If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Unless we somehow establish that not a single carbon atom was formed anywhere but in a star I'm not sure 'Carbon comes from stars' can be considered an absolute truth.

Bad example, Proto. Carbon-14 is a cosmogenic nuclide. Not made in stars.

That's what I'm tryng to get at. If somebody claims that Bigfoot exists I want to know if they mean an ape-like species or a guy with size 29 shoes. Somebody who does think absolute truth exists needs to define it and/or give examples so we know what they mean by it. "Brown dogs are brown" is an absolute truth, I suppose, but it isn't exactly profound. If the only absolute truths are trivial ones, I have no problem with that. Where do you think the stars came from?Edited by ringo, : pelling.

Is 0+1=1 or 1+1=2 an "absolute truth"?And I (if it helps) mean these in the physical sense rather than the axiomatic sense.I just think you could save Proto and JR a lot of time coming up with examples like carbon etc. if it was clear that even the physical reality of mathematical truths were not considered "absolute" by your way of thinking.In what sense is 1 object plus 1 object = two objects not an "absolute truth" as far as you are concerned?I ask for clarification purposes predominantly....

I'm not touching the "absolute truth" issue, but I didn't see a definitive answer to this question: It's a big universe, so it would be surprising if they're weren't - it's knowing when you've identified some primordial H or He that is the problem. But here's a possible identification of some: Galaxy Has Leftover Material from the Big Bang.--Percy

Are you saying then that because I can not prove a negative there is no such thing as an absolute truth?

Nitpicker! Ok but it is not made without a star.If I add the qualifier that 'some' carbon comes from stars is that not absolutely true? Does the qualifier disqualify it?

How about this statement?There is such a thing as reality that exists independent of consciousness.

Without such proof Id say knowledge is tentative rather than established as absolutely true. As long as there might exist a carbon atom that wasnt formed in a star (or whatever other example you might use) how can it be absolutely rather than tentatively true that all carbon atoms form in stars (or whatever).If your knowledge might be wrong then it is tentative rather than absolute. I think this is what ringo is getting at.

We certainly oprate on that basis. We might even say we consider this to be true.But it might be wrong, its not infallible, so how can it be absolute?

Is there any difference between an absolute truth and a fact?

I'd say that 1 + 1 = 2 is an absolute truth but only trivially because 2 is defined as twice 1. It's not like you can do an experiment to determine what 1 + 1 "is".

There may be. But how would we be conscious of it?I've been trying to get JRTjr01 to distinguish between absolute truth and objective truth: There may or may not be an "absolute reality" but what separate conciousnesses can agree on is objective reality.

Our perceptions may be wrong but not the reality itself. It is what it is. Being able to know what it is is something different. I might concede that we can not know it but can we not be certain that it must exist?

If there is anything at all then there is an absolute reality. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Otherwise be madness.