If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

The concept of truth means that our description of reality matches reality. A synonym for truth is fact. An absolute truth would be a perfect match that will never fall out of alignment. Somehow the concept of immutability comes into it.I would say that it is absolutely true that the process of fusion is taking place inside of stars at this moment. It will always be true that when I wrote these words the process was taking place.

Except that it isn't because it is an impossibility. You need a more worthy alternative. At least something that is possible. In order for our description of reality to be wrong there must be a reality for it to be wrong in relation to.

If you are going to dismiss any example that requires the use of a definition then I don't see how we can. What kind of a truth would not be true by definition?It is like you are saying go ahead and make your argument but you can't use words.

Use your imagination. It is easy to come up with statements that are not definitions (e.g. there is biological life on other planets) that may or may not be true, or whose truth we cannot demonstrate.In short, the issue is not that only defining statements can be true. The issue is your difficulty with coming up with non-definition statements that are true. True statements regarding the properties of a hydrogen atom are possible, but are those statements 'truth'? Those statements are not definitions.

That you absolutely cannot get around the Law of Identity, though I'm sure you have a song and dance for it no doubt. QM perhaps? That's usually the crutch you guys lean on. This is referred to as projection.

As I have said, A is A and 2 + 2 = 4 are true by definition. If I define "flerbend" as "a flying pig" that doesn't make flying pigs absolutely true. I definitely would not call gravity an "absolute truth". The existence of gravity is an objective truth. Do you understand the difference between absolute and objective? I'm just waiting for an example. If I asked for an example of an evil person and you said, "Frank," do you think I'd be impressed? Roll out your Hitler, your Dahmer, your Pol Pot.

But we are interested in truths that we can demonstrateThe fact that reality must be real shouldn't be disqualified as an absolute truth just because it can be formatted as a definition. The definition comes after the truth is realized.

I'm only dismising circular definitions. "God exists" is not true by definition. That's the kind of "absolute" I'm looking for.

Reality exists.

Reality exists objectively (whereas God does not). Do you understand the diference between objective and absolute?

Was an asteroid an asteroid 5 bya, before anyone was around to assign a definition to it? Or was it also at the same exact time not an asteroid?

That's right. Simply being formatted as a definition is not the issue. A concept that can only be formatted as a definition is the problem. Is it the case that the only truths you can demonstrate are definitions? If so then that is a pretty significant limitation.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

'The law of Identity'I know what an identity is, yes. I haven't made any attempt to get around that. I have pointed out the lack of relevance of new "2 + 2 = 4" examples. Those things have been discussed and put aside as not interesting. Simply barging into a conversation without even bothering to look at the last few posts is a pretty concrete example of not caring. And that's what you routinely do and not what I did. So, no, my statement does not demonstrate projection. Instead I have put forth my observation that you are continuing the smug, condescending, and illogical performance that you display in every thread you blunder into.You seem to be a pretty smart guy. I am sure you could contribute to any discussion here if you made half of an effort to do anything other than show up and mouth off.

An asteroid is objectively an asteroid regardless of definition. Do you understand the difference between absolute and objective?