A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

This is the best argument for Moral Absolutes on this thread. I am convinced.

You KNOW this, how????

I am under the impression you didn't understand the statement...

Nope.

The statement as written precludes a REALITY that includes "Truth changing."

I am just wondering how pd (who made the assertion) KNOWS that Truth cannot change...that it will be the same tomorrow as it is today.

Perhaps the REALITY is that truth changes over time to time...that nothing can be counted on to always and eternally be true.

The entire of the remainder of pd’s thesis is predicated upon “truth” being static and immutable.

So…I ask how he knows that it is.

Are you suggesting that maybe you will become religious, atheist or possibly gay?

Sure you may change your mind in the future but does this mean that your previous experience was not true?

No Frank, is a matter of definition upon what truth conveys and refers to...whatever was true once will be forever true. For instance your reply to my post will be as true today as it will be true in a million years from now, that is, it is permanently true that you gave me such reply today...hope that helps framing the context that you missed up.

I am quite certain this is just a game Fil.
I find it very hard to believe that any of the parties involved are still in a concrete operational mode of cognition. The ability to think abstractly is almost certainly being corrupted in an attempt at contrarianism.
This of course has destructive ability, but no constructive utility.

Maybe you are correct but I think we all get it wrong.


contrarianism? Maybe it is good or bad at times?

I hate rap for the most part but even though "I am willing to bet that there are others who are more informed than me who enjoy the things that I don't.

I agree, RL, especially when we think we can measure our "truths" against some standard of absolute truth. By the way, by Matt's reckoning Copernicus was a contrarian.

This part of your link reminded me of you, Matt.

"The refusal of the prescriptivists to take responsibility for their failed attempt to be cleverly contrarian on reality vis a vis language is a sad spectacle to watch ... having paraded their daring contrarianism, Matt was trying to wiggle out of the consequences when it turns out that he was wrong."

Do you honestly think that everyone who goes against what you think is moral is doing so with intellectual understanding?

Jtt can you understand that you have a gift that others do not? If you can why are you so hard on them? So you see that some people can be much more intellectual in some areas of thought than you or I?
"You think that they also should have the same emotional intelligences as you and also have the same empathetical radius as you do?
Why?

JLNobody, if you are ever unsure about something I have written please don't hesitate to ask me directly.

Copernicus was a constrarian with respect to the conventional understandings.
He was also able to construct something else with more explanatory power.

By the way, I always try to be direct in my dialogues with you. I hope you do not view my directness as a personal attack.

There is another A2K participant here who seems to feel the need to send offensive and combative PM messages to me in the name of "Buddhism".
I hope that person has not also been trying to incite you.

JLNobody, if you are ever unsure about something I have written please don't hesitate to ask me directly. So I can dutifully ignore it.

Matt (and JTT) I think you have been reading my intentions incorrectly.

Perhaps... I may be a little on edge due to the PMs as mentioned in the last post.
My apologies.

I can't speak for JTT, I have had him on ignore since he started stalking my posts.

These discussions sink into a pointless mire of obscurity if we don't have some commonly acceptable terminology.

Our perceptions of what is true are of course mutable, but not what is true. This is definitional.

There are some things we know. We know the basic physical laws of the universe. Gravity exists. Now you could argue that if and when the Universe ends the truth of the existence of gravity will change, but to what purpose?

Sorry Finn I don't see how any truth regarding the existence of gravity can change, even after the Universe and gravity with it comes to an halt...perhaps you want to clarify what you meant, its late here in Portugal and I am all to tired to get your point...We certainly seam to agree that there is a difference between beliefs or claims upon what is true, and what is factually true, meaning, that our knowledge or lack of it, is not fundamental to truth (excuse the tautology) being true...there is certainly lots of things that are true and that I know nothing of, however my not knowing of them doesn't make them any less true...moreover, the eternal and immutable character of truth by definition, axiomatically, is justified as truth intends to refer to, not just what is the case right now, but whatever was once the case, and whatever will be the case, again, let me emphasize once more (not because of you but there are certainly some people which get confused in this last bit), independently of me knowing anything on future events. If gravity once for a period of time operated as it did, it will be forever and ever true, that gravity operated in those terms...

...an interesting informative final conclusion regarding this sequence of sound reasoning arguments is to come to understand that "beingness" hopefully a better coinage term then "existence", whatever its nature, it is not deletable...

I wrote he could argue it, not that I belived it would be a sound argument.

oh ok, that clears it up !

I watched the video you posted. Thanks RL.
That led me to another video of his on the Higgs boson which is hilarious and poignant.