The question, what is truth, has an answer:

John 18:38
King James Version
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.


John 14
King James Version
14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

descartes is ad hoc, he never actually justifies meaning, the continuity of time, or stable identity or even the laws of logic themselves. he assumes causality without justification or plenty of other categories


this privatio boni thinking is congruent with Christianity, only the good has ontological identity and what we understand as evil is straying away from it. evil itself has no true ontology.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 3 2026 12:18am

That's objectively stupid. Respectfully.

Nothing could ever be constructed, learned, or improved if objectivity didn't exist.

Consciousness structures reality so, what do you mean? Psychology is physics and this is all subjective. That's the great secret, and the reason we all fight.

This post was edited by Abyzma on Jul 9 2026 12:00pm

Consciousness may structure reality, but it doesn't alter it. The evidence for that is the fact that if more than one person can perform an action with the same result, then the result exists external their interpretation.

Someone's interpretation of reality does not equal reality, that's a false equivalence.

Edit: to clarify what I mean, people could never build buildings or anything that required a consistent basis for construction.

This post was edited by Coerce on Jul 9 2026 01:05pm

"Good is a descriptive term relative to the absence of Evil."

You are confusing real world phenomena with social construct. Or mistaking a physical model for a moral one. Apples to oranges

Darkness is a default state are you suggesting evil is default also?

This post was edited by addone on Jul 10 2026 12:29am

you replied to me here, but i'm not sure if you were addressing what I was saying.

I don't agree that "darkness is a default state", but perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by this.

In Christianity "Good" isn't a social construct, we are referring to how we know God, in His operations we know He is Good and He is the only uncreated reality aka He is the true ontology. You can disagree or say you aren't convinced with the Christian worldview, but i'm simply just trying to clarify it.

I can understand from a secular worldview why you might take the nominal approach and say good is a social construct, because within that worldview there is no actual morality just preferences. The Christian worldview sees morality as real, and as the actual operations of the living God, not just an arbitrary preference convention.

nobody said "Good is a descriptive term relative to the absence of Evil." so i'm not certain who you are quoting. The worldview is that the only true ontology is Good and what we understand as evil doesn't have its own ontology (we aren't dualists like tao nor do we adhere to a dialectical philosophy). By ontology I mean its own actual being, there is no "being" in the Christian worldview that is evil itself, even satan, is simply just very distant from his true ontology as an angel given his choice to stray away.

I reversed his statement about Evil is an absence of Good to point out to fullarcfg that it's an interchangeable catchphrase and is pure speculation. Also its a category error because value judgements are not photons.

I was hoping this wouldn't turn religious but you just can't help smuggling jesus can you?
Don't care how Christianity sees morality because its a made up idea/fantasy. Do you care how Shrek or Voldermort sees morality? I am pretty sure I already raised Euthyphro Dilemma which wasn't answered by anyone in my thread.

Adopting an esoteric nonsense such as dialectical philosophy is as useful as looking at animal entrails or casting lots from the bible. I suppose if you believe those things they make sense in your worldview. Just like it makes sense in a video game to drink a potion to instantly recover a broken limb.

Real in your mind or not, it all comes down to karma.

it is not an "interchangeable catchphrase" within the Christian worldview and I explained why, maybe in a nominal worldview it is because meaning doesn't actually exist within a secular worldview. the comparison between the ontology of good and light/photons is not meant to be a one-to-one mapping, it is just a standard pedagogical analogy for understanding, so calling it a category error is a bit much

it is impossible to have a discussion about truth and morality without talking about worldviews

i just answered the Euthyphro Dilemma in my reply, were you not able to understand it?

I said I do not adopt dialectical philosophy, and it isn't necessarily "esoteric nonsense" as it's very common in modern philosophy. I would agree it's nonsensical, but not esoteric. I don't know what it has to do with animal entrails or casting lots, but it seems like you might not actually know what the term means.