationally - that is, who can think without performing any erroneous reasoning, or logically.
Also, claiming that definitional truth doesn't count seems to me like an absolute/universal...

Allright, to recap our argument:

Your claim: All truth is grounded in subjective experience.
My claim: No it isn't, because of a counterexample involving definitional truth.
Your claim: Definitional Truth doesn't count.
My claim: First, why the hell not? Second, there are universal truths that don't depend upon definitional claims.
Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!

My summation of your argument: You are begging the question.

Is it your honest contention, for instance, that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton derived the mathematical formulation for it?

Or for that matter, if I percieve you as being a dumbass, does that make you dumbass?

Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!
No! His claim: Truth is a perception viewed differently by all people. They are still truths, just not universally. When people believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe, it was true. But only to them.

Now then, gravity did exist, but it wasn't a truth. If you told them a mysterious force surrounding everthing, essentially holding the universe together also happens to be keeping them grounded... wow... that read off a lot like Star Wars, didn't it? Is Star Wars true?! Ohmigosh!

Secondly, yes, if you believe Egrev to be a dumbass, it is true... well, it's true to you. Personally, I believe he's made you look the fool. End the tunnel-vision dude...

Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!
Ahh... there we go. The discussion was about universally agreed-upon truths, not absolute ones.

No! His claim: Truth is a perception viewed differently by all people. They are still truths, just not universally. When people believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe, it was true. But only to them.
Yes, we have a word them: opinions. Opinion is personalized truth. When someone asks you what is your opinion on God, they are asking 'What is the truth for you of God?'

Believing something is so doesn't make it so.

Wait. Were we discussing universally-agreed upon truths or absolute truths? Cos I was arguing for Absolute Truths...

If I truly believe that I can pass through solid matter, and thus decide to run full-tilt at a brick wall, does that prevent me from breaking my nose? Obviously not.

There is a reality "out there," regardless of our perceptions about it. Science is the best process that we have developed of validating characteristics of objective reality. We ignore it out our peril.

If I truly believe that I can pass through solid matter, and thus decide to run full-tilt at a brick wall, does that prevent me from breaking my nose? Obviously not.

There is a reality "out there," regardless of our perceptions about it. Science is the best process that we have developed of validating characteristics of objective reality. We ignore it out our peril.
Their are not claiming a solipsist viewpoint, but that the only truth is opinion. I happen to disagree with them.

If I truly believe that I can pass through solid matter, and thus decide to run full-tilt at a brick wall, does that prevent me from breaking my nose? Obviously not.

There is a reality "out there," regardless of our perceptions about it. Science is the best process that we have developed of validating characteristics of objective reality. We ignore it out our peril.
You seem to be trying to say that truth and reality are one and the same. They are not. Reality exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged or recognized. Truth exists only within the mind. Truth for one is not truth for others. That is all I am saying.

We defined Absolue Truth as something that was true for every person in every place at every time. Since truth is perceptual - as evidenced by the very disagreements in this forum - and there is nothing about which everybody, everywhere, everywhen would agree, it follows that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth. Even that is not an Absolute Truth, though, because there are surely those with dissenting opinions.

There is no Absolute Truth, but that is not Absolutely True. Paradoxically, it is also not Absolutely True that there is Absolute Truth. Further, it is not even Absolutely True that there must exist or not exist an Absolute Truth, for there have surely been rational people who gave the issue no thought, and had no truth on the matter.

Unless one wishes to propose a ideal of Absolute Truth, I think we can be done with this.

Xenophobialand]Allright, to recap our argument:

Your claim: All truth is grounded in subjective experience.
My claim: No it isn't, because of a counterexample involving definitional truth.
Your claim: Definitional Truth doesn't count.
My claim: First, why the hell not? Second, there are universal truths that don't depend upon definitional claims.
Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!

Defintional truth is not Absolute, because all defintions are malleable and mutable over time. Therefore their truth is also malleable and mutable over time. Therefore Definitional Truth is not Absolute.


My summation of your argument: You are begging the question.

Is it your honest contention, for instance, that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton derived the mathematical formulation for it?

No. It is my contention that existence and truth are not synonymous. Gravity existed for Neanderthal Man. It was not, however, one of his truths.

Or for that matter, if I percieve you as being a dumbass, does that make you dumbass?

In your tiny truth, yes I am a dumbass. Just remember, though, that truth and reality are not the same thing.

If I truly believe that I can pass through solid matter, and thus decide to run full-tilt at a brick wall, does that prevent me from breaking my nose? Obviously not.

There is a reality "out there," regardless of our perceptions about it. Science is the best process that we have developed of validating characteristics of objective reality. We ignore it out our peril.
if you believe you can pass through solid matter, it will be true for you until you DO break your nose. Then your truth will change... by the by, according to quantum mechanics, it is possible to pass through the wall, it's just exceedingly unlikely.

so it exists. so WHAT. George Washington would not, in all likelyhood, consider my future existence to be a truth. But I am here... I think.
But regardless of what George or anyone else thinks, it is true that you exist.

it is true to those within that plane of existence...
So, if we discover 100 years down the road this new and marvelous inhabited planet, is it untrue now that it exists?
I didn't get an answer to this question.

No. It is my contention that existence and truth are not synonymous. Gravity existed for Neanderthal Man. It was not, however, one of his truths.
You mean, things fell up for him?

Or are you talking about gravity as a "definitional truth"?

If I truly believe that I can pass through solid matter, and thus decide to run full-tilt at a brick wall, does that prevent me from breaking my nose? Obviously not.

There is a reality "out there," regardless of our perceptions about it. Science is the best process that we have developed of validating characteristics of objective reality. We ignore it out our peril.
science is generally blinded by internal politics, so a scientific truth depends on whom you ask. for instance, some would argue you can in fact run through the wall, although i would not encourage anyone to attempt that experiment. i, on the other hand, would argue that it is not possible, since quantum mechanics does not act on the level of Newtonian mechanics.

furthermore, from the theoretical standpoint, the truth you speak of, the actual nature of matter, is debatable as well, since observation modifies the event.

define evil.

define evil.
evil = bad = not good = subjective.

