“There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”
I’m probably going to regret this, (I’m putting it in its own thread so I can abort it if necessary) but I’m going to ask anyway.
What in the hell are these 25-49 different truths?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Okay, so you're honestly not understanding the point I'm making? Got it.
Look. Is it wrong to tell a lie? That is a question with, presumably, ONE OBJECTIVELY Truth, ONE objective moral reality. YES, it is immoral to tell a lie, most of us would probably affirm. If we are correct, then that is ONE moral Truth.
But wait, what if telling the truth gets someone killed, but by telling a lie, you can save their lives? Well, in that situation, let's say, the ONE truth to that moral question is that YES, it is RIGHT/MORAL in that scenario to tell a lie. Indeed, it would be wrong to tell a truth that got someone killed. So, that is a SECOND moral Truth.
YES, we find out one day. It IS moral for gay guys to get married. There is a THIRD moral Truth.
YES, we find out one day, it IS wrong for a woman to have an abortion (let's pretend). There is a FOURTH moral Truth.
BUT, we find out one day, it is NOT wrong for a woman to have an abortion to save the life of a mother. There is a FIFTH moral Truth.
On and on we can go. EACH question has a moral truth that presumably, has ONE "right" answer. Because some actions may depend upon attitudes or circumstances, there might be some scenarios where one action is moral and other scenarios where the opposite action is moral.
There might be 10 billion different potential TRUTHS to answer each of these moral questions. That would be ten billion different Truths, would it not?
These are multiple, infinite Truths because there are multiple, infinite questions. Right?
What IS the Truth about inerrancy, after all?
What IS the Truth about killing gay folk for "adultery," (even if they're married)? Is it IMMORAL or MORAL to kill a gay couple or an adulterous straight couple? What is that Truth?
Is it the same Truth as the inerrancy question or is it a different answer/different Truth?
Am I mistaken about something?
Am I not explaining myself well?
Dan,
I’ll give you credit for creativity, if not for following directions.
I might take you more seriously if weren’t contracting your earlier claims and answers.
Since you affirmed this, it’s bizarre that your now arguing against yourself. Part of the problem is your obsession with trying to drive every thread toward your moral relativism.
I’m going to give you an extreme, extremely hypothetical example.
I’ll use your example of inerrancy. If scripture is Truly inerrant, then it doesn’t matter what anyone believes or what claims are made. It’s true independent of anything else.
Look, if I wanted to waste a bunch of time, I’d pull together all your contradictory quotes, and just laugh my ass off.
But, if you want to list the 25-49 truths your imagination came up with, go for it.
I’m done enabling your delusions.
I’ll give you this, it’s pretty much the ultimate way to detail a conversation. It’s probably the most creative tactic I’ve seen from you.
So, you truly DON'T understand what I'm saying. I don't know how else to help you.
Your summary/response that you just answered to what I've said has NO bearing to what I've said. It's like you're reading someone else's writing and responding to that, rather than what I've said. For instance, I HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING about 25-49 truths. That's you doing some multiplying of numbers or something as opposed to actually reading what I actually said.
Craig, perhaps your recent mistake that you finally recognized in your two questions should help you humble yourself a bit and help open your eyes to what I've been saying... You serially fail to understand my words. In spite of obvious clarity in what I've said on this point (the Truths about multiple topics being, mathematically, multiple Truths, just as a point of real world facts), your comments here indicate that you are just entirely missing the point.
I'm not saying that by way of criticism, just concern.
I'm getting ready to go to the other thread to see if you understand my repeated clarifications there any better, but, well, we'll see.
Dan,
I completely understand your insane notions. It’s so far beyond rational that I’m not going to waste any time with it.
I’ll tell you this, when I was looking for definitions of Truth, your bizarre multiverse hunch never showed up.
I’ll give you credit, you’ve made the pomo’s stance on Truth look rational.
What SPECIFICALLY is bizarre and beyond rational about the notion that IF you have two ideas that you believe to be True, that you might refer to "those Truths..."?
"We hold THESE TRUTHS to be self evident," a wise fella once said. Should he have written, in your estimation, "We hold THIS TRUTH to be self evident..."?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
He is referring to MULTIPLE Truths. What's "beyond rational" about saying so, using the plural Truths?
It's not sufficient to just call me and Thomas Jefferson crazy. You have to explain WHAT SPECIFICALLY you find odd about it.
Really, that’s your proof?
1. You haven’t dealt with the “self evident” problem I pointed out multiple threads ago, so it’s not going to have much credibility when you selectively quote the declaration.
