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.

[nikolayevich]

Here's a useful illustration:

Norman Geisler, in an interview said: "There is a young man in University of Indiana who wrote a term paper to a former student of mine who was teaching philosophy at that university. And in this term paper he said that there are no morals in the universe. There is nothing like good and truth and justice. He gave a scholarly, brilliant, very well written term paper proving there were no moral principals. When he handed it in to the teacher [even beautifully prepared in a nice blue binder], the teacher put on it "F—I don’t like blue folders." And he sent it back to the student. The student came storming into his office and said, "That’s not fair, that’s not just, that’s not right. You should have graded it on its merits, not because it had a blue folder!" The teacher said, "Oh, I didn’t know you believed in fairness and justice and rightness. You said in the paper you didn’t believe in any moral things. F—I don’t like blue folders." Now after he made the point to the young man, he changed the "F" to an "A". You see people say there are no moral absolutes, but they don’t act like that when you try it on them."

Food for thought...

[Corvus]

I'm not entirely sure this is what moral relativism is about. I don't believe moral relativism argues that there is no Way-Things-Should-Be, or that there is no Way-Things-Are, but simply there is no such thing as a Way-Things-MUST-BE. The Way-Things-Should-Be is normally arrived at by looking at The-Way-Things-Can-Be and deciding which Way functions the best in a given example, according to necessity and purpose. The purest form simply states that there is no absolute standard, only cultural ones, but I don't think this exempts moral relativists from also being ethical humanists, utilitarians or consequentialists, and formulating a standard based on reason and utility.

To give an example of what I am discussing, I could say that essay can be marked in a number of different ways. Not only on content, but on form, structure, style. Not only graded alphabetically, but using a more precise percentage-based score. Different professors may mark the essay differently or respond differently to the same arguments, though their scores would probably be similar owing to the fact that they are both looking for evidence of a convincing argument, creative thought, etc.

But I will agree that saying reality itself, The-Way-Things-Are, is relative is, in my opinion, not true.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Here's a useful illustration:

Norman Geisler, in an interview said: "There is a young man in University of Indiana who wrote a term paper to a former student of mine who was teaching philosophy at that university. And in this term paper he said that there are no morals in the universe. There is nothing like good and truth and justice. He gave a scholarly, brilliant, very well written term paper proving there were no moral principals. When he handed it in to the teacher [even beautifully prepared in a nice blue binder], the teacher put on it "F—I don’t like blue folders." And he sent it back to the student. The student came storming into his office and said, "That’s not fair, that’s not just, that’s not right. You should have graded it on its merits, not because it had a blue folder!" The teacher said, "Oh, I didn’t know you believed in fairness and justice and rightness. You said in the paper you didn’t believe in any moral things. F—I don’t like blue folders." Now after he made the point to the young man, he changed the "F" to an "A". You see people say there are no moral absolutes, but they don’t act like that when you try it on them."

Food for thought...

Yeah,nice little story.If I am the student I would have then told the teacher "what will happen if i take this folder to the court of law and argue that you have gone bonkers?You yourself have signed that you have graded it as 'f' since you dont like blue color"


Please understand the difference between no morals and no absolute morals.You guys talk as if some morals always stand as a guiding light to human beings eternally.Man made all such rules for governing the society and called them as morals.As long as majority of men want it to continue it will continue.As long as people are willing to pay the price for breaking law,they will break the law.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

But I will agree that saying reality itself, The-Way-Things-Are, is relative is, in my opinion, not true.

reality isnt dependent upon how we describe it.It exists as it is always.But i only say that it is impossible for us to explain it 'as it is' in words.

[nikolayevich]

Okay, now I'm lost.... do you or don't you believe "there isn't any truth", as your first point says?

You have just said "It exists as it is always" but that it can't be described in words.

Also, the story shows that what the prof did would be "bonkers" if he in fact graded this way. Yes. That is the point! The idea that an educated individual should grade a student based on his own relativistic ideology is flat out absurd.

You're right that man made the particular governing structures related to rules and regulations in our society today. But these are microcosmic systems of macrocosmic principles. They are based on greater truths which are self evident.

Stealing for example is evidently wrong everywhere. It does not matter that some cultures tend to steal more. Find anyone in any culture who is okay with someone stealing what they have (Not sharing. Stealing).

[ENIGMA]

Also, the story shows that what the prof did would be "bonkers" if he in fact graded this way. Yes. That is the point! The idea that an educated individual should grade a student based on his own relativistic ideology is flat out absurd.

Yes, however this analogy fails to address why exactly such a method of grading is "bonkers". Is it because of some hidden etherial commandment somewhere that says "Thou shalt not base thine grading of another based upon trivial peripheral details"? I would say not.