Xenophobialand]Allright, to recap our argument:

Your claim: All truth is grounded in subjective experience.
My claim: No it isn't, because of a counterexample involving definitional truth.
Your claim: Definitional Truth doesn't count.
My claim: First, why the hell not? Second, there are universal truths that don't depend upon definitional claims.
Your claim: That's not true, because not all people observe those universal truths!

Defintional truth is not Absolute, because all defintions are malleable and mutable over time. Therefore their truth is also malleable and mutable over time. Therefore Definitional Truth is not Absolute.


My summation of your argument: You are begging the question.

Is it your honest contention, for instance, that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton derived the mathematical formulation for it?

No. It is my contention that existence and truth are not synonymous. Gravity existed for Neanderthal Man. It was not, however, one of his truths.

Or for that matter, if I percieve you as being a dumbass, does that make you dumbass?

In your tiny truth, yes I am a dumbass. Just remember, though, that truth and reality are not the same thing.

Okay first of all, I never said you were a dumbass. I posed a hypothetical if/then statement, with the antecedent not being true.

That being said, you insist upon making a distinction about truth and reality that is wrong, because there is no logical way to parse out the difference between the two. If you say "Grass is green", and then you say "The statement 'grass is green' is true", exactly what new information have you added to the statement? The answer is absolutely nothing, because the assertion conditions for either are exactly the same, the truth conditional logic for either statement is exactly the same, and the information gained in each case on the listener's part is exactly the same. Truth, like existence, simply is not a predicate that can be applied to a sentence, at least without us having to accept some seriously goofy arguments like the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Now, you could be saying that truth is dependent upon observable experience. This is what I took you to be saying earlier. The problem I've been trying to point out is that such a statement is also wrong, because as you've pointed out, certain things like gravity exist independently of your perception of it. In shorter terms, the truth conditions of a statement about something exist independently of perception: it would be just as untrue for a Neanderthal to say "gravity does not exist" as it would be for me to say "gravity does not exist". In a word, reality is that which is, while truth is nothing more or less than that which we can correctly assert is. The two cannot be extricated from one another.

Does evil exist?The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Here is a little story my friend found........
Enjoy :D

evil = bad = not good = subjective.
Ouch!

So everything you know is evil and bad?

Here is a little story my friend found........
Enjoy :D

It's nothing more than an urban legend. . .

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Here is a little story my friend found........
Enjoy :D
Einstein did NOT believe in a personal God - as far as I can tell, he was a pantheist.

Egrev, I think the problem is that you are confusing "is true for all people" with "is believed true by all people". The two are only synonymous if you assume that truth is subjective, which does mean that you're begging the question.

Here is a little story my friend found........
Enjoy :D
The only problem I have with that story is that it contradicts everything Egrev said.

....so, thanks. :)

(Well, that and the fact that it is untruthfully attributed to Einstein (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp).)

PS: What's really funny is that the professor has taken a religious view of things, that is recognizing truths from the subjective perspective, and the student has adopted the objective, scientific view to contrast it.

evil is real but it is simply a byproduct of sin. God didn't create evil. sin created evil

I'm guessing no-one agrees with you, as you said the same thing 17 pages ago...
Anyways, it's not just a product of sin - what about natural evil like volcanoes and the like?

Einstein did NOT believe in a personal God - as far as I can tell, he was a pantheist.

Egrev, I think the problem is that you are confusing "is true for all people" with "is believed true by all people". The two are only synonymous if you assume that truth is subjective, which does mean that you're begging the question.
He always referred to God that way, for instance, "God does not play dice with the universe". Incidentally, he was wrong, God doesn't just play dice, God plays craps.

Evil is more or a harsh word, but again it is a human emotion that is a byproduct of evolution. We are taugh from birth what is moral and proper. It all depends on who teaches you, and how well they behave themselves.

I'm guessing no-one agrees with you, as you said the same thing 17 pages ago...
Anyways, it's not just a product of sin - what about natural evil like volcanoes and the like?
How are volcanoes evil?

They are made of rock, and rock is evil!

They are made of rock, and rock is evil!
Earth is evil then! ack!

Glad it's not us.

How are volcanoes evil?
If evil is that which causes unhappiness/suffering (which is the definition of evil you get in philosophy of religion), then it's evil.

evil is just a word used by people who feel that they must abide by ''morality''


everyone should read ''beyond good and evil'' by Nietzsche, i've spent the last 8months writing a huge essay on the subject and i'm inclined to agree with all the social constructionists, when God is dead all we ahve elft are words...such as evil, truth, and 'good'

If evil is that which causes unhappiness/suffering (which is the definition of evil you get in philosophy of religion), then it's evil.
Well, then it is quite real.

evil is just a word used by people who feel that they must abide by ''morality''


everyone should read ''beyond good and evil'' by Nietzsche, i've spent the last 8months writing a huge essay on the subject and i'm inclined to agree with all the social constructionists, when God is dead all we ahve elft are words...such as evil, truth, and 'good'

I have read him; I just disagree fairly vehemently with Nietzsche even while I admire his brilliance as a writer and a philosopher. Plus, to be strictly accurate, it's impossible to follow Nietzsche anyway, as he says in Thus Spake Zarathustra that if you are following him, you are doing something wrong. The larger point, however, is that if what Nietzsche says is true and there are multiple formulations of good and bad without a real-world referent to tie it to, I'm not sure how much the mere intensity of the beliefs about it (which is essentially what will to power claims) matters. In the absence of a standard of right and wrong (doesn't necessarily have to be God), I'm not sure you can escape nihilism.

You mean, things fell up for him?

Or are you talking about gravity as a "definitional truth"?
What I am talking about is the fact that reality exists outside of our awareness, whereas truth does not. Unrecognized reality is still real. Unrecognized truth is not real.

Egrev, I think the problem is that you are confusing "is true for all people" with "is believed true by all people". The two are only synonymous if you assume that truth is subjective, which does mean that you're begging the question.
There is no confusion. My definition: Truth only exists in the realm of belief and perception. That is how I have been proceeding in this debate.

I don't see how saying that truth is subjective is begging the question. The definition of truth which I have been defending is that truth is subjective, because what is true for one is not true for all. For some, it is true that Jesus was resurrected. That is not true for others. The possible reality of that event is completely separate from, and now has no bearing upon, the two perceived truths of the event. In this way, truth is separated from reality and existence as fact does not lead to truth.

