If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Longevity perhaps.

How have you concluded that reality independent of your consciousness "must exist"?Solipsism, whilst rather futile in many ways, cant just be dismissed as obviously wrong simply because you dont like it.

Well....Any human culture, or indeed any alien civilisation in our universe , would discover that one object plus one object equals two objects. Its not just definitional (in fact we could define axioms such that 1+1 does not equal 2).Remove the culturally specific nomenclature and you get the same physical result.Its not just definitional its a physical result.

Maybe not but we could reject it together.I think that the main problem with solipsism is that it can not be true for both of us. If it is true for me then it could not have been true for my now deceased father.Even if it were true (by some strange temporal manipulation) then that would be the state of absolute reality.

You started out with "There is such a thing as reality that exists independent of consciousness" as an example of absolute truth.But as has been pointed out this could be untrue.You seem to have now modified this to saying that whatever reality it is that exists, whether solipsistic and thus dependent on consciousness or not, is real.In short reality is real. But this is true by definition. What is true is true by definition.These would be examples of what Ringo is calling "trivial" as they are definitionally correct. We could agree it to be objectively true but not absolutely true.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, madness is a possibility. Of course, one man's madness is another man's reality.

Newfie joke:Q: How does a Newfie count?
A: One fish, two fish, another fish, another fish, another fish....(Apologies to Newfies.)

I don't think that you made the point with any degree of credibility. By the same logic there may be orbiting teapots and Tolkien's middle earth was a real place. We can't just make shit up and say 'well it could be that.' What evidence would support solipsism and how can it be true if it can not be true for both of us? Which other unfalsifiable positions are reasonable to consider as being true? I think mostly because of the continuity of my stream of consciousness when other streams have ended. There is no reason to think that I am substantially different from any other person on the planet or in history. There is no credible reason to think that I alone exist. There is plenty of evidence that leads me to be certain that I am one of many and that when I die the universe will carry on for those who remain. Truth by definition sounds pretty absolute to me and who is ringo to be trivializing our definitions? They don't come easy you know. A lot of work went into those definitions and they are the foundation of more profound truths.If we can not use a truth to prove a truth then there is no such thing as truth to begin with and its madness for all.

True = True, absolutely. Do you doubt that?

So that's it? I still have no warm and fuzzies from this.I assume you mean that it is a "fact" that takes on the mantle of "absolute truth" at some point.The philosophy in science is that all facts are tentative pending further information. At what point then can a "fact" ever become an"absolute truth"?The problem I'm having, I think, is the same one I see ringo expressing. Somewhere there needs to some deeper philosophical meaning to the concept "absolute truth" than merely a "fact" that won't go away.Or is that indeed the meaning of absolute truth you are proposing?So, the processes of stellar nucleogenesis (fusion) are facts that we know have been working for some long, long, long time and will continue for some long, long, long time to come. Is this then an absolute truth?Is there nothing more to an absolute truth than being a demonstrable fact?

You continue to conflate things of which we know with a high degree of confidence and ‘absolute truth’.I doubt I am any more of a solipsist than you are. If you said to me that it is true that a reality independent of consciousness exists I would simply agree with you. Only because you proclaim this to be an absolute truth do I feel the need to point out that solipsistic possibilities are an issue for your absolutist stance. Nobody is suggesting that solipsism is true or that there is any evidence of such. Like I say I'm not even disputing the truth of your statement: "There is such a thing as reality that exists independent of consciousness".I am however disputing that this is an absolute truth. Because it might be untrue no matter how unlikely we might deem that possibility to be. I agree. But at the same time evidence based conclusions are always tentative. New evidence might come to bear. The present conclusion might be wrong. Thus I am not absolutely certain and I can't claim it as an absolute truth. I think you have a point that not all definitional truths are "trivial" (e.g. complex mathematical proofs) but I also think Ringo has a point in making a distinction between things which are true by definition and things which are "absolute truths".I wouldn't use the term "trivial" personally but I get the distinction Ringo is making.Premise: EvC members are of above average intelligence.
Premise: I am an EvC member.
Conclusion: I possess above average intelligence.Definitionally speaking the above is true. But anyone who thinks the definitional truth of this tells us anything that could be called an "absolute truth" needs to start making a distinction between things which are true by definition and things which aren't.

quote:

---

"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority"

---

Doctor Who.

You couldn't get any more trivial if you tried.Seriously, can't you believers in Absolute Truth come up with anything?

What would happen if Pinocchio said: "My nose will grow."?Would he be saying something that was true?

Was it so simple, that it blew right past you? How about these:A is A
2 + 2 = 4
GravityDo you think there aren't any absolute truths?

Ringo has taken the position that all of the statements of truth offered so far are trivial things or mathematical statements. So what impression do you think examples like "True = True" and "2 + 2 = 4" make other than showing your utter disdain for the participants.You just don't give a crap, do you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.