Do you believe in absolute truth?

[JustInterested]

I know most on here don't believe in God, but what are your thoughts on absolute truth?

Is there someone or something out there that can provide an aswer or holds the answer for everything?

If there's not an answer for everthing, can there be an answer to anything?

Will science be able to prove everything eventually?

Could we even exist if we knew everything?

[donkeyhoty]

Is there someone or something out there that can provide an aswer or holds the answer for everything?

Ayn Rand.

[Will]

I know most on here don't believe in God, but what are your thoughts on absolute truth?

I've found absolute truth in mathematics. Eventually, we may find it elsewhere after millennia of scientific development.

Is there someone or something out there that can provide an aswer or holds the answer for everything?

What is an 'answer for everything'?

If there's not an answer for everthing, can there be an answer to anything?

Just because something sounds smart doesn't mean it makes sense. An answer for anything: 1 + 1 = 2

Will science be able to prove everything eventually?

Possibly.

Could we even exist if we knew everything?

Of course.

[Tom62]

The answer to Ultimate Question of Life, Universe and Everything is 42.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

[pjkeeley]

What is 'absolute truth' and how is it different from the plain old ordinary truth I'm used to hearing about?

[JustInterested]

Absolute truth is not up for interpretation or debate. As Will pointed out 1+1=2 is not up for debate. Do you believe someone or something holds the answer to the unanswered questions all of us have?

Is there a God?
Should W have invaded Iraq?
Do I have a purpose?
What is my purpose?
Are puffalumps scary?
Is abortion wrong?
Why is Hannah Montana so dern popular?
What happens after we die?

Answers that cannot be proven by us humans.

[SteveS]

The answer to Ultimate Question of Life, Universe and Everything is 42.

Indeed, this is correct, as confirmed by the man who took an overdose of truth serum (it was tragic).

JustInterested, I'm going to second pjkeeley's question and ask what you mean by "absolute" truth.  Seems to me that the idea of truth is relative --- something must be true compared to something.  Philosophically, I'd say our concept of "true" relates to existence --- if something is "true", it is an accurate reflection of existence (or, said another way, an accurate reflection of reality).  So, to my way of thinking, I'm not sure "truth" can be absolute.  Do you mind explaining what you meant by this phrase?  Did you mean "perfect" truth?  In which case I think, yes, perfect truth certainly exists.  Willravel's statement that 1+1=2 is "perfectly" true  :wink:

[JustInterested]

Seems to me that the idea of truth is relative

Perfect

What I mean by absolute truth is, do you believe it's possible that truth is NOT relative?

[Tom62]

If we are talking about ethics and morals then I don't think that there is an absolute truth. A simplified black and white view of what is right and what is wrong doesn't make any sense, because we're dealing more with different shades of grey. Take the topic of abortion for example. For me that should be allowed in some cases (like in case of rape, or danger for the woman) and in other cases not.

Same counts for Bush's invasion in Iraq. Mr. Bush is a prime example of someone who believes in absolute truths and therefore has a black and white worldview. No wonder that many people in the world thinks that he is a very stupid and therefore very dangerous man. I personally thinks that the Iraqi invasion was morally wrong. On the other side it was good to get rid of Saddam. However removing Saddam from power caused the country to endup in the shit where it is now.

Other people may have a different opinion, which simply means that we can agree upon an absolute truth. Since morals are evolving over time it might well be that we could reach a concensus.

[Whitney]

I think what one will accept as absolute truth will hinge strongly on that person's understanding of how much we can understand out perception of reality to be the truth.

imo, if something is the truth it is the truth.  If we have to use the term relative then it is just part of the truth and needs to be defined further which you will often see happen when someone is discussing relative truths.

What you are asking is do we believe some sort of god-like truth giver exists...because that's the only way an non-challengeable answer could be given to the questions you stated.

Let me put it this way...if there is one, she's not talking.

[pjkeeley]

What is it with theists and 'absolute truth'? Everytime they have nothing left to argue they spring this on us. "If there is no God then there is no absolute truth!"

Well, no. In fact it is logically impossible for nothing to be true. To say 'nothing is true' is a contradiction, as the statement itself must therefore be false. It does not logically follow that the source of truth must be a god or gods however...

What I mean by absolute truth is, do you believe it's possible that truth is NOT relative?

It is possible, yes. I am quite sure that there exists an objective reality beyond my own mind which conforms (consistently) to various natural laws. I'm sure most people would agree (except idealists, who believe reality is a manifestation of our minds, and solipists, who believe reality is a product of their own imagination, and maybe a few other crazy people). The only difference between atheists and theists is that atheists don't believe this reality was brought about by a god or gods.

In any case, talking about an 'objective reality' or 'absolute truths' is a huge waste of time. If there really are such things, we are perceiving them (by necessity!) through the filters of our own minds. This includes our thoughts, feelings, the influences of our family, society and species, and our genetic predispositions. And, most importantly of all, we can only make sense of information about reality through our thoughts, which is only possible because we are able to use language. Language is so limited that I believe there can be no adequate means to make sense of reality objectively. To do that you would need a theoretical being with no subjective qualities, and such a being could not possibly exist, because even without emotion or preconceived notions about reality, how could such a being be aware of the reality they perceive, without having language?

So objectivity may or may not exist, but it makes no difference, since we are ultimately subjective beings trying to make sense of information in a ridiculously limited capacity. Since the way we filter information about reality is different from person to person, the verstion of the truth we access is thus relative, not absolute.

I'm pretty sure the only reason theists keep bringing this up is because they are worried... not so much worried about whether reality conforms to absolute truths (eg. they probably aren't worried that they will wake up without gravity and find themselves floating on the ceiling), what they are worried is that there are no absolute moral truths. They are worried that *gasp*: we might actually have to think for ourselves about what is right and wrong.

[SteveS]

pjkeeley, kudos, your answer is consummate.

[pjkeeley]

:wink: Thanks SteveS.

[donkeyhoty]

What the hell are puffalumps?

[Squid]

What the hell are puffalumps?