It is equally as circular to say that truth is objective, so it does exist separate from perception. I don't think either is necessarily begging the question, it is simply setting up the parameters beneath which we will proceed. Without agreement on defintional clarity, there can be no progress made toward a conclusion. Proceeding on the definition of truth which I have presented, there is no Absolute Truth.

We can start over, if you'd like, based on truth as objective, but the debate will be short. If by truth you mean reality, then yes there exists Absolute Truth, because reality is not malleable. Reality simply is. If reality is truth, then truth also simply is. That was fun. We should do it again sometime.

evil is real but it is simply a byproduct of sin. God didn't create evil. sin created evil

amen

Evil is more or a harsh word, but again it is a human emotion that is a byproduct of evolution. We are taugh from birth what is moral and proper. It all depends on who teaches you, and how well they behave themselves.

well my question to you is, where did morals and the proper way of things came from? It cannot be also another brproduct of evolution

Okay first of all, I never said you were a dumbass. I posed a hypothetical if/then statement, with the antecedent not being true.

That being said, you insist upon making a distinction about truth and reality that is wrong, because there is no logical way to parse out the difference between the two. If you say "Grass is green", and then you say "The statement 'grass is green' is true", exactly what new information have you added to the statement? The answer is absolutely nothing, because the assertion conditions for either are exactly the same, the truth conditional logic for either statement is exactly the same, and the information gained in each case on the listener's part is exactly the same. Truth, like existence, simply is not a predicate that can be applied to a sentence, at least without us having to accept some seriously goofy arguments like the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Now, you could be saying that truth is dependent upon observable experience. This is what I took you to be saying earlier. The problem I've been trying to point out is that such a statement is also wrong, because as you've pointed out, certain things like gravity exist independently of your perception of it. In shorter terms, the truth conditions of a statement about something exist independently of perception: it would be just as untrue for a Neanderthal to say "gravity does not exist" as it would be for me to say "gravity does not exist". In a word, reality is that which is, while truth is nothing more or less than that which we can correctly assert is. The two cannot be extricated from one another.
Is the grass green to a colour blind person? How about to a person blind from birth? You have given them no truth about the grass, but the grass still exists with its own wavelength of couloured light.

1000 years ago it was true that the earth was flat. Everybody then recognized this as truth. It was not, however, reality. Truth can be known, reality cannot. Reality can at best be guessed at. Look at the evolving models of the atom and molecule. At each stage, the model began as true and was eventually proven false, or at least incomplete. The model we have today is true today, but may not be real. Supposing it is real, was it real 1000 years ago? Yes. Was it true? No. Quantum theory would have gotten you burned or drowned.

True and real are not the same thing. Real is what exists irrespective of our perceptions. True is simply what we perceive to be real. Truth is the shadow of reality on the wall of the cave, I guess, although I should probably think about that a little more before I post this. Ah, well, let's see what happens.

well my question to you is, where did morals and the proper way of things came from? It cannot be also another brproduct of evolution

Morals aren't actual "things" that have existental import, like opposable thumbs and vestigal limbs. They are just subjective concepts and beliefs; they don't exist outside of our minds.

As such, they came from the same place where other inventions came from, like the television or mathematical theorems. Your noggin.

What I am talking about is the fact that reality exists outside of our awareness, whereas truth does not. Unrecognized reality is still real. Unrecognized truth is not real.
...is that true?

urg... i'm here... for a sec...
by the way, good point t. sands.

yes. it is.

Is the grass green to a colour blind person? How about to a person blind from birth? You have given them no truth about the grass, but the grass still exists with its own wavelength of couloured light.
Is the grass green regardless of anyone observing it?

Morals aren't actual "things" that have existental import, like opposable thumbs and vestigal limbs. They are just subjective concepts and beliefs; they don't exist outside of our minds.

As such, they came from the same place where other inventions came from, like the television or mathematical theorems. Your noggin.
"Things" happen inside of our minds, too.

True and real are not the same thing. Real is what exists irrespective of our perceptions. True is simply what we perceive to be real. Truth is the shadow of reality on the wall of the cave, I guess, although I should probably think about that a little more before I post this. Ah, well, let's see what happens.
By that token, we could only believe that which is true, or similiar to that which is true.

Is the grass green to a colour blind person? How about to a person blind from birth? You have given them no truth about the grass, but the grass still exists with its own wavelength of couloured light.

Yes, grass is still green for him, because in each case what he would say is "green", and what we would say is "green" are identical. What you are confusing here is the truth of the statement with the fact that I have a different phenomenological (or "what it's like") experience of green than a color-blind person. To put it more simply, it is true that my experience of green will be different than a color-blind person, but we will both say "That is green" in identical conditions, and have the same truth conditions to our logic.


1000 years ago it was true that the earth was flat. Everybody then recognized this as truth. It was not, however, reality. Truth can be known, reality cannot. Reality can at best be guessed at. Look at the evolving models of the atom and molecule. At each stage, the model began as true and was eventually proven false, or at least incomplete. The model we have today is true today, but may not be real. Supposing it is real, was it real 1000 years ago? Yes. Was it true? No. Quantum theory would have gotten you burned or drowned.

No, not at all. 1000 years ago people thought that the earth was flat; they did not know, because supposition and knowledge are two different things.

You seem to be working off a very crude standard of knowledge that is at once the heart of your argument and incorrect. To use Aristotelian language, it is not enough to claim knowledge to simply observe something. Instead, you must also use reason to infer why something works. This is the first part that your theory of knowledge lacks; you are willing to claim the bald observation that the world appears to go on forever is the same thing as knowing it goes on forever. It is also true that your reasoning must also correspond or encompass all further observation in order for your reasoned belief to be called knowledge. This is the second thing your theory lacks; it ascribes any new explanation to account for discrepancies in old theory as truth.