2. I realize that your allegiance do dictionary definitions is fluid to say the least, but if I have to choose, I’ll go dictionary.
3. You’ve offered one example(that’s not Pomo), I’m going to go with peptic license and anachronistic language and let you prove me wrong.
You’re literally arguing that 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 are separate and distinct Truths. When the reality is that they both meet the definition of Truth in that they both conform to reality.
??? What are you talking about? You're not making sense.
Are you okay?
I am NOT arguing that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are separate and distinct Truths. They ARE literally separate and distinct Truth CLAIMS, (one of which is not actually True), but that's not anything that I have said.
Are you okay?
Really good point, Craig. I think the math problems are pretty much what the founders were saying in the Declaration. Dan would be hard pressed to prove that the founders were conflating "We find these truths..." with "there are more than one Truths". It's more equivocation from Dan. There is Truth and there are "truths", but the latter is simply a list of examples that proves the former. They are not separate and distinct. Those "truths" reflect the fact that Truth exists.
Wish I had more time at present. There's so much goofiness Dan has expressed in the other threads, yet I'm out of time for another day or so. Drive by commenting only.
Sorry, I just realized that your math example was different than what I think I responded to. Regardless, the point still stands. YES, 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 ARE two distinct Truths. But more apt, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ALSO two distinct Truths.
There are multiple Truths in this world and that is an observable objective fact. Of course.
Are you okay?
Marshal... " to prove that the founders were conflating "We find these truths..." with "there are more than one Truths"."
More than one Truth... ABOUT WHAT?
You're not saying in this whole wide diverse world of multiple peoples and ideas and topics that there is ONE TRUTH and that Truth is... 17? That literally, SEVENTEEN is THE ONE ANSWER to all questions and the one reality about all ideas?
The point of ONE TRUTH is that there is at least potentially ONE TRUTH about ANY GIVEN QUESTION or idea, but there are multiple/endless questions and ideas, so literally endless Truths, right?
What am I missing here?
Or is it you all that are missing the point?
Whatever you say.
Joe owns a Hyundai and 1+1=2 are True because they conform to reality. (If Joe actually does own a Hyundai). They are different examples of Truth (that which conforms to reality), not different Truths.
"There are multiple Truths in this world and that is an observable objective fact. Of course."
If this is the case, then where is your objective proof?
I'm fine. I'm a little surprised at your complete contradiction and total backtracking from what you recently insisted.
I'm more concerned about your mental health.
"I DO ASK THE QUESTION, "WHAT IS TRUE?" and do so regularly."
Apparently the answer is virtually everything.
Definition of truth
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(2) : the state of being the case : fact
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true truths of thermodynamics
c : the body of true statements and propositions
2a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true sense 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
Strangely enough, MW never mentions a plural. Interesting. I know your relationship with dictionary definitions is fluid, but there is no sign of plural truths in MW (I know that's the dictionary you cite when you find a dictionary definition helpful).
So, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ONE SINGLE TRUTH?
Is that what you're saying?
Because, they literally are not. Those are TWO diverse/distinct Truths in one real world.
It is the Truth, the state of being the case, a FACT, that 1+1=2.
AND, it is a DISTINCT and DIFFERENT Truth that Joe owns a Hyundai.
They are not the same Truth.
Put yet another way: If the question is "What is 1+1?" ...there is ONE TRUTH to answer that question factually. The TRUTH to that question is "2." The Truth is NOT "Yes, Joe owns a Hyundai..." because that's irrational.
TWO distinct, separate Truths/facts.
WHICH IS PRECISELY the same reason why Jefferson was correct to say, "WE hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident." Because he was referencing the Truth that all people are created equal AND THE SEPARATE and distinct Truth that humans enjoy a right to life. TWO SEPARATE Truths.
What am I missing?
Are you saying that there is ONE TRUTH, ONE ANSWER to everything and that answer is Two?
Craig... "Strangely enough, MW never mentions a plural."
! Look again. On my screen it is literally the second line.
"Truth
Truths plural"
Or do you mean the definition of Truth, singular, does not include a plural definition? No. It doesn't. Nor does the definition of car, singular, include the definition for cars. Dictionaries don't give a plural definitions for words.
"Look. Is it wrong to tell a lie?"
This is the wrong question. The question real question, is, "Is a lie the Truth?".
There may be times when it's appropriate to tell a lie, but IT"S STILL A LIE. It's, by definition, NOT the Truth.
