It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VegHead
Do you believe there are any objective moral values? Is anything objectively good or objectively evil?
If someone wanted to kidnap and torture a toddler for their own amusement ... is this objectively wrong or simply distasteful (against current culture or personal opinion)?
originally posted by: Myollinir
Any time I try to pursue some type of truth in the world, I find that it has many sides and many people can be right even though they disagree with someone on the same topic. It is evident that we have the ability to choose whether we want something to be true or not. The fact that we still all debate on age old topics reveals this to me even more. It is as though the popular theological argument that 'there can be no objective truth without a supernatural entity' is very true indeed. This does not however prove a supernatural entity exists, only that objective truth does not exist without one.
Truth is used in language by humanity to overcome ourselves and Nature. We weight truth and lie just like we weigh good and evil, and eventually we declare our truths just like we declare what is good to us. Truth also seems to be dependent upon lie to value what is "true" to us or not - just as good is dependent upon evil to know what is good. We know a healthy body feels much better than being sick, so many of us deem that "good".
People may bring up examples like gravity, in which it will pull you to the ground whether or not you believe that is true. In this case, we are still making a truth claim toward the law itself. I would argue laws and truths are not equivalent. Our bodies react to laws regardless of what truth we assign to them.
Perhaps really believing in "truth" helps us progress toward the future. Just as we are so overly obsessive and infatuated about having sex with each other not realizing that it is all in the name of procreation and making more kin - we set truths before us as a means to build ourselves greater toward this ideal. We are the smiths of purpose out of purposelessness, and we are the wave riders of chaos.
Thanks for reading
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Could you please explain that more? Why does objective truth require the presence of a supernatural entity?
Yes I'm familiar with this I think. It goes like "Truth doesn't go away if you stop believing in it."
By classifying things that are objectively true as laws you've answered your own argument
The fact that we still all debate on age old topics reveals this to me even more.
the believers must begin to bend over backwards and conjure up better and deeper and more illusive ''truth'' to bolster their already existing belief in what once might have been just a simple message. We convolute what we believe in attempts to rationalize it with our surroundings.
As you say there is no objective truth, then why must only false or lie be the opposite of truth? Perhaps the opposite of truth is just: something else? Or Other?
originally posted by: Myollinir
a reply to: LittleByLittle
So in the case of God existing, vs. God doesn't exist - how can both appear to be right? How can they both say they have the truth when neither can coexist?
Do you believe you can use the same methodology for finding answers to tangible quantum questions as finding answers to philosophical questions?