• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there such a thing as truth?

AmbiguousGuy said:
Thanks, but I've spent my life communing with God.

It's just a god which you would not recognize.
Click to expand...
The question isn't if I recognize your god. The question is does your god recognize you? Only you know the answer to that question.
 
LittleNipper said:
The question isn't if I recognize your god. The question is does your god recognize you? Only you know the answer to that question.
Click to expand...
My God doesn't recognize anyone, so far as I know.
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
I think 'vapid' is often what people say when they can't figure out a cogent response.

Sorry. That's what I think.
Click to expand...

As certainly is your right.

I use it when I find the rebuttal obviously not substantive, thus not worth the time responding to it, but wanted the poster to be aware I’d not passed it by because it’s merits moved me to silence. (Though if that were the case I would post complimenting that poster on its merit and thanking them for giving me something to think about).
 
ModernDiogenes said:
As certainly is your right.

I use it when I find the rebuttal obviously not substantive, thus not worth the time responding to it, but wanted the poster to be aware I’d not passed it by because it’s merits moved me to silence. (Though if that were the case I would post complimenting that poster on its merit and thanking them for giving me something to think about).
Click to expand...
My appraisal of you and your appraisal of you seem at odds.

I think my message was unanswerable, and so you replied with insult.

That's just how it seems. I could be wrong.
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
My God doesn't recognize anyone, so far as I know.
Click to expand...
So why would you regard a god that doesn't care if you exist? I'm not trying to insult you, but the GOD of the Bible went to the cross to pay for everyone's transgression as long as they willingly accept the offer. It's like me offering you a Lamborghini on my dime (bad example I know). But, if you accept it, it's already paid for. If you don't accept my offer --- you have to pay for one yourself. But if you don't want it or cannot pay the price ----your are stuck with what you can afford. In this case, perfection is something no human under the curse is capable of achieving. Only JESUS is "GOOD" enough (perfection).
 
LittleNipper said:
So why would you regard a god that doesn't care if you exist?
Click to expand...
Well, because I've seen no evidence that he does.
LittleNipper said:
I'm not trying to insult you, but the GOD of the Bible went to the cross to pay for everyone's transgression as long as they willingly accept the offer.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don't consider the Bible to be authoritative.
LittleNipper said:
It's like me offering you a Lamborghini on my dime (bad example I know). But, if you accept it, it's already paid for. If you don't accept my offer --- you have to pay for one yourself. But if you don't want it or cannot pay the price ----your are stuck with what you can afford. In this case, perfection is something no human under the curse is capable of achieving. Only JESUS is "GOOD" enough (perfection).
Click to expand...
I am good enough, but I don't know about Jesus.
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
My appraisal of you and your appraisal of you seem at odds.

I think my message was unanswerable, and so you replied with insult.

That's just how it seems. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
If you found it insulting I apologize. It wasn't intended.

I didn't say you weren't capable of a meritorious response. It is simply that in response to a serious post you gave me:

"It is true that my big dog is touched in the head.

But I wouldn't know how to quantify it or duplicate it."

That isn't insulting?

It isn't even good sarcasm, so what else am I supposed to respond to that other than in kind? You got what you gave, so to speak.
 
Jacksprat said:
A specific method of what?
Click to expand...
Of coming to the truth of things. What it is. How it works. Who it may service. Why it exists. The Alpha to the Omega of it all.

Look, none of this is counter argument. I laid out my what and I answered why. If you have a notion you care to counter with and something to. back it up I am all "ears". If not, and it's more of the "let's see how long we can get him to dance", nonsense I will leave it to the vox populi. Ego sum consummavi. [That was purposefully pompous]
 
ModernDiogenes said:
If you found it insulting I apologize. It wasn't intended.
Click to expand...
Kinda vapid. (But thanks!)
ModernDiogenes said:
It is simply that in response to a serious post you gave me:

"It is true that my big dog is touched in the head.

But I wouldn't know how to quantify it or duplicate it."

That isn't insulting?
Click to expand...
Umm... huh? Why would that be insulting? I offered you an example of a proposition which challenged your assertion. How on earth could that be insulting?

Sometimes I talk a little fast and leap over assumptions, so let me lay out what seems to me to have passed between us, in clearer words:

MD: That which is measurable and tangible. Thus is quantifiable. It can be duplicated under identical conditions. Thus It is discernible. That it is discernible means it can be articulated. That is truth.

AG: It doesn’t seem that way to me, but please demonstrate by showing me how your claim works with the following proposition: It is true that my big dog is touched in the head. How would you quantify the truth of that proposition?

MD: Vapid.

AG? Huh? Why are you ducking my question and answering with insult? Why not just engage my challenge?

ModernDiogenes said:
It isn't even good sarcasm, so what else am I supposed to respond to that other than in kind?
Click to expand...
Not everyone is used to philosophical debate. It takes time to work into it. You are supposed to respond by showing us how my proposition about my big dog “is measurable and tangible and quantifiable and can be duplicated under identical conditions.”
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
Not everyone is used to philosophical debate. It takes time to work into it. You are supposed to respond by showing us how my proposition about my big dog “is measurable and tangible and quantifiable and can be duplicated under identical conditions.”
Click to expand...

