There isnt any truth,hence there isnt any god

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Many christians think that they follow the truthful religion,truthful god,true way of life etc.Jesus even said "i am truth".But what is truth?

Aristotle defined truth as "words that correspond to reality are truth".THis is the most acceptbale definition of truth till date.Most dictionaries use this definition.There is one deflationary theory of truth by tarski.But that isnt in use since it was defeated in debates.

Now let me attack this correspondence theory of truth.

"can anything correspond to reality?"--NO WAY

Imagine a mango.Now consider this statement "Mango is yellow".Is this truth?Let us compare it with another statement.

"This mango is slightly greenish yellow".

Now the first statement becomes a lie.The second statement is better than the first one.But the first statement wasnt intended to be dishonest.The speaker believed it to be "true."But now compared to second statement it has become a lie.

Now compare the second statement with the third statement.

"THis mango is greenish yellow in middle and dark in the top edge of it with a white spot in the lower edge".

Now this statement has negated the previous two statements.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THis is the mistake we make in life.we label statements as true and false.But we have seen that even if you write a ten page essay about the color of the mango you can never describe reality in words.It is highly impossible.No words can ever describe reality.Not even a tiny portion of reality can be described exactly in words.It is impossible.So the correspondence theory of truth---is impossible to follow.So all of us are liers.

So stop using the word "truth".If you still think that there is a correct description of truth come out with it.Refer any dictionary,philosopher and try to define truth.You cannot.

we should realize that there isnt any truth.we should realize that there isnt anything called as objectivity.we only have subjectivity.we should realize that holy books were only giving their descriptions of reality.It is not the ultimate and final description.They are just a descriptions.They are neither right,nor wrong.They are just descriptions,thats all.There can be better descriptions of reality.

If we stick descriptions written thousands of years ago we refuse to progress.we should realize that they are the descriptions of people and it is possible to come out with better descriptions.

Newton gave his description about time.But that was later redescribed better by einstein.But we should realize that even einsteins was not the ultimate description.It was a description,thats all.it is possible to come out with a better description.

So there is nothing called as truth or ultimate final description.Stop having such myths.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

I would amend this to say that there is no absolute truth.

The sentence "This mango is slightly greenish yellow" does not make the sentence "This mango is yellow" false. It simply clarifies it. It is like rounding in mathematics.

Language is, by necessity, fairly imprecise in some aspects. That does not mean that truth is nonexistent, but that our ability to express it is limited.

While we interpret the outside world through our perceptions and thus everything we understand has a subjective note to it, there are some things that common sense dictates exist independent of ourselves. Therefore, some things can be considered as objective.

we should realize that holy books were only giving their descriptions of reality

It is often not the descriptions that people have a problem with in holy works, but rather the interpretations of events that those descriptions are based off of.

Rounding off in mathematics too is false.3.9999 is not 4.Both are different.

How can truth exist without language?I cannot understand.Does it hang in the air for somebody to discover it?I will explain more clearly.A phenomena exists always.But descriptions of that phenomena dont always exist.All the descriptions of the phenemoena come no way closer to the phenomena.So nothing can be called as truth.

And common sense is another great myth.If we analyze carefully we can find that whatever we think as objectivity is also the subjectivity of somebody else.There isnt anything called as "objective standard of comparision".

[Simon]

To say that there is no truth is a truth claim. You're claiming that what you're saying is true. You're saying, "This is true: there is no truth." If your statement that there is no truth is true, then your statement is false; hence, it is not the case that there is no truth. If your statement that there is no truth is false, then your statement is not true; hence, your statement that there is no truth is false. What you're trying to say is completely incoherent.

[Travis]

If you dont hate blacks only since you fear god then what sort of image does that portray about you?

You may very well be jumping the gun here. I said nothing about a fear of God. I am talking about absolutes and truth in general. Must you bring God into everything?:P

Do you say that if you dont believe in god you will start enslaving women and start misbehavior?Some great person you are.

No, I didn’t say that either.

By the way, my proclivity towards enslaving and raping others is independent of God. Why is it wrong?

Many athiests live an exemplary moral life.Did they start enslaving women and hating blacks?

I agree. Most don’t do anything like that. I guess I have a need for you to clarify your point here.

There is nothing called as objectivity.

Do you have anything to back up this statement with?

There is nothing called as "absolute morals" or "absolute human rights".Nothing like that ever exists.Whatever human rights you enjoy were given to you by the government.There are no "fundamental rights which hang in the air" as a guiding light to all humanity.

Why not? Just because you take it on faith doesn't make it true.

Gandhi and Goebbels are both humans.I take gandhi as a role model but I also accept that goebbels was a human like you and me.Did he have a horn or an extra eye?He too is human.

I don’t think anyone is denying that they were both human beings. The question was; are they essentially the same? Its all relative right?

[Travis]

How can truth exist without language?I cannot understand.Does it hang in the air for somebody to discover it?

Why is the objectivity of truth dependant upon its mode of conveyance? Linguistic relativism has always seemed to be a little too fanciful to me to explain away all the problems with the general theory.

But descriptions of that phenomena dont always exist.All the descriptions of the phenemoena come no way closer to the phenomena.

So if something is not described then it doesn’t exist? An object is contingent toward a third-party for its existence?

So if I call a cat a bird it would then become an antelope? Either things are what they are, or they aren’t. Right?

So nothing can be called as truth.

Nothing? You sound pretty sure of that.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

By the way, my proclivity towards enslaving and raping others is independent of God. Why is it wrong?

There is nothing called as objectivity.

Do you have anything to back up this statement with?

There is nothing called as "absolute morals" or "absolute human rights".Nothing like that ever exists.Whatever human rights you enjoy were given to you by the government.There are no "fundamental rights which hang in the air" as a guiding light to all humanity.

Why not? Just because you take it on faith doesn't make it true.


I don’t think anyone is denying that they were both human beings. The question was; are they essentially the same? Its all relative right?

Right and wrong are subjective issues.what is right to me isnt right to you.As long as the civilization which we live in doesnt permit us to kill or rape we cannot do that.If we are hundred percent sure of escaping the legal consequences then survival of the fittest becomes the rule.I dont attach a tag of right and wrong to acts.If you are willing to pay the price of your act and have the willingness and ability to do it how is my labelling of it as wrong is going to stop you?

I dont do such things because I dont approve them.I also dont approve others doing it.The reason i dont approve it has nothing to do with god. Its empathy and nothing else.Its like laying rules in a football game.consensus of the society determines rules.

If you say that a thing exists you should prove it.Like how the burden of proof lies on the people who say unicorns exist,here you have to prove objectivity exists.

If absolute morals and absolute human rights exist show them please.Or atleast tell me what they are.

And comparing gandhi and goebells ,gandhi appeared good since his side won.Had nazis won goebells would have been hailed as great.Even gandhi was shot since he appeared bad for somebody.Based on my subjective standards i prefer gandhi to goebells.The reason was that I like most of his views.Similiarly i disapprove of many things goebells said and did.Its my subjective opinion and it also coincides with the majority of the worlds subjective opinion.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Why is the objectivity of truth dependant upon its mode of conveyance? Linguistic relativism has always seemed to be a little too fanciful to me to explain away all the problems with the general theory.

So if something is not described then it doesn’t exist? An object is contingent toward a third-party for its existence?

So if I call a cat a bird it would then become an antelope? Either things are what they are, or they aren’t. Right?

So nothing can be called as truth.

Nothing? You sound pretty sure of that.

what is the OBJECTIVITY of truth?where does objectivity exist?Show me.devoid of language what is truth?Nothing.

Things exist even without describing.But to be labelled as truth or false they have to be described exactly as they are.And I only question whether we can describe them exactly as they exist.question is not on existence but is on descriptions.

[nikolayevich]

"can anything correspond to reality?"--NO WAY

Phew... I was worried that what you were saying might be true and conform to reality, but since you have assured us that nothing can do so, I will not have to worry about what you have said being true.

Imagine a mango.Now consider this statement "Mango is yellow".Is this truth?Let us compare it with another statement.

"This mango is slightly greenish yellow".

Now the first statement becomes a lie.The second statement is better than the first one.But the first statement wasnt intended to be dishonest.The speaker believed it to be "true."But now compared to second statement it has become a lie.

It is true or not depending on whether it is accurate, not whether another statement is better. One's failure to describe something properly does not somehow, miraculously, create a "truth" that is not true from another perspective. It simply isn't true if it is falsely described...

Now compare the second statement with the third statement.

"THis mango is greenish yellow in middle and dark in the top edge of it with a white spot in the lower edge".

Now this statement has negated the previous two statements.

Or... This statement most accurately describes a mango.

If I say, "Mangos are black", because I'm looking at the mango in my fruit bowl which has molded over with a dark film, it might be true that my mango is black, but is not based on relativity. If you saw my black mango, you would see it as black too. Other mangos are not black, however, which is true whether my mango is or not.