I understand what you're hoping to do, your hoping to drive a specific limited discussion about Truth, back to arguing about morals.
You're trying to equate Truth with morals, yet the definitions you offer exclude that possibility in any universal way.
When I looked up Truths in MW there wasn't a listing.
"So, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ONE SINGLE TRUTH? Is that what you're saying?"
No, I'm saying that they are both examples of a statement that conform to reality, therefore they are both True.
"What am I missing? Are you saying that there is ONE TRUTH, ONE ANSWER to everything and that answer is Two?"
No, I'm saying that The Truth is what conforms to reality.
"The point of ONE TRUTH is that there is at least potentially ONE TRUTH about ANY GIVEN QUESTION or idea, but there are multiple/endless questions and ideas, so literally endless Truths, right?
What am I missing here?"
The point is that though two different claims may be true, that only means that two different claims are true. There is still only "Truth"...not "truths". And then of course are the claims a matter of dealing known facts, or interpretations of those facts. In a trial, both prosecutor and defense have access to the same facts. How those facts are presented determines two distinct truth claims, with one emerging as the truth. This is true even if the losing side insists their presentation was the truth. Whichever isn't representative of the truth is not truth at all.
Such is the case with worldviews. There cannot be more than one truth. Thus, one must first acknowledge that there is indeed only one truth and argue for why one's belief is actually true or where the definitive knowledge can't be discovered, most likely to be true.
You're trying to equate Truth with morals
Nope. Literally not. It doesn't have to be morals. I've done this same thing with math and cars.
ONE TRUTH: 1+1=2
A SECOND AND SEPARATE TRUTH: Dan owns a Ford currently.
Add those together and what do you get? TWO TRUTHS. Plural.
I'm just talking about language and the fact that it's perfectly rational, given the definition of Truth, to talk about Truth in the plural if we're indeed talking about multiple truths.
Ok, I’ll pull those quotes as well.
Look, if you want to play semantic games that’s fine, if you want to contradict yourself that’s fine, you are clearly desperate to acknowledge that there is any sort of universal, objective, Truth of any significance. I suspect I know why. I’d even grant you the the concept of a singular, universal, objective Truth, is not completely incompatible with a colloquial concept of “truths”, but your fluid, undefined, unsupported, virtually everything is a “truth” of some sort, seems more like a strategy to bail you out, than a coherent, rational thought out system.
He’ll, you just proclaimed this concept perfect, what’s next?
Come to think of it Jesus did refer to Himself as The Truths, didn’t he.
But contradicting Jesus hasn’t ever bothered you that I can tell.
No. It's deceptive and a muddying of the waters. That's why I'm trying to point out the distinction between "Truth" and "truth claims". You're referring to the latter, in which case one can present multiple claims that are all true. Or one can present multiple claims among which are one or more which are not true. All of which is distinct from the concept of "Truth". Thus, when the founders said, "We hold these truths...", they were referring to "truth claims", but there was no Dan Trabue to pervert their meaning.
The point is that though two different claims may be true, that only means that two different claims are true. There is still only "Truth"...not "truths".
If claim One is True (or true, if you prefer) and claim Two is true, how is that not TWO Truths (or truths)?
Marshal... Such is the case with worldviews. There cannot be more than one truth.
I would LLLLOOOOOOVVVE for you to follow this through with an example. Choose a wordview and tell me its ONE truth.
Like for instance, "The Traditional conservative Southern Baptists hold a worldview and that one worldview's ONE Truth is... "
Like that.
When I think of a worldview, I think of a series of beliefs and notions that a group shares in common. Those beliefs are typically in Truths or Tenets that they believe to be True. I don't know how you narrow it down to ONE Truth. Which one Truth?
Craig, if you want to make sense, you'll have to start answering some questions.
I'm just talking about language and the fact that it's perfectly rational, given the definition of Truth, to talk about Truth in the plural if we're indeed talking about multiple truths.
What's factually wrong about this mistake? No semantic games, just plain straightforward English.
"If claim One is True (or true, if you prefer) and claim Two is true, how is that not TWO Truths (or truths)?"
Given that Truth is "That which conforms to reality.", what you have given is two examples of things that are True (conform to reality), not two separate and totally unique "truths".
"When I think of a worldview, I think of a series of beliefs and notions that a group shares in common."
Perhaps it's possible that you hunch about what a worldview is, is mistaken.
"What's factually wrong about this mistake? No semantic games, just plain straightforward English."
I have absolutely no idea what mistake you are talking about.
Post a Comment