So, to apply Aristotle's logic to the theory of a flat earth, Aristotle observed a number of different factors, such as earth and water's predilection for falling, and based on the nature of earth as 'the kind of thing that falls until impeded', as well as the nature of a sphere as the maximization of volume of an imploding object, to make the reasoned inference that the earth was spherical. From that reasoned inference, he was able to account, for instance, for why ship's masts are always seen before the body of the ship: the mast is the first thing that will be visible over the spherical earth's horizon. Nonetheless, further observation led us to discover that Aristotle had incorrectly inferred what the nature of earth is: it isn't something that falls, but it is something that has mass, and it is in the nature of mass to attract other objects through gravitational attraction. Thus, we were able to explain further discrepancies in our observation that Aristotle's analysis were unable to account for.

So what is the upshot of this account of knowledge, you might ask? Well, it breaks down the criteria necessary for knowledge in a very thorough-going and intuitively appealing way. It doesn't make sense for us to say that people "knew" that the earth was flat any more than it makes sense for us to say that they "knew" that x =/= x, because both statements are categorically inconsistent with the way the world is and works. Instead, they took bald observations from data and inferred, wrongly, that the world is flat. Aristotle developed a reasoned inference that the world was spherical, but we are still unwilling to say that he "knew" the world was spherical, because he didn't properly understand the reason why it would be spherical (or, for that matter, why other forces like centripetal acceleration make it ovoid), any more than we would say the statement "In a frictionless environ, force equals mass times acceleration because pie is good" is a true statement. We can now reasonably estimate that we have a close approximation of knowledge, because we can account for most observations and we can explain why those observations fit into the larger schema.


True and real are not the same thing. Real is what exists irrespective of our perceptions. True is simply what we perceive to be real. Truth is the shadow of reality on the wall of the cave, I guess, although I should probably think about that a little more before I post this. Ah, well, let's see what happens.

If you are making the minor semantic point that reality is metaphysic and knowledge is epistemic, then you have made a correct but completely trivial point. But I don't think you are making that point, especially if you are claiming that the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave are "truth"; that isn't what Plato was saying with the Cave allegory at all. Plato points out that those puppets are nothing more than illusions or crude illustrations of the real puppets, which are in turn only crude illusions or illustrations of the real objects they represent out in the light of the sun. Only in that light of the sun are our illusions torn away and we see things as they are; in a word, where we see truth. In the same way, Plato thinks that we can only see what is true about the world not through observation, which could be mistaken, but by dialectic to reason and infer the nature of a thing. In that sense, truth and reality are not seperable, because you can't have truth unless you properly understand reality, and truth is nothing more than the description of reality.

Moreover, you might want to read a Platonic dialogue called the Theatetus on this matter, as Plato presents your bald theory of knowledge only to debunk it. Truth cannot merely be perception in Plato's account, because if it were true we could never have a false belief, which seems blatantly false.

I think about this question a LOT. I think it starts with a question intrinsic to life: "why am I here?" It can also be framed as "where am I going?" or "what should I do?" And good and evil are represented by reactions to The Question.

Good is inclined to answers. Good explores and constructs, it contemplates and follows that first question towards other questions. Good embraces the question and pursues satisfaction. Good relishes in dynamicism and diversity. Good wants to understand existence.

Evil is inclined to negation. Evil fears the question, fears that there might not be an answer, fears that it might not be up to the task of discovering an answer or that the search for an answer will take on a frightening life of its own. Evil tries to escape responsibility to the question by destroying (negating) stimuli-- anything that provokes questions or challenges the comfort of ignorance and entropy. It tries to stop anything that would change. Evil wants to destroy existence.

Is the grass green regardless of anyone observing it?
That depends entirely upon the way in which you define green. Tell me what you mean by green, and I will tell you if the grass, in the absence of observation, is green .

Xenaphobialand, thank you for this entry. It is a refreshing change from "is that true?" to get a reasoned argument.

No, not at all. 1000 years ago people thought that the earth was flat; they did not know, because supposition and knowledge are two different things.

How well must evidence fit the suppositional paradigm before that paradigm can be called knowledge? Given the fact that knowledge is based entirely upon what people observe and perceive, I do not see how you can say that we ever know anything...we only ever suppose. Or are the suppositions of some more valuable simply because they are the suppositions of the current day? Given new knowledge - and this happens with fair regularity - everything known is eventually rendered mere supposition. What we know today may well be proven wrong in time.

What does this evolution of knowledge do to our truths? I do not propose that truth and reality are one and the same. I do not suppose that reality is in flux, merely truth. Truth is a doppleganger. It is in constant evolution, constant modification. Knowledge is not where this began, so I was not working off of any proposals regarding its nature, but as to my "crude standards," I believe that Aristotle himself proposed to know and not merely to suppose that the earth was a sphere, did he not? (And please, correct me if that is inaccurate.) Perhaps knowledge is as fleeting as truth, perhaps not. Shall we travel there next?

This began as an examination of truth, which I have been treating all along as a matter of perception and, indeed, of supposition. Truth is not objective. My truth and yours are very likely not the same thing. For many, it is true that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, for many more, it is true that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. For some it was a CIA plot, for others it was the Communists. Perhaps one or the other, perhaps neither is reality. Truth is a matter of belief and of acceptance.

This is the first part that your theory of knowledge lacks; you are willing to claim the bald observation that the world appears to go on forever is the same thing as knowing it goes on forever. It is also true that your reasoning must also correspond or encompass all further observation in order for your reasoned belief to be called knowledge. This is the second thing your theory lacks; it ascribes any new explanation to account for discrepancies in old theory as truth.

I believe you should more appropriately have addressed my theory of truth, not of knowledge, for as I have already said, no theory of knowledge had been proposed. I hesitate to say that truth and knowledge are the same thing.

Aristotle developed a reasoned inference that the world was spherical, but we are still unwilling to say that he "knew" the world was spherical, because he didn't properly understand the reason why it would be spherical (or, for that matter, why other forces like centripetal acceleration make it ovoid), any more than we would say the statement "In a frictionless environ, force equals mass times acceleration because pie is good" is a true statement.

The issue of truth concerns not whether we would say Aristotle knew, but whether he would have said he knew. And not all would agree, by the way, that pie is good.