People get so misguided with relative v. objective. I've even heard some say that Einstein proved 'everything is relative', in the manner we talk about it today. He did not. In fact he almost called his theory the 'Invariance Theory' because he felt people would misunderstand 'Relativity' as meaning something which it didn't. He was right.

Newton gave his description about time.But that was later redescribed better by einstein.But we should realize that even einsteins was not the ultimate description.It was a description,thats all.it is possible to come out with a better description.

While this is true, it says nothing about the truths which were discovered or tested. Newton discovered some truth. Einstein discovered some truth. It wasn't that something was "true for Newton but wasn't for Einstein". Newton was not right about everything, as Einstein may not have been right about everything. Einstein made it clear that he could be proven wrong. To him, if he were contradicted it would only mean that someone was able to see truth more clearly, not that someone had a "different truth".

So there is nothing called as truth or ultimate final description.Stop having such myths.

Relative truth v. objective truth.... Relativism is always self-defeating. As Ravi Zacharias likes to point out, "Even in India we look both ways when we cross the street. It's either the bus or me. Not both of us." Thus the reason in reality and every day life, we use the "either, or" system, not the "both, and".

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

[quote="nikolayevich

It is true or not depending on whether it is accurate, not whether another statement is better. One's failure to describe something properly does not somehow, miraculously, create a "truth" that is not true from another perspective. It simply isn't true if it is falsely described...


If I say, "Mangos are black", because I'm looking at the mango in my fruit bowl which has molded over with a dark film, it might be true that my mango is black, but is not based on relativity. If you saw my black mango, you would see it as black too. Other mangos are not black, however, which is true whether my mango is or not.

While this is true, it says nothing about the truths which were discovered or tested. Newton discovered some truth. Einstein discovered some truth. It wasn't that something was "true for Newton but wasn't for Einstein". Newton was not right about everything, as Einstein may not have been right about everything. Einstein made it clear that he could be proven wrong. To him, if he were contradicted it would only mean that someone was able to see truth more clearly, not that someone had a "different truth".

Ravi Zacharias likes to point out, "Even in India we look both ways when we cross the street. It's either the bus or me. Not both of us." Thus the reason in reality and every day life, we use the "either, or" system, not the "both, and".[/quote]


You guys somehow have two classifications of sentences in mind.A sentence can either be "true" or "false".I say this is a nonexistent classification.When the statement "this mango is greenish yellow" arrives then the statement "this mango is yellow" becomes a lie.When some other better statement arrives all the other statements become a lie.And since we dont know which is the better statement,since none comes close to reality all statements arent truth.

There is nothing called as "some truth" to be discovered by newton or einstein.Both described things the way they saw it.Just as how we accept the statement "this mango is greenish yellow" is better than "this mango is yellow" we accept einstein that newton.Thats all.Simple.

And who is ravi zacharia?

[nikolayevich]

Ravi Zacharias is a philosopher who shows quite clearly that absolute truths are adhered to even by those who don't believe they exist.

There is no point in debating, if nothing is true. You might as well say, "This is my opinion, though it is probably of no value since it could be wrong for you". You continue in your posts to try to prove that there is nothing called truth. This is an impossible predicament. If your thesis is true then it is in fact false. When you argue from a platform which you are at the same removing from under your feet, you no longer have an argument. It is like the snake biting its own tail.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Ravi Zacharias is a philosopher who shows quite clearly that absolute truths are adhered to even by those who don't believe they exist.

There is no point in debating, if nothing is true. You might as well say, "This is my opinion, though it is probably of no value since it could be wrong for you". You continue in your posts to try to prove that there is nothing called truth. This is an impossible predicament. If your thesis is true then it is in fact false. When you argue from a platform which you are at the same removing from under your feet, you no longer have an argument. It is like the snake biting its own tail.

how did he prove it?If he starts arguing that god is the absoulte truth then i have nothing to say to him.

when i give a statement my claim is like this."This is my opinion.I offer it for your consideration and debate.You are free to accept it,reject it or question it or come out with a better statement".I dont attach any truth claim or false claim to it.whjenever anybody gives a statement hes voicing his opinion.It doesnt come out with a truth or false claim attached to it.The only way of verifying it is by comparing it with the previous best statement and seeing which of the statement offer a better solution to our purpose.

you compare so many such statements and chose one by intersubjective debate.Then that statement remains there till the next statement arrives.Then again both are tested.Its as simple as that.