Does truth exist absolutely?

I don’t think it does. Truth requires statements.
If nothing is said, there is no truth nor falsehood.
There is only existence.

Existence is the absolute truth.

As I read Wittengenstein write, and I think similar to what Oni says, truth is simply all that is the case. In this obvious sense it does exist “out there” objectively.

But many criteria for truth require a knower (or am I mistaking that for knowledge?). Can anyone, even God, know everything? Is omniscience cogent? I have a problem accepting this notion. For example, how can God be sure he knows everything? He must know that he knows, but also know that he knows that he knows, and so on. I don´t think this really makes sense or at least is worded correctly; but I´m just trying to express a little confusion for omniscience.

A perspective that does not ever change as it views some other instance, will claim that instance as an absolute, if the perspective and the instance does not ever change passed a certain point. All seemingly unchanging perspectives result in the sense of absolutes. If that sense is also affirmative, it will believe then in something like an absolute truth, or some condition which will always be.

absolut? nope

en vino veritas

-Imp

but if our understanding is essentially temporal, such absolutes will be beyond us.

agreed

=D>  absolutely

Why is existence a truth? That seems to be an addition to what is.
Say your looking at a tree. Would you say that the tree is true? Why not just say “tree”. Even better, say nothing, and just let existence be.

Truth and error is limited to claims only, isn’t it?
“there are no trees” is false.
“there are trees” is true.
But a tree by itself, makes no claim. A tree isn’t true or false, but simply exists.

But a complete lack of statements doesn’t give rise to contradiction.
No statements = No truth values
Truth values are properties which exist ONLY in statements.
Well, there can also be true or false suppositions. Like someone who thinks a tree exist but doesnt make a statement. The point is, there needs to be a someone to think a true or false thought.

why

deleted

What he said

Zooming out, you begin to realize we are surrounded by many truths. The forces that govern our universe and the laws that they abide by are (to the best of our knowledge) absolute. They exist and are real.

Now technically I get really abstract and argue that the only truth is that I exist, and there could be a giant alien controlling every thought in my head and creating every sensation I see. But thinking like that doesn’t really get you very far…

agreed

since absolute truth does exist

Do you agree with the “truth as correspondance” conception of truth?
I think that is the sort of truth most people think of.
It requires reflection. If the tree gets relayed to your senses properly, then your senses give you an experience which corresponds to how the tree is in realty. If, through your senses, the data of the tree gets distorted, then your perceptions are flawed and do not fully correspond with the way the tree is.
“trees exist” match with reality.
“trees don’t exist” does not match with reality.
There is no matching without a reflective consciousness.

Using occam’s razor, we could say that truth is unnecessary, while existence IS.
The tree can be absolutely real, without being absolutely true.
I think people muddle ‘truth’ and ‘realness’ and ‘absoluteness’
Something being absolute, and something being TRUE is not the same.

Why is it a contradiction for something that has no truth value, to produce something which has a truth-value?
Like, if my mind is blank, unthinking, then my mind is not thinking anything true or false. When its void, it lacks any truth-value.
Right when I start thinking, THEN it is thinking thoughts which either match or do not match reality. Therefor, thoughts come out of something which is not a thought, the mind. And truth-value having thoughts come from something which has no truth-value in itself, the mind.
Water and trees have no truth value by themselves, but when they relate to one another, the water either properly reflects how the tree looks by itself, or if the water is moving or is polluted, the reflection on the water does not match the appearance of the tree.

Existence is absolute. Or existence is absolute existence. It is not absolute truth.

definitino of ‘true’ from dictionary.com
being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:

deleted

So you don’t agree that truth means accurate reflection?
May you give a definition for truth then?

Forgive me from my lack of knowledge. But may I ask why it’s important that the very question of truth being absolute should be asked? What is the truth we will then come to if that in itself does not exist?

We will arrive at reality, instead of concepts of reality.

Then please explain how the reality can be found and why the concepts of reality aren’t beneficial. Or at least give some sort of an example.

Pretty much. Truth takes observers, statements, beings, etc. It is a relative concept. Like saying, “Does communication exist absolutely?” No, if there is no being to communicate, then there isn’t communication is there? No.