We can now reasonably estimate that we have a close approximation of knowledge, because we can account for most observations and we can explain why those observations fit into the larger schema

This seems to be a very egomaniacal point of view. Our understanding is the correct understanding. This is the justification for every paradigm. That is why it becomes paradigm...it is widely accepted as the ultimate explanation for the way things are. I believe it is our duty to accept that things may well be, in fact, quite different from the way in which we perceive them to be. Our paradigm is our truth. It is not necessarily reality. How do we reconcile this with the concept of knowledge. I'm not prepared to answer that right now.

But I don't think you are making that point, especially if you are claiming that the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave are "truth"; that isn't what Plato was saying with the Cave allegory at all.

Indeed, that is not what PLato intended to say with The Cave, I agree, which is why I was hesitant to bring it up. I do not believe that the shadows are truth. Indeed, I do not believe that truth exists outside of ourselves. The shadows are mere third-hand reflections of the real world. The perceptions of the cave-dwellers are, however, truth. They perceive the shadows as real, and their truth is that the shadows are real. Their truth is disconnected from reality, but to them, it is truth. This is why I separate truth from knowledge.


Only in that light of the sun are our illusions torn away and we see things as they are; in a word, where we see truth.
Where we see not truth, but reality. Truth cannot be seen, it can only be believed.

In the same way, Plato thinks that we can only see what is true about the world not through observation, which could be mistaken, but by dialectic to reason and infer the nature of a thing. In that sense, truth and reality are not seperable, because you can't have truth unless you properly understand reality, and truth is nothing more than the description of reality.

This is accurate, if you substitute knowledge for truth. I believe I am prepared to concede that knowledge comes only through understanding of reality, which can be achieved only through dialectic. I still contend, however, that truth is another matter, a matter of perception.

Moreover, you might want to read a Platonic dialogue called the Theatetus on this matter, as Plato presents your bald theory of knowledge only to debunk it. Truth cannot merely be perception in Plato's account, because if it were true we could never have a false belief, which seems blatantly false.

I shall read the Theatatus as soon as I get a chance. I am right now in the midst of the Philebus, which I recommend if you are interested in pleasure vs. knowledge as the ultimate good, after which I have to finish Bertrand Russell's Power, and had intended to then revisit Aristotle's Rhetoric. I appreciate the recommendation, although I must once again reiterate that you have mistaken a theory on the nature of truth for one on the nature of knowledge.
As to false belief, nobody ever holds a belief which he thinks is false. Once a person believes a belief is false, they exchange it for one which they believe is true. A false belief and an inaccurate belief are not the same thing, assuming that by false you mean untrue, for truth is not always accurate to reality.

And this, dear friends, is why I have such loathing for the word truth. Truth is an intangible, a nebulous concept with no more substance than a thought, no more able to be grasped than a whisper, no more concrete than any emotion. Truth, alas, is only in the eye of the believer.

How well must evidence fit the suppositional paradigm before that paradigm can be called knowledge? Given the fact that knowledge is based entirely upon what people observe and perceive, I do not see how you can say that we ever know anything...we only ever suppose. Or are the suppositions of some more valuable simply because they are the suppositions of the current day? Given new knowledge - and this happens with fair regularity - everything known is eventually rendered mere supposition. What we know today may well be proven wrong in time.

I'm writing a term paper right now, so I probably can't go over everything in this post, but I can say that I can see several errors, or at least parts in need of clarification, in this particular paragraph.

1) Ultimately, all available evidence must fit the paradigm completely to qualify as knowledge. Nevertheless, because of skeptical considerations about whether we can be sure of our knowledge and the entailments of such a body of knowledge, it is unlikely that we will ever, in the strictest sense of the word, be able to claim knowledge with absolute certainty. That being said, this is not as bad as you might think; after all, modern scientists will tell you little more than what I've said here: based on our current body of knowledge and presuming that remote skeptical considerations are incorrect, we can infer with a high degree of probability what certain things are like in the world. As such, I admit that I've using a more pragmatic or vulgar standard of knowledge, and I admit that in the strictest sense I know little or nothing, but for everyday use I can say that I know quite a bit.

2) No, you do not base everything you know on what you percieve. You also reason your way to two different kinds of knowledge. One is definitional, the other inferential.

The first represents identity statements: x=x is always true, and indeed it is one of the few things we can probably claim absolute knowledge of, but you don't need to observe that it's the case. Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a mere semantic point of picking out some object in the world and choosing a term to describe it: if that were the case, for instance, then since the terms "morning star" and "evening star" both pick out the object "Venus", then "morning star" and "evening star" would mean the same thing when clearly they do not. We had to observe that the terms "morning star" and "evening star" both meant "Venus" to know it, but we didn't have to observe that "morning star" meant "morning star".

The second kind of knowledge not gained from experience is the kind of knowledge inferred from statements of truth; mathematical reasoning usually falls under this kind of knowledge. For instance, it isn't in the definition of a circle that it's circumferance is equal to twice its radius times pi. Nor still is it observed; I for instance have never observed pi in the real world. Instead, it's inferred from taking the definition of terms like "circle", "radius", and "circumferance" and inferring from it that in the case of a circle, it's circumferance is always equal to twice the radius times pi.

3) You sound like a radical Kuhnian, but your analysis is a bit off for him. Suffice to say your analysis about paradigm shifts is I think pretty mistaken, because what you are suggesting is radical changes to our concept of knowledge is in fact usually far more along the lines of minor revisions--more along the lines of determing that pi is 3.14 instead of our prior estimation at 3.1 rather than a complete reinvention of the circle. To be honest, we haven't had a complete revision of our analysis of how the world works since Aristotle: Newton merely shifted the Aristotelian emphasis from natural forms to matter, while Einstein merely toggled Newtons numbers to account for mass traveling at high relativistic speeds, and quantum mechanics merely toggles Newtons analysis at a subatomic level. At no point in the last 2500 years have we completely upended our view of what is, but we've modified to account for new observations. In that sense, it makes much less sense to say we are constantly knowing new things than it is to say we're better and better approximating knowledge of what truly is.

I have to stop here, but I'll come back to your analysis when I can.

Hmm... Egrev, I think that you're using the word truth in the same way I'd use the word belief, and the word real the way I'd use the word truth.

I don't believe that there can be multiple truths. Multiple beliefs, but not multiple truths. People believe that JFK was shot by Oswald, or that he was shot by the men on the grassy knoll. But there can be only one true answer - the reality. (Admittedly, not the best example, because he could easily have been shot by both or neither, but I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.)

