Can objective truth exist without God?
It doesn't matter. This question is pointless.
>>402002
Why do you care about objective truths, anon?
>>402002
Why would it exist even if God did?
OP is objectively a faggot.
You're a faggot but goddamn those scotch eggs look good.
Can objective truth exist?
>>402002
No, because everything is fluid and dependent on causality, including causality itself, ergo, God
>>402076
God is causality? God exists within the confines of linear reality?
>>402002
Of course objective truth can exist. What an easy question. Supernatural ideologies don't impact this discussion at all.
The hard question is, what is actually objective? That's an answer we definitely don't have thanks to the problem of induction.
>>402035
Not OP, but it does seem to have some bearing on topics such as identity politics [sexuality, gender, ethnicity] and how these groups form.
Seems more so important for using truth to establish ways to conduct ourselves in relation to the truth. Let's assume there is some objective, factual moral. It might then be best to aim towards that, otherwise all morals may or may not be arbitrary.
>>402080
No, God is the cause of causality. That which is tangible must eventually have an intangible catalyst. Only the concept of God fits that definition.
>>402089
Obviously they aren't arbitrary because the universe would have no sense of order otherwise. Some things hold together while others fall apart.
>>402103
Oh I see now. I misunderstood your post
Yes because God is not real. Just like how Darth Vader is not real and like how Santa Claus is not real. These characters are created by man and spread through literature.
To the Orthodox, God as truth is in itself subjective, because it requires a subjective definition of truth. Well, not really subjective, but definitely existentialist.
>>402469
If you put either in a pigeon whole, then the other can exist by contrast at least
If you don't, then one is the other
>>402002
which one?
>>402485
The creator of reality.
>>402534
Wodin?
>>402002
What the fuck would it even mean for "objective truth" to "exist." Is objective truth like a fucking chair that I can pick up and quantify? What is this business with "God." What the fuck would it mean to say that some 'being' 'created' 'reality.' What the fucking is 'being' in this context? Creation? Reality?
>>402553
>>402002
It can't exist with it.
>>402582
Nigger, you can't define your terms, why the fuck would I ensue in conversation. We would just speak past each other. Fucking niggers can't define terms. Bruh. Really?
>>402089
That sounds servile. Why not set a goal and then create the morality?
>>402543
Dumb on so many levels
1. Because you don't understand the definition of God when capitalized and are confusing it with "god"
2. Because you don't Norse mythology
>>402114
/thread/
>>402103
>That which is tangible must eventually have an intangible catalyst.
Proofs?
>>402002
Yes.
>>402103
If all it takes for "objective truth" to exist is causality we don't need God, causality can be self-causing.
It really depends what you mean by truth also. If you are talking about causation and perception than the current rules of Epistemology do not have much of an objective truth outside of the realm of math.
If you mean moral truth this guy explains it well
>>402478
Suppose there was an objective moral truth? We would still have interpret and arrive at our own subjective truth. The objective truth would be unknowable and we would have to operate on faith. This would be true even if you were not a a believer in God.
>>402002
Does the earth revolve around the sun?
What is 'objective truth'?
>>403106
a fantasy by the rationalist
>>402103
>That which is tangible must eventually have an intangible catalyst.
>what is a loop
>>403091
is the earth even existing ?
>>402002
Since the claim 'god exists' isn't objectively true.....
>causality
>anything more than a human construction for the explanation of phenomenona
>>402002
God does not exist
An objective truth without a god existing
>>403123
A loop is still caused by the properties of space. A loop could not exist without those.
>>403136
That is true
>>403139
Not if it's a feedback loop. Then none of that matters.
Then again, linear, direct causality itself is mostly a horrificly outdated cpncept that is now only used to describe very specific events. It can't account for the third variable problem, it can't account for the problem of direction and it can't account for the problem of induction. I'm afraid that most of this aquinian nonsense you're pushing has been intellectually dead since Descartes and Hume
>>402002
I am shitposting right now, which means I exist. Objectively. Don't even try to disprove Cogito ergo sum, you'll look like a tryhard idiot.
