UNIVERSAL/ABSOLUTE TRUTH... does it exst?

[Mr Woof]

(31-10-2014 04:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No. Truth is relative to the axioms and rules of inference of the formal system where it is being asserted. Change the axioms or rules of inference, change the truth. We can however agree that the axioms and rules of inference of some formal systems seem to make more sense to us than others. Don't think that means they should necessarily be given privileged status though.

Universal fluctuating 'truths' relevant to a metaphysical phenomenon of growth, including us perhaps, to some degree is not an unworthy consideration
This may relate, in part, to non duality...........

[Grasshopper]

(31-10-2014 04:14 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  This is the 2nd thread of 3 I wanted to post. Is ANYTHING universally and absolutely true?
Yes or no?

Are you related to diddo97?

[Mr Woof]

(31-10-2014 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:14 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  This is the 2nd thread of 3 I wanted to post. Is ANYTHING universally and absolutely true?
Yes or no?

Are you related to diddo97?

Does that really add anything?

[Chas]

(31-10-2014 04:35 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No. Truth is relative to the axioms and rules of inference of the formal system where it is being asserted. Change the axioms or rules of inference, change the truth. We can however agree that the axioms and rules of inference of some formal systems seem to make more sense to us than others. Don't think that means they should necessarily be given privileged status though.

Iv seen that this is a common belief among atheists. Do you have any sort of moral dilemma with "changing truth"? Isnt a constant unchanging truth the very basis of mathematics and why we can trust good math?

Did you miss this or did you not understand it?

(31-10-2014 04:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No. Truth is relative to the axioms and rules of inference of the formal system where it is being asserted. Change the axioms or rules of inference, change the truth. We can however agree that the axioms and rules of inference of some formal systems seem to make more sense to us than others. Don't think that means they should necessarily be given privileged status though.

[Wolfbitn]

(31-10-2014 04:30 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:26 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  I didn't ignore anything nor will I

You did.

(31-10-2014 04:01 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Here is your problem. It's like asking "And light causes a headache how?" or "And food causes digestion how?" or "And illness causes a fever how?"

The answer is simple and has been repeated to death:
Automatic reactions of the brain to stimuli.

I thought we were only to post according to the topic of the particular thread? This is another topic

That wasn't ignored, it was addressed earlier. I absolutely disagreed and pointed out you had that somewhat backward according to the implications of that study... and you responded with no source to back you... I had 5 sources backing me ...now back to the topic of THIS thread... No universal absolute truth? ... or yes?

[Chas]

(31-10-2014 04:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Are you related to diddo97?

Does that really add anything?

Yes - humor.

Don't be such an old fart.

[Wolfbitn]

(31-10-2014 04:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Are you related to diddo97?

Does that really add anything?

For what its worth, no, and I don't know them.

[Grasshopper]

(31-10-2014 04:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Are you related to diddo97?

Does that really add anything?

Not really. Sorry about that. However, this thread reminds me strongly of dear old diddo, and I think the question is basically meaningless and unanswerable. I think this thread will go round and round and leave no-one any wiser than they were before. Like WitchSabrina, I am weary of these threads.

[Wolfbitn]

(31-10-2014 04:43 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Does that really add anything?

Not really. Sorry about that. However, this thread reminds me strongly of dear old diddo, and I think the question is basically meaningless and unanswerable. I think this thread will go round and round and leave no-one any wiser than they were before. Like WitchSabrina, I am weary of these threads.

You don't know the point of this thread yet... it is a layer of evidence for one more thread to follow it... stick around

[undergroundp]

(31-10-2014 04:42 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  

(31-10-2014 04:30 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  You did.

I thought we were only to post according to the topic of the particular thread? This is another topic

That wasn't ignored, it was addressed earlier. I absolutely disagreed and pointed out you had that somewhat backward according to the implications of that study... and you responded with no source to back you... I had 5 sources backing me ...now back to the topic of THIS thread... No universal absolute truth? ... or yes?

Yeah, we are supposed to follow the rules, but if we have to do with an obvious troll, no one will care if I break them a little.

What you pointed out earlier was the exact opposite of what I told you. If you'd like, go back to that thread and give me an appropriate answer to what I specifically told you. What you said earlier is in no way an appropriate answer to what I pointed out.