Dictionary definition of truth is "confomity to fact or actuality". If you hold that there can be many truths about one thing, you're using a different definition of truth - perhaps a conviction of the truth of something, or accepting it as true. To me (and the dictionary), that's belief.

That depends entirely upon the way in which you define green. Tell me what you mean by green, and I will tell you if the grass, in the absence of observation, is green .
Is the grass green, by your definition of green, regardless of anyone observing the grass? (provided it's not dead or Kentucky bluegrass, in this hypothetical situation)

Xenaphobialand, thank you for this entry. It is a refreshing change from "is that true?" to get a reasoned argument.
I only keep asking because you don't answer, or avoid the questions. :)

I would still like to hear your response to the question of whether it is true that the planet of life-forms to be discovered in the future exists now.

Hmm... Egrev, I think that you're using the word truth in the same way I'd use the word belief, and the word real the way I'd use the word truth.

I don't believe that there can be multiple truths. Multiple beliefs, but not multiple truths. People believe that JFK was shot by Oswald, or that he was shot by the men on the grassy knoll. But there can be only one true answer - the reality. (Admittedly, not the best example, because he could easily have been shot by both or neither, but I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.)

Dictionary definition of truth is "confomity to fact or actuality". If you hold that there can be many truths about one thing, you're using a different definition of truth - perhaps a conviction of the truth of something, or accepting it as true. To me (and the dictionary), that's belief.

The dictionary definition of truth varies pretty substantially dependent upon which dictionary you choose to reference. OED online says:

truth

• noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

See definition #3, as the 1st and 2nd are both too circular to be useful. It has nothing to do with reality. It is perceptual.

Yes evil really does exists. Evil is the putting of your needs ahead of the needs of others. Selfishness is the root of all evil. Which is why America is one of the most evil countries active.

I only keep asking because you don't answer, or avoid the questions. :)

I would still like to hear your response to the question of whether it is true that the planet of life-forms to be discovered in the future exists now.

I haven't answered because I did not really think you were serious. If you've seen my definition of truth, and I know you have, you know that there is no singular answer to the truth of the existence of your hypothetical world. Is it true that it exists? To me, it is true that other worlds exist and may well be inhabited, and those inhabitants may well possess intelligence. It is not true to everybody. I have no idea whether it really exists or not. If it exists in the future, it likely exists now, but that too depends upon exactly how far into the future you mean. So, if you want to know is it true that it exists, ask yourself. Your truth is the one that should concern you, and I cannot tell you what your truth is.

Evil is real, but I sometimes wonder if good is.

I haven't answered because I did not really think you were serious. If you've seen my definition of truth, and I know you have, you know that there is no singular answer to the truth of the existence of your hypothetical world. Is it true that it exists? To me, it is true that other worlds exist and may well be inhabited, and those inhabitants may well possess intelligence. It is not true to everybody. I have no idea whether it really exists or not. If it exists in the future, it likely exists now, but that too depends upon exactly how far into the future you mean. So, if you want to know is it true that it exists, ask yourself. Your truth is the one that should concern you, and I cannot tell you what your truth is.
Now I am intrigued. How is its existence now depend on how far into the future this planet is discovered by us?

I know the answer to the question I asked. It's a simple question with a simple, single answer ("yes" or "no"). That is the answer to any question of truth. I was asking you, though; unfortunately, you avoided the question by choosing to address a different one, instead: I didn't ask if it is "true to you" or for me, or if you had any knowledge if it really exists now --in fact, the question as stated acknowledges that you do not have knowledge of it now --I asked if it was true that the planet that will be discovered at a future time exists now even though we don't yet know of it.

If it is true that the planet that is to be discovered in the future exists now even though we remain unaware of it now, then truth is not dependent upon us knowing it.

The dictionary definition of truth varies pretty substantially dependent upon which dictionary you choose to reference. OED online says:

truth

• noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

See definition #3, as the 1st and 2nd are both too circular to be useful. It has nothing to do with reality. It is perceptual.
You must have a different OED Online than I do. (I think I have university access). The first definiton of truth I come across in this OED that is relevant is "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity (of statement or thought)." Also, did you look up the word true in the dictionary? First relevant definition here is "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity (of statement or thought)."

How is #3 any less circular than #1 or #2? All three contain the word true. Is it because it fits your argument?

Let's try a little thought experiment (with apologies to Hilary Putnam and Mark Rowlands). Say that there are two hermetically sealed buildings. In one, there is water, in the other a substance identical to water except under complicated chemical analysis (which the inhabitants of the building don't have access too). Let's call it retaw, although they call it water.
When they are thinking about what they drink, are their thoughts about retaw or water?

Now I am intrigued. How is its existence now depend on how far into the future this planet is discovered by us?

I know the answer to the question I asked. It's a simple question with a simple, single answer ("yes" or "no"). That is the answer to any question of truth. I was asking you, though; unfortunately, you avoided the question by choosing to address a different one, instead: I didn't ask if it is "true to you" or for me, or if you had any knowledge if it really exists now --in fact, the question as stated acknowledges that you do not have knowledge of it now --I asked if it was true that the planet that will be discovered at a future time exists now even though we don't yet know of it.

If it is true that the planet that is to be discovered in the future exists now even though we remain unaware of it now, then truth is not dependent upon us knowing it.
I do believe that Egrev will be down for the count with this astute analysis.

Evil exists.....it is very real....

Now I am intrigued. How is its existence now depend on how far into the future this planet is discovered by us?[QUOTE]

Simple. It may not exist now, but that does not preclude a future existence. The universe is evolving and changing, and new planets may be formed which one day may support life. That was all I meant, nothing else.