Rather, a more sensible explanation is that the entire purpose of the student for attempting to get a good grade is so that they can be certified as being proficient (to a degree) in the particular subject and information that the class contains. This in turn allows them to get a Major or other level of certification, demonstrating proficiency (again, to a degree) of whatever knowledge said certification entails. Improper grading leads to an inability to accurately certify, making the certifications useless and eventually putting the issuers of said certifications out of a job. Which happens to be exactly the reason why the teachers should grade fairly and not based on frivolities.

You're right that man made the particular governing structures related to rules and regulations in our society today. But these are microcosmic systems of macrocosmic principles. They are based on greater truths which are self evident.

Different truths are self-evident to different people. Self-evidence is not the proper test, but rather whether the notion functions to benefit those who apply it.

Stealing for example is evidently wrong everywhere. It does not matter that some cultures tend to steal more. Find anyone in any culture who is okay with someone stealing what they have (Not sharing. Stealing).

Would stealing be wrong if there was abundance in materials and trivially easy means of developing anything one wished?

Would lying be wrong if when one spoke, everyone else inherently understood the truth of the situation?

Would murder be wrong if the victims revived the next day, fully healed?

I would say no, and that those things being held as wrong are not inherently wrong, but rather wrong because of the circumstances in which we live. Possessions would be quickly devalued they were so easily replaceable, as would life. But they aren't, so we value them.

[Corvus]

Oh, Enigma, I'm glad you changed your signature from the Voltaire quote. I've been meaning to tell you the "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is only attributed to Voltaire, not quoted of him, and there is no evidence except hearsay that suggests he said it.

Stealing for example is evidently wrong everywhere. It does not matter that some cultures tend to steal more. Find anyone in any culture who is okay with someone stealing what they have (Not sharing. Stealing).

I know this was not addressed to me, but I would like to interject with a pretty old example of where stealing is often considered acceptable; to steal to live, e.g, stealing a single loaf of bread to feed a family. Would it still be wrong if this was a last resort to save someone's life? No, I think not, though the Victorians would have disagreed and whipped the thief with birch. Obviously the person who from whom the loaf is being appropriated will think it wrong, but we, the observers, might be inclined to say that under the circumstances, not only is it acceptable, but right.

I might also ask; can one steal from the dead? The dead do not say no and cannot own property - and yet, to rob a corpse is considered indecent. That is, unless the corpse robbed is over 200 years old, in which case a grave, once a place for a sorrowful remembrance of things past, becomes an historical dig, for plundering forgotten memories. Who owns the property then? Not the dead, no, as might be considered with the recently interred, but the country in which the dead died, even if the civilisation being uncovered has not the slightest connection in tradition or blood with the modern nation that owns its remains. Can we say it's fair that ownership of historical artifacts should be bound only by national borders - a mere line in the sand or dirt - and that one country's cultural richness should be dependent entirely on luck or the skill in warfare of the modern nation's founders/invaders? If I remember correctly, spoils of war was up until World War II one way of collecting treasures that were not your own.

Remember also stealing can also only exist in a society where property exists. If someone was a radical they might argue all property is theft, thus possession of anything is wrong. 19th century anarchists in this way justified blowing other people's things to smithereens.

So you see, even if we take theft as a wrong - which it is in any country where property ownership exists - it still can be pretty murky. Relativism doesn't say that consensuses or recurring laws do not occur. Any law on theft is still always going to be situational, even if it occurs in 10,000 different places, because law is written to fulfill a need, and the needs property owners are the the same everywhere. Relativism states there is no "absolute reference" for these laws.

I probably went completely offtrack and didn't identify your concerns. I hope not. This is my understanding of moral relativism, and if it is completely out of line with true relativism, do say so. As I stated earlier, as far as I know, no one ever applies the strictest interpretation to relativism by saying "all is relative except this statement".

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Stealing is illegal everywhere?

In Islam it is permitted to kill an infidel and have his wife as your slave and have the entire property of the slayed infidel.Prophet Mohammed himself attacked many caravans and gave the money to believers.He attacked many jewish villages and enslaved many women and even married one of them.In Islam one sixth of the loot money has to go to prophet mohammed himself and after him it has to go to the kalifah.

And many arabs say that USA is waging the war on Iraq to steal the oil wealth of Iraq.British colonised India and took away its wealth for 300 years. They took away the Kohinoor diamond which still remains in the crown of the British queen.

"It exists always" refers to reality and not truth. Mount everest always exists, but the truths about everest dont exist . Now dont say my statement "mount everest always exists" is a truth. It pales in comparision to the statement "Mount Everest exists in its current form after the ice age"