On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:38:34 GMT, Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >Rupert wrote: > >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >> >>>Rupert wrote: > >>>>If "absolute truth" means "something that is true regardless of which >>>>semantics you use" then you're right, no absolute truths exist. This is >>>>not a very interesting point. > >>>Right. That's why it seems interesting (to me) that occasionally there >>>are "faithful debates" about what shouldn't be interesting: "absolute" >>>truth! >> >> I think when these debates take place people are usually getting >> interested in absolute truth in a different sense to the sense you're >> talking about. > >Would you be able to give a specific example of another different >sense, in which an *absolute* truth could be defined and be interested >by *more than one person*?
Universal truth, truth mechanically contrary to universal falseness?