[QUOTE]I know the answer to the question I asked. It's a simple question with a simple, single answer ("yes" or "no"). That is the answer to any question of truth. I was asking you, though; unfortunately, you avoided the question by choosing to address a different one, instead: I didn't ask if it is "true to you" or for me, or if you had any knowledge if it really exists now --in fact, the question as stated acknowledges that you do not have knowledge of it now --I asked if it was true that the planet that will be discovered at a future time exists now even though we don't yet know of it.[QUOTE]

Is that true? is obviously NOT a simple question with a single answer, or this would not have been going on for a week now. What I was referring to as obvious had been MY answer. As you have seen, or should have seen by now, I believe there is no separation between true and true to you. You, apparently, also recognize this distinction, or you would not have found it necessary to ask me for the truth. You could ask yourself and find the same answer, if it were singular and simplistic. Your answer, and therefore your truth, is yes. Mine is no. See? Not singular. Simple for each of us, complex between us. It is not true that the planet exists now. It is merely real that the planet exists now. Not the same thing.

[QUOTE]If it is true that the planet that is to be discovered in the future exists now even though we remain unaware of it now, then truth is not dependent upon us knowing it.

It is not true. Truth is dependent upon belief. Which, by the way, is not the same thing as dependence upon knowledge. Truth is more closely related to belief than to knowledge. Whether it is true is not dependent upon us knowing.

Is it true that God exists? Is it true that Jesus Christ is our only path to salvation? I know my answers, they are "no". What are yours?

Could anyone attepmt to answer this guestion, it is, is evil a real thing. This might be a chance for people to give their thoughts on it, so feel free to.
It's an abstract concept.

How is #3 any less circular than #1 or #2? All three contain the word true. Is it because it fits your argument?[QUOTE]

Actually, no, it is because #1 and #2 claim basically that something is truth merely because it is true, and does not distinguish between fact and belief, which is the crux of our discussion. #3, on the other hand, explains that it is fact or belief that is accepted as true. It depends not upon being true to qualify as truth, but upon fact or belief...which, now that I am more awake than I was at the time of that post, means we may all very well be right, I guess. Interesting.

[QUOTE]Let's try a little thought experiment (with apologies to Hilary Putnam and Mark Rowlands). Say that there are two hermetically sealed buildings. In one, there is water, in the other a substance identical to water except under complicated chemical analysis (which the inhabitants of the building don't have access too). Let's call it retaw, although they call it water.
When they are thinking about what they drink, are their thoughts about retaw or water?

I'm sure Putnam and Rowlands do not mind. Their thoughts are of water. Their truth is that the retaw is in fact water, when it is in fact not water. Thank you for that stunning demonstration of my very point as to the perceptual nature of truth, although I assume you probably had some other intention.

Now I am intrigued. How is its existence now depend on how far into the future this planet is discovered by us?

Simple. It may not exist now, but that does not preclude a future existence. The universe is evolving and changing, and new planets may be formed which one day may support life. That was all I meant, nothing else.

I know the answer to the question I asked. It's a simple question with a simple, single answer ("yes" or "no"). That is the answer to any question of truth. I was asking you, though; unfortunately, you avoided the question by choosing to address a different one, instead: I didn't ask if it is "true to you" or for me, or if you had any knowledge if it really exists now --in fact, the question as stated acknowledges that you do not have knowledge of it now --I asked if it was true that the planet that will be discovered at a future time exists now even though we don't yet know of it.

Is that true? is obviously NOT a simple question with a single answer, or this would not have been going on for a week now. What I was referring to as obvious had been MY answer. As you have seen, or should have seen by now, I believe there is no separation between true and true to you. You, apparently, also recognize this distinction, or you would not have found it necessary to ask me for the truth. You could ask yourself and find the same answer, if it were singular and simplistic. Your answer, and therefore your truth, is yes. Mine is no. See? Not singular. Simple for each of us, complex between us. It is not true that the planet exists now. It is merely real that the planet exists now. Not the same thing.
If the planet exists now, that is reality. Whether you or anyone else knows that it exists is irrelevant. The truth is that it exists. If you deny that it exists then you are making a false statement because it does in fact exist.

If it is true that the planet that is to be discovered in the future exists now even though we remain unaware of it now, then truth is not dependent upon us knowing it.

It is not true. Truth is dependent upon belief. Which, by the way, is not the same thing as dependence upon knowledge. Truth is more closely related to belief than to knowledge. Whether it is true is not dependent upon us knowing.
Truth is not dependent upon belief. If the planet exists, it exists whether you believe it or not. Your truth is not superior to reality.

Is it true that God exists? Is it true that Jesus Christ is our only path to salvation? I know my answers, they are "no". What are yours?
Jesus Christ did/does exist, depending upon your degree of belief/faith, and has stated that the "path to salvation" is through belief in Him and His Father. Jesus did walk this earth and He is offering a whole lot more than you are. If your contentions are true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.

He offers hope, whereas you offer nothing.

Let's try a little thought experiment (with apologies to Hilary Putnam and Mark Rowlands). Say that there are two hermetically sealed buildings. In one, there is water, in the other a substance identical to water except under complicated chemical analysis (which the inhabitants of the building don't have access too). Let's call it retaw, although they call it water. When they are thinking about what they drink, are their thoughts about retaw or water?


I'm sure Putnam and Rowlands do not mind. Their thoughts are of water. Their truth is that the retaw is in fact water, when it is in fact not water. Thank you for that stunning demonstration of my very point as to the perceptual nature of truth, although I assume you probably had some other intention.
The truth is that retaw is in fact water. The key word in the corollary is the word "identical". If the retaw has different properties than water, then the two substances are not in fact "identical".

The dictionary definition of truth varies pretty substantially dependent upon which dictionary you choose to reference. OED online says:

truth

• noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

See definition #3, as the 1st and 2nd are both too circular to be useful. It has nothing to do with reality. It is perceptual.
You should have said a dictionary definition not the dictionary definition.

Try these definitions of truth:

1. something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality

2. true quality: correspondence to fact or reality

What is reality?

1. real existence: actual being or existence, as opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature

2. all that exists or happens: everything that actually does or could exist or happen in real life

How is #3 any less circular than #1 or #2? All three contain the word true. Is it because it fits your argument?

Actually, no, it is because #1 and #2 claim basically that something is truth merely because it is true, and does not distinguish between fact and belief, which is the crux of our discussion. #3, on the other hand, explains that it is fact or belief that is accepted as true. It depends not upon being true to qualify as truth, but upon fact or belief...which, now that I am more awake than I was at the time of that post, means we may all very well be right, I guess. Interesting.
It's just as circular! None of the three definitions makes any sense without reference to the word true. If you replace the word true in the third one with its meaning, it becomes "that which is accepted as conforming to fact or reality".