If the premise was something I could negotiate I very well might have, but how do you know in the first place your dog is touched in the head. Are you a dog psychiatrist?

If you were you would record his behavior over time, the configuration of all that preceded it to see if there were particular triggers that caused that specific behavior. Create control tests with other dogs to see if it was natural for all breeds, or specific to your particular dog. Test the theoretical to see if it produced like results. Replicating the behavior. Etc., etc.

But it is an inane premise to found a legitimate counter argument on. It therefore read as if you were yanking my proverbial chain.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
If the premise was something I could negotiate I very well might have,
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by 'negotiate', but aren't you saying that you're unable to study the truth value of my claim, much less duplicate it under identical conditions?

Yet it is still true that Big Dog is touched in the head.

That's my point. Very few propositions can be quantified and duplicated under similar conditions, to determine if they are actually true.
ModernDiogenes said:
but how do you know in the first place your dog is touched in the head. Are you a dog psychiatrist?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am a lay dog psychiatrist, having studied many of them over the years. And I live with the guy. As for how I know it, I watch him. He chases soaring vultures, quite furiously. He stands over his ball, barking at it, sometimes for 20 minutes or more. He leaps into the air if some twig brushes against his leg. And even more such strange behaviors which I've never observed in any other dog.

So after much study, I have concluded it is true that Big Dog is touched in the head.
ModernDiogenes said:
If you were you would record his behavior over time, the configuration of all that preceded it to see if there were particular triggers that caused that specific behavior. Create control tests with other dogs to see if it was natural for all breeds, or specific to your particular dog. Test the theoretical to see if it produced like results. Replicating the behavior. Etc., etc.
Click to expand...
But how would I make a living or pursue my hobbies? Anyway, I'm not asking about me, but rather about you. How can you test my truth claim about Big Dog?

And then there is the word problem, the definitional issue. How do we agree on a formal definition of 'touched in the head'?
ModernDiogenes said:
But it is an inane premise to found a legitimate counter argument on. It therefore read as if you were yanking my proverbial chain.
Click to expand...
There is nothing inane about it. It's a simple proposition which I plucked out of the air, to test your definition of 'truth'.
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
Not sure what you mean by 'negotiate', but aren't you saying that you're unable to study the truth value of my claim, much less duplicate it under identical conditions?

Yet it is still true that Big Dog is touched in the head.

That's my point. Very few propositions can be quantified and duplicated under similar conditions, to determine if they are actually true.

Yes, I am a lay dog psychiatrist, having studied many of them over the years. And I live with the guy. As for how I know it, I watch him. He chases soaring vultures, quite furiously. He stands over his ball, barking at it, sometimes for 20 minutes or more. He leaps into the air if some twig brushes against his leg. And even more such strange behaviors which I've never observed in any other dog.

So after much study, I have concluded it is true that Big Dog is touched in the head.

But how would I make a living or pursue my hobbies? Anyway, I'm not asking about me, but rather about you. How can you test my truth claim about Big Dog?

And then there is the word problem, the definitional issue. How do we agree on a formal definition of 'touched in the head'?

There is nothing inane about it. It's a simple proposition which I plucked out of the air, to test your definition of 'truth'.
Click to expand...

What does “touched in the head” mean? If you can’t define it, your claim is meaningless. It could apply to all living things who you subjectively decide behave differently from the limited observations you have had of general behaviors.
 
devildavid said:
What does “touched in the head” mean? If you can’t define it, your claim is meaningless. It could apply to all living things who you subjectively decide behave differently from the limited observations you have had of general behaviors.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my point, or a big part of it.

MD made a claim about truth, how it is found, and I threw out a big, simple wrench, to see if his logicworks could survive it.

Still waiting to see how it pans out.
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
Yeah, that's my point, or a big part of it.

MD made a claim about truth, how it is found, and I threw out a big, simple wrench, to see if his logicworks could survive it.

Still waiting to see how it pans out.
Click to expand...

Then you have no point at all, but just enjoy obfuscation for its own sake. You don’t want to communicate ideas clearly, and you think that is some sort of challenge we should accept. You are just playing a shallow word game, not attempting to get at any truth.
 
devildavid said:
Then you have no point at all, but just enjoy obfuscation for its own sake. You don’t want to communicate ideas clearly, and you think that is some sort of challenge we should accept. You are just playing a shallow word game, not attempting to get at any truth.
Click to expand...
I see you're unfamiliar with philosophical debate. Maybe you should do it for awhile before insulting those who are engaged in it?
 
devildavid said:
No, I’m not. When are you going to engage in it?
Click to expand...
When you open your eyes.

So can you address my actual argument, rather than throwing blunt insult around?

(It's what philosophical types do. They address arguments.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom