No. We have to see the meaning before we can make a definition. A definition is only a description of a meaning.We look at the definition of “truth”, or of “God”, then we can get meaning.
No. We have to see the meaning before we can make a definition. A definition is only a description of a meaning.We look at the definition of “truth”, or of “God”, then we can get meaning.
Yes you can, when the “quality” is that of being true.You admitted thst truth is a quality, didn't you? Well, you can't determine the qualities of something without evidence.
Can our meaning be mistaken?No. We have to see the meaning before we can make a definition. A definition is only a description of a meaning.
How can you know it's true?The “Truth” just is, regardless of evidence.
Of course. Take thunder as an example.Can our meaning be mistaken?
Why take thunder as an example?Of course. Take thunder as an example.
Because we were mistaken about the meaning. We used to think it was the gods throwing thunderbolts around but now that we have evidence of how it works, we have a better "meaning".Why take thunder as an example?
It doesn’t matter if we know it’s true or not.How can you know it's true?
But how do you know that viewpoint is true?It doesn’t matter if we know it’s true or not.
It still prevails. Just like God.
Where is the “evidence” of this?Because we were mistaken about the meaning. We used to think it was the gods throwing thunderbolts around but now that we have evidence of how it works, we have a better "meaning".
Because Truth can be defined, and we can use reason to comprehend what is meant by the definition.But how do you know that viewpoint is true?
I'm not making any claim. I'm saying we know now how thunder works - all of the evidence we have about static electricity, sound propagation, etc. supports that knowledge.Where is the definition that supports your cla
Reason on its own has no value. It has to operate on reality to produce any knowledge of reality.we can use reason to comprehend what is meant by the definition.
And reality is based in truth.Reason on its own has no value. It has to operate on reality to produce any knowledge of reality.
So what?I'm not making any claim. I'm saying we know now how thunder works - all of the evidence we have about static electricity, sound propagation, etc. supports that knowledge.
As I have said, there's no such thing as "the truth".So what?
That doesn’t mean we know the Truth about thunder.
Actually you haven’t said that before now, but I figured it out for myself.As I have said, there's no such thing as "the truth".
If I had to keep up with you, I’d have to stop, turn around, and walk miles. Then I’d have to pull you out of the bs you got yourself stuck in.If you can keep up with the discussion, I'm saying that our "meaning" of thunder has changed. Meaning is not absolute.
I did. Gods --> static electricity.Can you show that our meaning of thunder has changed?
Is that an opinion, or a fact.I did. Gods --> static electricity.
It's a fact, supported by evidence - i.e. we can make artificial lightning and thunder.Is that an opinion, or a fact.