I'm sure Putnam and Rowlands do not mind. Their thoughts are of water. Their truth is that the retaw is in fact water, when it is in fact not water. Thank you for that stunning demonstration of my very point as to the perceptual nature of truth, although I assume you probably had some other intention.
Far be it from me to appeal to authority, but that is not what either of them hold - they say that the thoughts are about retaw even though folk think they are about water. Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics of the argument off-hand, but if I remember to bring the book to college tomorrow I will elaborate (also, a search for Hilary Putnam, semantic externalism or twin earths thought experiment might explain better. Also these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Earth_thought_experiment)

It's actually a pretty simple explanation. How can you have thoughts about water when you have never come into contact with water?
Your thoughts SEEM like water-thoughts, bu they're not. You can never know the truth of your thoughts, but there IS a truth behind it.

Now I am intrigued. How is its existence now depend on how far into the future this planet is discovered by us?
Simple. It may not exist now, but that does not preclude a future existence. The universe is evolving and changing, and new planets may be formed which one day may support life. That was all I meant, nothing else.
Within 100 years? That was the amount stated in the original question.

Even if it does come into existence sometime between now and when it is discovered, that is a speculation that says the truth of its existence is not dependent on us knowing about it.

I know the answer to the question I asked. It's a simple question with a simple, single answer ("yes" or "no"). That is the answer to any question of truth. I was asking you, though; unfortunately, you avoided the question by choosing to address a different one, instead: I didn't ask if it is "true to you" or for me, or if you had any knowledge if it really exists now --in fact, the question as stated acknowledges that you do not have knowledge of it now --I asked if it was true that the planet that will be discovered at a future time exists now even though we don't yet know of it.
Is that true? is obviously NOT a simple question with a single answer, or this would not have been going on for a week now. What I was referring to as obvious had been MY answer. As you have seen, or should have seen by now, I believe there is no separation between true and true to you. You, apparently, also recognize this distinction, or you would not have found it necessary to ask me for the truth. You could ask yourself and find the same answer, if it were singular and simplistic. Your answer, and therefore your truth, is yes. Mine is no. See? Not singular. Simple for each of us, complex between us. It is not true that the planet exists now. It is merely real that the planet exists now. Not the same thing.
And I am still waiting for an answer to the question I actually asked... :)

By answering a "true to you" question instead, or the "is it real" question, you avoiding answering the question that was actually asked.

A distinction does directly imply a separation of identity between the things being distinguished. The distinction between true and true to you (as I've indicated in earlier posts) is one of perspective. You yourself have acknowledged the gap between something from my perspective and from yours; the same amount of gap exists between something from our subjective perspectives and something objective to us.

If it is true that the planet that is to be discovered in the future exists now even though we remain unaware of it now, then truth is not dependent upon us knowing it.
It is not true. Truth is dependent upon belief. Which, by the way, is not the same thing as dependence upon knowledge. Truth is more closely related to belief than to knowledge. Whether it is true is not dependent upon us knowing.
"True to you" is belief (opinion), and I'm not arguing that at all. :) Just that it's not the same as "true".

If the truth of the planet's existence is dependent upon us believing it is so, then we have the power to bring imagined things into actual existence. Truth equates things with actuality.

Perhaps your stance is a solipsist one, after all.

Is it true that God exists? Is it true that Jesus Christ is our only path to salvation? I know my answers, they are "no". What are yours?
As an agnostic theist, my response is that god is unknowable and unknown, i.e. supernatural. Does the supernatural exist? We cannot say, as we cannot know. To Christians, JC is the salvation, yes; but these questions are, by default, "to you" questions. They address religion, which is something that takes place solely from a subjective perspective. The response requires opinion.

How is #3 any less circular than #1 or #2? All three contain the word true. Is it because it fits your argument?

Actually, no, it is because #1 and #2 claim basically that something is truth merely because it is true, and does not distinguish between fact and belief, which is the crux of our discussion. #3, on the other hand, explains that it is fact or belief that is accepted as true. It depends not upon being true to qualify as truth, but upon fact or belief...which, now that I am more awake than I was at the time of that post, means we may all very well be right, I guess. Interesting.
1, 2 and 3 are different contexts for the word.

Could anyone attepmt to answer this guestion, it is, is evil a real thing. This might be a chance for people to give their thoughts on it, so feel free to.
"Evil" is a way of describing your experience of something. It is "real" insofar as it is a real term that refers to a range of real human experiences. It is "unreal" in the sense that it not an objective trait of a person or thing or event.

Might be dead by now, but I'd just like to draw the distinction of 'true to' someone and 'true for' someone. For example, say you don't believe in gravity. You believe you can transcend it totally, and fly. So gravity is not true to you.
But when you jump off a building, you'll find it IS true for you...

Might be dead by now, but I'd just like to draw the distinction of 'true to' someone and 'true for' someone. For example, say you don't believe in gravity. You believe you can transcend it totally, and fly. So gravity is not true to you.
But when you jump off a building, you'll find it IS true for you...
Gravity doesn't exist- it is the elevator effect that you feel. The entire world is expanding, at a sub-atomic level, at the same rate, so we can never observe a difference. The universe is falling away from itself at a similar rate, so we can nay observe that either. Gravity is neither true for nor to me. Gravity is all in your head.

Gravity doesn't exist- it is the elevator effect that you feel. The entire world is expanding, at a sub-atomic level, at the same rate, so we can never observe a difference. The universe is falling away from itself at a similar rate, so we can nay observe that either. Gravity is neither true for nor to me. Gravity is all in your head.
One word: gravitons.
If they exist, as seems likely, then gravity does exist.
I don't know what you mean by elevator effect, or the world expanding at the same rate. Could you explain some more?

Good and Evil are perspectives. Each depend on the moral compass of the experiencer. I don't believe God, as omnicient and All That Is and Is Not, contains not only all things but all experiences and does not, if fact, judge us. I believe what is left of the conscience after death is the judge and the experience is either perceived as "heaven" or "hell" depending on the expectations of the experiencer.